Lilly Ledbetter just wanted what was fair — to earn the same pay as her male co-workers for the same work. She took on Goodyear, her employer in Alabama, and her case went to the Supreme Court. Her years-long battle ends in triumph Thursday with a fair pay act named in her honor in the USA.
A remarkable story, especially in a country which prides itself on fairness and justice - as ex president George W preached to the world.
Read the full story [from AP] in NPR's web site. Quite extraordinarily, most Republicans voted against the measure - in 2009 and facing re-election next year!
Saturday, January 31, 2009
In China, a Grass-Roots Rebellion
"When Tang Xiaozhao first saw a copy of the pro-democracy petition in her e-mail inbox, she silently acknowledged she agreed with everything in it but didn't want to get involved.
Tang, a pigtailed, 30-something cosmetology major, had never considered herself the activist type. Like many other Chinese citizens, she kept a blog where she wrote about current events and her life, but she wasn't political.
A few days later, however, Tang surprised herself. She logged on to her computer and signed the document by sending her full name, location and occupation to a special e-mail address.
"I was afraid, but I had already signed it hundreds of times in my heart," Tang said in an interview.
Hers is the 3,943rd signature on the list that has swelled to more than 8,100 from across China. Although their numbers are still small, those signing the document, and the broad spectrum from which they come, have made the human rights manifesto, known as Charter 08, a significant marker in the demands for democracy in China, one of the few sustained campaigns since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Those who sign the charter risk arrest and punishment."
Continue reading about this interesting development, as reported in the Washington Post, here.
Tang, a pigtailed, 30-something cosmetology major, had never considered herself the activist type. Like many other Chinese citizens, she kept a blog where she wrote about current events and her life, but she wasn't political.
A few days later, however, Tang surprised herself. She logged on to her computer and signed the document by sending her full name, location and occupation to a special e-mail address.
"I was afraid, but I had already signed it hundreds of times in my heart," Tang said in an interview.
Hers is the 3,943rd signature on the list that has swelled to more than 8,100 from across China. Although their numbers are still small, those signing the document, and the broad spectrum from which they come, have made the human rights manifesto, known as Charter 08, a significant marker in the demands for democracy in China, one of the few sustained campaigns since the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Those who sign the charter risk arrest and punishment."
Continue reading about this interesting development, as reported in the Washington Post, here.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Giving stick to those fat-cats
Maureen Dowd, author and columnist in the NY Times, is acerbic at the best of times.
In her latest column " Wall Street’s Socialist Jet-Setters" she is at her best in not only pouring scorn on the CEO's of major corporations but also adding a dose of wrath:
"As President Obama spreads his New Testament balm over the capital, I’m longing for a bit of Old Testament wrath.
Couldn’t he throw down his BlackBerry tablet and smash it in anger over the feckless financiers, the gods of gold and their idols — in this case not a gilt calf but an $87,000 area rug, a cache of diamond Tiffany and Cartier watches and a French-made luxury corporate jet?
Now that we’re nationalizing, couldn’t we fire any obtuse bankers and auto executives who cling to perks and bonuses even as the economy is following John Thain down his antique commode?
How could Citigroup be so dumb as to go ahead with plans to get a new $50 million corporate jet, the exclusive Dassault Falcon 7X seating 12, after losing $28.5 billion in the past 15 months and receiving $345 billion in government investments and guarantees?
(Now I get why a $400 payment I recently sent to pay off my Citibank Visa was mistakenly applied to my sister-in-law’s Citibank Mastercard account.)".
Continue reading this wonderful piece here - and nod your head in agreement and / or shake it in disbelief!
In her latest column " Wall Street’s Socialist Jet-Setters" she is at her best in not only pouring scorn on the CEO's of major corporations but also adding a dose of wrath:
"As President Obama spreads his New Testament balm over the capital, I’m longing for a bit of Old Testament wrath.
Couldn’t he throw down his BlackBerry tablet and smash it in anger over the feckless financiers, the gods of gold and their idols — in this case not a gilt calf but an $87,000 area rug, a cache of diamond Tiffany and Cartier watches and a French-made luxury corporate jet?
Now that we’re nationalizing, couldn’t we fire any obtuse bankers and auto executives who cling to perks and bonuses even as the economy is following John Thain down his antique commode?
How could Citigroup be so dumb as to go ahead with plans to get a new $50 million corporate jet, the exclusive Dassault Falcon 7X seating 12, after losing $28.5 billion in the past 15 months and receiving $345 billion in government investments and guarantees?
(Now I get why a $400 payment I recently sent to pay off my Citibank Visa was mistakenly applied to my sister-in-law’s Citibank Mastercard account.)".
Continue reading this wonderful piece here - and nod your head in agreement and / or shake it in disbelief!
Noam Chomsky: Neither The US Nor Israel Is A "Genuine Party To Peace."
Writing on Information Clearing House, Noam Chomsky challenges the notion that Israel and the US are really striving for peace in the Middle East:
"Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously - both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.
Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president - a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.
On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters - avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.
Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."
Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive."
And:
"Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."
Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers."
"Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously - both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.
Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president - a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.
On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters - avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.
Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."
Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive."
And:
"Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."
Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers."
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Can You Blame Them?
Hamas insists and has maintained all along that it will make peace with Israel - not necessarily recognise it - if Israel allows border crossings to remain open and returns to the borders as they stood in June 1967.
That Israel has blockaded Gaza is beyond question. The 1.5 million people have been denied every sort of requirement for a decent daily life - food, water, electricity, medicines and even a proper infrastructure. Israel has done much to decimate any infrastructure from roads to bridges to hospitals and government buildings. Against that background other than send rockets into Israel what resource has Hamas really got to get its people out from under the Israeli blockade?
Why the people of Gaza should suffer - bearing in mind that half the population is under the age of 15 - has never been explained by the Israelis. To read, as the NY Times reports, that aid is being stalled at the border crossing between Gaza and Egypt - especially now post Israel's battering of Gaza - is intolerable and unconscionable.
"France sent technical equipment to help Gazans draw water from the ground. The Swiss sent blankets and plastic tarps. Mercy Corps, a relief agency, sent 12 truckloads of food. And on Tuesday all of it, including dozens of other trucks carrying sugar, rice, flour, juice and baby formula, sat in the hot sun here going nowhere.
This normally quiet commercial crossing between Egypt and Israel has been turned into a parking lot of stalled, humanitarian aid, and in the city of El Arish there are even greater quantities of food, clothing and essential supplies, sitting, waiting and baking in the sun. Some supplies are loaded onto dozens of trucks parked on city streets, but much more is stored in the open areas of a local sports stadium, also waiting, also going nowhere. Only medical supplies seem to be getting through to Gaza.
Since the cease-fire, Israel has allowed some humanitarian supplies into Gaza, but the territory is still desperately short of the necessities. Israel closed all the crossings into Gaza on Tuesday after an Israeli soldier was killed in a bombing on the Israeli side of the border. But that changed nothing at this crossing, where the flow has been stalled for days.
Officials and volunteers in Egypt blame the Israelis, saying that even before the passage stalled Israel had allowed supplies to pass through for only 19 hours each week. Israeli officials said that Egypt had not done enough to coordinate the flood of aid coming to Gaza, and that they hoped a system would soon be in place to remedy the problem."
Continue reading here. Can one really blame Hamas for insisting that the blockade must stop? And also, how in heaven's name will Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, now in the region, come to grips with the issue if he isn't going to visit Gaza let alone talk with Hamas? Will he visit the border crossing the NY Times details? Unikely!
That Israel has blockaded Gaza is beyond question. The 1.5 million people have been denied every sort of requirement for a decent daily life - food, water, electricity, medicines and even a proper infrastructure. Israel has done much to decimate any infrastructure from roads to bridges to hospitals and government buildings. Against that background other than send rockets into Israel what resource has Hamas really got to get its people out from under the Israeli blockade?
Why the people of Gaza should suffer - bearing in mind that half the population is under the age of 15 - has never been explained by the Israelis. To read, as the NY Times reports, that aid is being stalled at the border crossing between Gaza and Egypt - especially now post Israel's battering of Gaza - is intolerable and unconscionable.
"France sent technical equipment to help Gazans draw water from the ground. The Swiss sent blankets and plastic tarps. Mercy Corps, a relief agency, sent 12 truckloads of food. And on Tuesday all of it, including dozens of other trucks carrying sugar, rice, flour, juice and baby formula, sat in the hot sun here going nowhere.
This normally quiet commercial crossing between Egypt and Israel has been turned into a parking lot of stalled, humanitarian aid, and in the city of El Arish there are even greater quantities of food, clothing and essential supplies, sitting, waiting and baking in the sun. Some supplies are loaded onto dozens of trucks parked on city streets, but much more is stored in the open areas of a local sports stadium, also waiting, also going nowhere. Only medical supplies seem to be getting through to Gaza.
Since the cease-fire, Israel has allowed some humanitarian supplies into Gaza, but the territory is still desperately short of the necessities. Israel closed all the crossings into Gaza on Tuesday after an Israeli soldier was killed in a bombing on the Israeli side of the border. But that changed nothing at this crossing, where the flow has been stalled for days.
Officials and volunteers in Egypt blame the Israelis, saying that even before the passage stalled Israel had allowed supplies to pass through for only 19 hours each week. Israeli officials said that Egypt had not done enough to coordinate the flood of aid coming to Gaza, and that they hoped a system would soon be in place to remedy the problem."
Continue reading here. Can one really blame Hamas for insisting that the blockade must stop? And also, how in heaven's name will Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, now in the region, come to grips with the issue if he isn't going to visit Gaza let alone talk with Hamas? Will he visit the border crossing the NY Times details? Unikely!
Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions?
There are many who maintain that if there were no religions the world might be a better place because we would have avoided many of the wars and conflicts which have beset the world since time immemorial.
In a not dissimilar vein of thinking, Johann Hari, writing in The Independent "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?":
"The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists."
In a not dissimilar vein of thinking, Johann Hari, writing in The Independent "Why should I respect these oppressive religions?":
"The right to criticise religion is being slowly doused in acid. Across the world, the small, incremental gains made by secularism – giving us the space to doubt and question and make up our own minds – are being beaten back by belligerent demands that we "respect" religion. A historic marker has just been passed, showing how far we have been shoved. The UN rapporteur who is supposed to be the global guardian of free speech has had his job rewritten – to put him on the side of the religious censors.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind – and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it – but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now.
Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided – so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community".
In other words, you can say anything you like, as long as it precisely what the reactionary mullahs tell you to say. The declaration makes it clear there is no equality for women, gays, non-Muslims, or apostates. It has been backed by the Vatican and a bevy of Christian fundamentalists."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
First Gitmo....and now how about Bagram?
The steps Obama is taking to shutting down Gitmo appear positive. Time will tell if he carries through on his plan.
Closure of Gitmo does not, however, end the problem of prisoners being held by the US - all without having been put on trial or convicted of any offence.
The NY Times reports in "Afghan Prison Poses Problem in Overhaul of Detainee Policy":
"For months, a national debate has raged over the fate of the 245 detainees at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But what may be an equally difficult problem now confronts the Obama administration in the 600 prisoners packed into a cavernous, makeshift prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan.
Military personnel who know Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site as tougher and more spartan. The prisoners have fewer privileges and virtually no access to lawyers. The Bush administration never allowed journalists or human rights advocates inside."
Looks like the US still has a critical issue to address if it is be seen as being a nation which values and follows human rights.
Closure of Gitmo does not, however, end the problem of prisoners being held by the US - all without having been put on trial or convicted of any offence.
The NY Times reports in "Afghan Prison Poses Problem in Overhaul of Detainee Policy":
"For months, a national debate has raged over the fate of the 245 detainees at the United States military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But what may be an equally difficult problem now confronts the Obama administration in the 600 prisoners packed into a cavernous, makeshift prison on the American air base at Bagram in Afghanistan.
Military personnel who know Bagram and Guantánamo describe the Afghan site as tougher and more spartan. The prisoners have fewer privileges and virtually no access to lawyers. The Bush administration never allowed journalists or human rights advocates inside."
Looks like the US still has a critical issue to address if it is be seen as being a nation which values and follows human rights.
Journalists found wanting.....yet again!
Chris Hedges was one-time NY Times Bureau chief in Jerusalem.
Writing "With Gaza, Journalists Fail Again" on truthdig.com he castigates journalists in falling down on the job in relation to their reporting on the recent assault by Israel on Gaza:
"The assault on Gaza exposed not only Israel’s callous disregard for international law but the gutlessness of the American press. There were no major newspapers, television networks or radio stations that challenged Israel’s fabricated version of events that led to the Gaza attack or the daily lies Israel used to justify the unjustifiable. Nearly all reporters were, as during the buildup to the Iraq war, pliant stenographers and echo chambers. If we as journalists have a product to sell, it is credibility. Take that credibility away and we become little more than propagandists and advertisers. By refusing to expose lies we destroy, in the end, ourselves."
And:
"We retreated, as usual, into the moral void of American journalism, the void of balance and objectivity. The ridiculous notion of being unbiased, outside of the flow of human existence, impervious to grief or pain or anger or injustice, allows reporters to coolly give truth and lies equal space and airtime. Balance and objectivity are the antidote to facing unpleasant truths, a way of avoidance, a way to placate the powerful. We record the fury of a Palestinian who has lost his child in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza but make sure to mention Israel’s “security needs,” include statements by Israeli officials who insist there was firing from the home or the mosque or the school and of course note Israel’s right to defend itself. We do this throughout the Middle East. We record the human toll in Iraq, caused by our occupation, but remind everyone that “Saddam killed his own people.” We write about the deaths of families in Afghanistan during an airstrike but never forget to mention that the Taliban “oppresses women.” Their crimes cancel out our crimes. It becomes a moral void. And above all we never forget to mention the “war on terror.” We ask how and who but never, never do we ask why. As long as we speak in the cold, dead language of those in power, the language that says a lie is as valid as a fact, the language where one version of history is as good as another, we are part of the problem, not the solution.".
Writing "With Gaza, Journalists Fail Again" on truthdig.com he castigates journalists in falling down on the job in relation to their reporting on the recent assault by Israel on Gaza:
"The assault on Gaza exposed not only Israel’s callous disregard for international law but the gutlessness of the American press. There were no major newspapers, television networks or radio stations that challenged Israel’s fabricated version of events that led to the Gaza attack or the daily lies Israel used to justify the unjustifiable. Nearly all reporters were, as during the buildup to the Iraq war, pliant stenographers and echo chambers. If we as journalists have a product to sell, it is credibility. Take that credibility away and we become little more than propagandists and advertisers. By refusing to expose lies we destroy, in the end, ourselves."
And:
"We retreated, as usual, into the moral void of American journalism, the void of balance and objectivity. The ridiculous notion of being unbiased, outside of the flow of human existence, impervious to grief or pain or anger or injustice, allows reporters to coolly give truth and lies equal space and airtime. Balance and objectivity are the antidote to facing unpleasant truths, a way of avoidance, a way to placate the powerful. We record the fury of a Palestinian who has lost his child in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza but make sure to mention Israel’s “security needs,” include statements by Israeli officials who insist there was firing from the home or the mosque or the school and of course note Israel’s right to defend itself. We do this throughout the Middle East. We record the human toll in Iraq, caused by our occupation, but remind everyone that “Saddam killed his own people.” We write about the deaths of families in Afghanistan during an airstrike but never forget to mention that the Taliban “oppresses women.” Their crimes cancel out our crimes. It becomes a moral void. And above all we never forget to mention the “war on terror.” We ask how and who but never, never do we ask why. As long as we speak in the cold, dead language of those in power, the language that says a lie is as valid as a fact, the language where one version of history is as good as another, we are part of the problem, not the solution.".
Obama's Vietnam?
Professor Juan Cole, noted commentator on the Middle East, writing on Salon, poses the valid and critical question whether Obama's decision to allowing bombing by US forces in Pakistan, opens up Obama's own Vietnam:
"On Friday, President Barack Obama ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages, killing what Pakistani officials said were 22 individuals, including between four and seven foreign fighters. Many of Obama's initiatives in his first few days in office -- preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantánamo -- were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with "President Bush" substituted for "President Obama." Pundits are already worrying that Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor's halfhearted war into a major quagmire. What does Obama's first military operation tell us about his administration's priorities?
Obama's first meeting with his team on national security issues focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the course of which the new president is reported to have endorsed the drone attacks. Friday's were the first major U.S. airstrikes on Pakistani territory since Jan. 1, because the Pakistan Taliban Movement in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) had launched a campaign to discover local informants for the Central Intelligence Agency, killing 40 of them. The two cells the U.S. hit are accused of raiding over the border into Afghanistan, lending support to the Taliban there."
Continue reading the piece here.
"On Friday, President Barack Obama ordered an Air Force drone to bomb two separate Pakistani villages, killing what Pakistani officials said were 22 individuals, including between four and seven foreign fighters. Many of Obama's initiatives in his first few days in office -- preparing to depart Iraq, ending torture and closing Guantánamo -- were aimed at signaling a sharp turn away from Bush administration policies. In contrast, the headline about the strike in Waziristan could as easily have appeared in December with "President Bush" substituted for "President Obama." Pundits are already worrying that Obama may be falling into the Lyndon Johnson Vietnam trap, of escalating a predecessor's halfhearted war into a major quagmire. What does Obama's first military operation tell us about his administration's priorities?
Obama's first meeting with his team on national security issues focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan, in the course of which the new president is reported to have endorsed the drone attacks. Friday's were the first major U.S. airstrikes on Pakistani territory since Jan. 1, because the Pakistan Taliban Movement in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) had launched a campaign to discover local informants for the Central Intelligence Agency, killing 40 of them. The two cells the U.S. hit are accused of raiding over the border into Afghanistan, lending support to the Taliban there."
Continue reading the piece here.
An unanswerable letter?
Michael Brull, writing on newmatilda in "An Open Letter To The Israeli Ambassador"
"Dear Mr Rotem,
I have to say that the arrogance of your article in The Age, arguing that the paper should not have published a piece by Hamas official Khalid Meshaal left me stunned. Even by the standards of your Government it was quite something. Do you really think that you are entitled, as Israel's ambassador to Australia, to tell The Age who it should and should not be publishing?
And yet, as I read on, you climbed to even greater heights of audacity. You managed to brag about Israel's free press and democratic credentials, while calling on our press in Australia to restrict its freedoms — which coming from you amounts to an order from a foreign administration. Perhaps, as a representative of Israel's Government, you've become used to the idea of restricting critical scrutiny of Israel's actions.?
Of course, the arrogant attitude of your Government towards those who dare criticise Israel's actions is nothing new. I haven't forgotten when your Government decided that it would not allow academic Norman Finkelstein into Israel. Your free press did manage to speak out about that, but your demonstration of contempt for freedom of opinion was surprising in its brazenness. And there was more to come."
"Dear Mr Rotem,
I have to say that the arrogance of your article in The Age, arguing that the paper should not have published a piece by Hamas official Khalid Meshaal left me stunned. Even by the standards of your Government it was quite something. Do you really think that you are entitled, as Israel's ambassador to Australia, to tell The Age who it should and should not be publishing?
And yet, as I read on, you climbed to even greater heights of audacity. You managed to brag about Israel's free press and democratic credentials, while calling on our press in Australia to restrict its freedoms — which coming from you amounts to an order from a foreign administration. Perhaps, as a representative of Israel's Government, you've become used to the idea of restricting critical scrutiny of Israel's actions.?
Of course, the arrogant attitude of your Government towards those who dare criticise Israel's actions is nothing new. I haven't forgotten when your Government decided that it would not allow academic Norman Finkelstein into Israel. Your free press did manage to speak out about that, but your demonstration of contempt for freedom of opinion was surprising in its brazenness. And there was more to come."
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
In Pakistan, Radio Amplifies Terror of Taliban
That the Taliban are a bunch of fanatics of the worst kind is confirmed in this article in the NY Times reporting from Peshawar:
"Every night around 8 o’clock, the terrified residents of Swat, a lush and picturesque valley a hundred miles from three of Pakistan’s most important cities, crowd around their radios. They know that failure to listen and learn might lead to a lashing — or a beheading.
Using a portable radio transmitter, a local Taliban leader, Shah Doran, on most nights outlines newly proscribed “un-Islamic” activities in Swat, like selling DVDs, watching cable television, singing and dancing, criticizing the Taliban, shaving beards and allowing girls to attend school. He also reveals names of people the Taliban have recently killed for violating their decrees — and those they plan to kill.
“They control everything through the radio,” said one Swat resident, who declined to give his name for fear the Taliban might kill him. “Everyone waits for the broadcast.”
"Every night around 8 o’clock, the terrified residents of Swat, a lush and picturesque valley a hundred miles from three of Pakistan’s most important cities, crowd around their radios. They know that failure to listen and learn might lead to a lashing — or a beheading.
Using a portable radio transmitter, a local Taliban leader, Shah Doran, on most nights outlines newly proscribed “un-Islamic” activities in Swat, like selling DVDs, watching cable television, singing and dancing, criticizing the Taliban, shaving beards and allowing girls to attend school. He also reveals names of people the Taliban have recently killed for violating their decrees — and those they plan to kill.
“They control everything through the radio,” said one Swat resident, who declined to give his name for fear the Taliban might kill him. “Everyone waits for the broadcast.”
Gaza War Pushes Arabs to the Brink
Robert Dreyfuss writing for The Nation reports on the inevitable:
"Anger is boiling over in the Middle East over Gaza, and -- exactly as I predicted -- the result of the war has been to boost radicalism throughout the region, to strengthen the terrorist-inclined fanatics of Hamas, and to enhance the muscle of terrorist-inclined Israelis, including far-right parties such as Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and, of course, Likud's bombastic Benjamin Netanyahu.
You probably didn't know that the reason the Bush administration, in its last days, reversed course on Gaza is because they feared that US embassies in the Middle East might be stormed by angry crowds if they did nothing. You'll remember that, after weeks of supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza, the United States suddenly reversed course and allowed the UN Security Council to pass a unanimous resolution demanding a ceasefire. (The United States didn't vote yes, but it abstained -- rather than threatening its oft-used veto.)"
Meanwhile, the NY Times provides a "picture" of the way Gaza finds itself:
"One week after the war between Israel and Hamas stopped, Gaza remains in a kind of stupor. There are numbers, of course, to describe its misery — 4,000 homes destroyed, 21,000 badly damaged, 100,000 people homeless, according to several aid agencies — but they do not tell the full story.
Most of Gaza, especially the capital, Gaza City, remains largely intact. This is not Grozny after the Chechen war or Dresden after World War II. The hospitals are coping; shops are reopening; traffic is becoming a problem once again. Israel has tripled the amount of goods flowing in here since before the war.
But the areas where Israeli tanks and artillery poured in at the start of the ground war are devastated: Juhr el Dik to the east, Beit Lahiya, El Atatra and sections of Jabaliya to the north, as well as the outer Gaza City neighborhoods of Zeitoun and Toufah.
Homes have been blown up or bulldozed, their squashed furniture visible beneath layers of collapsed concrete. Factories — for paint, dairy products, soft drinks — have been smashed. Schools have 10-foot holes in their walls. Wedding halls are blackened hulks. The American International School, a private institution in northern Gaza, has been destroyed. Mosques are gone."
"Anger is boiling over in the Middle East over Gaza, and -- exactly as I predicted -- the result of the war has been to boost radicalism throughout the region, to strengthen the terrorist-inclined fanatics of Hamas, and to enhance the muscle of terrorist-inclined Israelis, including far-right parties such as Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu and, of course, Likud's bombastic Benjamin Netanyahu.
You probably didn't know that the reason the Bush administration, in its last days, reversed course on Gaza is because they feared that US embassies in the Middle East might be stormed by angry crowds if they did nothing. You'll remember that, after weeks of supporting Israel's invasion of Gaza, the United States suddenly reversed course and allowed the UN Security Council to pass a unanimous resolution demanding a ceasefire. (The United States didn't vote yes, but it abstained -- rather than threatening its oft-used veto.)"
Meanwhile, the NY Times provides a "picture" of the way Gaza finds itself:
"One week after the war between Israel and Hamas stopped, Gaza remains in a kind of stupor. There are numbers, of course, to describe its misery — 4,000 homes destroyed, 21,000 badly damaged, 100,000 people homeless, according to several aid agencies — but they do not tell the full story.
Most of Gaza, especially the capital, Gaza City, remains largely intact. This is not Grozny after the Chechen war or Dresden after World War II. The hospitals are coping; shops are reopening; traffic is becoming a problem once again. Israel has tripled the amount of goods flowing in here since before the war.
But the areas where Israeli tanks and artillery poured in at the start of the ground war are devastated: Juhr el Dik to the east, Beit Lahiya, El Atatra and sections of Jabaliya to the north, as well as the outer Gaza City neighborhoods of Zeitoun and Toufah.
Homes have been blown up or bulldozed, their squashed furniture visible beneath layers of collapsed concrete. Factories — for paint, dairy products, soft drinks — have been smashed. Schools have 10-foot holes in their walls. Wedding halls are blackened hulks. The American International School, a private institution in northern Gaza, has been destroyed. Mosques are gone."
Israel Screwed Itself Over with Its Gaza Assault; the World Sees It as a 'Blood-Stained Monster'
The Editor's Note to a piece by Uri Avnery on Counterpunch, reproduced on AlterNet:
"In this powerful essay, Uri Avnery writes that Israel's latest assault on Gaza has backfired spectacularly for the country's long-term interests. He writes, "Seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a bloodstained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for [Israel's] long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet."
Avnery also writes that the true purpose of Israel's invasion, "(apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different." Yet, he argues, "Even if the Israeli army were to succeed in killing every Hamas fighter to the last man, even then Hamas would win. The Hamas fighters would be seen as the paragons of the Arab nation, the heroes of the Palestinian people, models for emulation by every youngster in the Arab world. The West Bank would fall into the hands of Hamas like a ripe fruit, Fatah would drown in a sea of contempt, the Arab regimes would be threatened with collapse."
Read Avnery's piece, in full, here.
"In this powerful essay, Uri Avnery writes that Israel's latest assault on Gaza has backfired spectacularly for the country's long-term interests. He writes, "Seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a bloodstained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for [Israel's] long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet."
Avnery also writes that the true purpose of Israel's invasion, "(apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different." Yet, he argues, "Even if the Israeli army were to succeed in killing every Hamas fighter to the last man, even then Hamas would win. The Hamas fighters would be seen as the paragons of the Arab nation, the heroes of the Palestinian people, models for emulation by every youngster in the Arab world. The West Bank would fall into the hands of Hamas like a ripe fruit, Fatah would drown in a sea of contempt, the Arab regimes would be threatened with collapse."
Read Avnery's piece, in full, here.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Zimbabwe's children become refugees
It is said we live in a civilised world. It is difficult to accept the proposition given the mayhem, bloodshed, wanton destruction and the consequences of some country's leaders around the globe. Think the latest Israeli "episode" in Gaza, Darfur, Myanmar and Zimbabwe to name but a few.
It is a sorry reflection on the world that in it continues to allow a country like Zimbabwe, with its mad President Mugabe, to go to rack and ruin. Cholera is now rampant, people are starving and lawlessness is rife. There simply is no economy. Is it perhaps that because Zimbabwe is in Africa that the world simply averts its eyes? Whatever the reason, one can only feel for the children of the country, as this piece in the IHT highlights:
"With their nation in a prolonged sequence of crises, more unaccompanied children and women than ever are joining the rush of desperate Zimbabweans illegally crossing the frontier at the Limpopo River, according to the police, local officials and aid workers.
What they are escaping is a broken country where half the people are going hungry, most schools and hospitals are closed or dysfunctional and a cholera epidemic has taken a toll in the thousands. Yet they are arriving in a place where they are unwelcome and are resented as rivals for jobs. Last year, Zimbabweans were part of the quarry in a spate of mob attacks against foreigners.
For those in the know, crossing the border can be a simple chore, a bribe paid on one side and a second bribe on the other. But for the uninitiated and the destitute, the journey is as uncertain as the undercurrents of the Limpopo and the appetites of the crocodiles."
It is a sorry reflection on the world that in it continues to allow a country like Zimbabwe, with its mad President Mugabe, to go to rack and ruin. Cholera is now rampant, people are starving and lawlessness is rife. There simply is no economy. Is it perhaps that because Zimbabwe is in Africa that the world simply averts its eyes? Whatever the reason, one can only feel for the children of the country, as this piece in the IHT highlights:
"With their nation in a prolonged sequence of crises, more unaccompanied children and women than ever are joining the rush of desperate Zimbabweans illegally crossing the frontier at the Limpopo River, according to the police, local officials and aid workers.
What they are escaping is a broken country where half the people are going hungry, most schools and hospitals are closed or dysfunctional and a cholera epidemic has taken a toll in the thousands. Yet they are arriving in a place where they are unwelcome and are resented as rivals for jobs. Last year, Zimbabweans were part of the quarry in a spate of mob attacks against foreigners.
For those in the know, crossing the border can be a simple chore, a bribe paid on one side and a second bribe on the other. But for the uninitiated and the destitute, the journey is as uncertain as the undercurrents of the Limpopo and the appetites of the crocodiles."
And Then They Came For Me
Before he was murdered, Sri Lankan editor Lasantha Wickrematunge penned his own obituary, an assertion of the significance of free and independent media
Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor of Sri Lanka's Sunday Leader was murdered in Colombo on 8 January 2009. While Sri Lankan police have not yet apprehended his killers, in this, his final editorial and obituary - as published on newmatilda.com - Wickrematunge makes clear his views on where responsibility lies.
"No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.
I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.
Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.
But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience."
Continue reading here.
Lasantha Wickrematunge, the editor of Sri Lanka's Sunday Leader was murdered in Colombo on 8 January 2009. While Sri Lankan police have not yet apprehended his killers, in this, his final editorial and obituary - as published on newmatilda.com - Wickrematunge makes clear his views on where responsibility lies.
"No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.
I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.
Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.
But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience."
Continue reading here.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Winners and losers.....and a message to Pres. Obama
Mousa Abu Marzook is deputy chief of the Hamas political bureau.
Writing a piece "A decisive loss for Israel" in Comment is Free in The Guardian, he declares that Israel lost the recent war with the Gazans. He also questions what Israel thinks it might have achieved with its barbaric onslaught.
No less importantly, as news comes today that Obama is sending his special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, to the area next week, Marzook has a message for the US President:
"And to President Obama we say: the wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre. This was compounded by your pre-election statement siding with the Israeli settlers of Sderot. You would do well to know the history of the places of which you speak. Sderot, which may be known to some as an Israeli town, lies on the ruins of Najd, a Palestinian village ransacked in May 1948 by Zionist terrorist gangs. Villagers were forced from their beds and homes with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, rendering them refugees for the next 61 years. That is the story of Sderot. It is never a good start to get your tyrant and victims mixed up, but there is still room for a revival of passionate optimism. Only if you decide to fairly address the issue of the 6 million Palestinian refugees and the ending of occupation of Palestinian lands, including Jerusalem, will you be able to start a new relationship with the Muslim world."
Writing a piece "A decisive loss for Israel" in Comment is Free in The Guardian, he declares that Israel lost the recent war with the Gazans. He also questions what Israel thinks it might have achieved with its barbaric onslaught.
No less importantly, as news comes today that Obama is sending his special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, to the area next week, Marzook has a message for the US President:
"And to President Obama we say: the wave of hope that met your election was heavily dampened by your silence on the Gaza massacre. This was compounded by your pre-election statement siding with the Israeli settlers of Sderot. You would do well to know the history of the places of which you speak. Sderot, which may be known to some as an Israeli town, lies on the ruins of Najd, a Palestinian village ransacked in May 1948 by Zionist terrorist gangs. Villagers were forced from their beds and homes with nothing but the clothes they were wearing, rendering them refugees for the next 61 years. That is the story of Sderot. It is never a good start to get your tyrant and victims mixed up, but there is still room for a revival of passionate optimism. Only if you decide to fairly address the issue of the 6 million Palestinian refugees and the ending of occupation of Palestinian lands, including Jerusalem, will you be able to start a new relationship with the Muslim world."
Gideon Levy: Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel
It couldn't be said more directly or bluntly - as Gideon Levy does in Haaretz:
"Israel's actions have dealt a serious blow to public support for the state. While this does not always translate itself into an immediate diplomatic situation, the shockwaves will arrive one day. The whole world saw the images. They shocked every human being who saw them, even if they left most Israelis cold.
The conclusion is that Israel is a violent and dangerous country, devoid of all restraints and blatantly ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, while not giving a hoot about international law. The investigations are on their way.
Graver still is the damage this will visit upon our moral spine. It will come from difficult questions about what the IDF did in Gaza, which will occur despite the blurring effect of recruited media.
So what was achieved, after all? As a war waged to satisfy considerations of internal politics, the operation has succeeded beyond all expectations. Likud Chair Benjamin Netanyahu is getting stronger in the polls. And why? Because we could not get enough of the war."
"Israel's actions have dealt a serious blow to public support for the state. While this does not always translate itself into an immediate diplomatic situation, the shockwaves will arrive one day. The whole world saw the images. They shocked every human being who saw them, even if they left most Israelis cold.
The conclusion is that Israel is a violent and dangerous country, devoid of all restraints and blatantly ignoring the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, while not giving a hoot about international law. The investigations are on their way.
Graver still is the damage this will visit upon our moral spine. It will come from difficult questions about what the IDF did in Gaza, which will occur despite the blurring effect of recruited media.
So what was achieved, after all? As a war waged to satisfy considerations of internal politics, the operation has succeeded beyond all expectations. Likud Chair Benjamin Netanyahu is getting stronger in the polls. And why? Because we could not get enough of the war."
Children of Gaza: stories of those who died and the trauma for those who survived
Israel has consistently claimed how its citizens have suffered as a result of Hamas rockets - as they doubtlessly have - and in particular highlighted how children have been bed-wetting because of the rocket-fire. All probably true.
So, it is timely to reflect on how the children of Gaza are doing after some 18 months of a blockade and now after the latest 21 day hammering of the tiny sliver of land called Gaza with 1.5 million people packed into it.
The Guardian reports in detailed and graphic terms the horrendous damage inflicted on Gaza's children. Not rocket throwers! Not Hamas fighters! Not combatants! Just children.
"Only now, after most of the dead have been buried, is the first properly researched reckoning of the toll emerging. What already stands out is the striking cost borne by the children of Gaza, who make up more than half of the 1.5 million people living in this overcrowded strip of land.
The Palestinian death toll after three weeks of Israel's war was 1,285, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, or 1,268, according to the al-Mezan Human Rights Centre. Among those dead were at least 280 children.
The impact will be felt by many more for years to come. Among the more than 4,000 people injured more than a quarter were children, some left with severe disabilities. The Gaza Community Health Programme estimates that half Gaza's children – around 350,000 – will develop some form of post-traumatic stress disorder."
So, it is timely to reflect on how the children of Gaza are doing after some 18 months of a blockade and now after the latest 21 day hammering of the tiny sliver of land called Gaza with 1.5 million people packed into it.
The Guardian reports in detailed and graphic terms the horrendous damage inflicted on Gaza's children. Not rocket throwers! Not Hamas fighters! Not combatants! Just children.
"Only now, after most of the dead have been buried, is the first properly researched reckoning of the toll emerging. What already stands out is the striking cost borne by the children of Gaza, who make up more than half of the 1.5 million people living in this overcrowded strip of land.
The Palestinian death toll after three weeks of Israel's war was 1,285, according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, or 1,268, according to the al-Mezan Human Rights Centre. Among those dead were at least 280 children.
The impact will be felt by many more for years to come. Among the more than 4,000 people injured more than a quarter were children, some left with severe disabilities. The Gaza Community Health Programme estimates that half Gaza's children – around 350,000 – will develop some form of post-traumatic stress disorder."
Israel Has Fewer Friends Than Ever, Even In America
It needs to be remembered that as part of Israel's onslaught into Gaza, it took all steps to ensure that it was on the front-foot in the pr stakes. It tried everything - YouTube, the internet, a female spokesperson to show a softer side to Israel, etc. etc. - but the carnage and death caused by the Israel's barrage, has seen it now facing accusations of having committed war crimes and seen as a rogue State.
Newsweek reports:
"Israel has never been more isolated. Its best friend, the United States, had vetoed 41 Security Council resolutions condemning Israel in the past three decades, but was about to vote for the Jan. 8 resolution denouncing the attack on Gaza when President Bush intervened, at the behest of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Still, in the face of unprecedented global criticism, the U.S. didn't dare veto, but merely abstained. Europe, never Israel's close ally, erupted in near unanimous outrage over Gaza, with fits of anti-Semitic violence in France, Sweden and Belgium.
Israel is accustomed to attacks from the left and the U.N. This time, though, Amnesty International has accused Israel of war crimes (using white phosphorus against civilians), and the secretary-general was unusually outspoken. After Israel bombed five U.N. compounds, Ban Ki-moon called the attack "heartbreaking … outrageous and unacceptable." His condemnation of Hamas rocket attacks came later, in milder terms.
Israel's last major military excursion, into Lebanon in 2006, aroused less anger. Its closest European ally is Britain, where Tony Blair initially refused to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon. By day two in Gaza, his Labour successors were pushing for a ceasefire; one M.P. called Israel's leaders "mass murderers." The global outcry in 2006 was tempered by disgust at Hizbullah's rocket campaign, which killed 43 in heavily populated northern Israel. This time, Hamas rockets hit a patch of sparsely populated southern Israel, killing three, while the Israeli response has been far more deadly. Some 1,300 Palestinians have been killed—compared with 500 Shiites in Lebanon.
The one region where Israel is arguably not more isolated is the Middle East. Israel's push for Arab recognition suffered a setback when Mauritania and Qatar severed relations, but four Arab summits have reached no consensus on how to respond to Gaza. Major states, led by Jordan and Egypt, want to lend no comfort to their Persian rival, Iran, the backer of Hamas. Moreover, Hamas has not emerged as a plucky hero to the Arab world, the way Hizbullah did in 2006. When the fighting quieted last week, Hamas held a "victory" parade in Gaza City, and it fizzled.
Israel has just one key friend. Could Obama, who promised the Muslim world "a new way forward" in his Inaugural Address, loosen the bond? A recent Pew poll shows 55 percent of U.S. Republicans, but only 45 percent of Democrats, approve of Israel's actions in Gaza. Given that Democrats now rule, Israel may need to worry more about the mood on Main Street than on the Arab Street."
Newsweek reports:
"Israel has never been more isolated. Its best friend, the United States, had vetoed 41 Security Council resolutions condemning Israel in the past three decades, but was about to vote for the Jan. 8 resolution denouncing the attack on Gaza when President Bush intervened, at the behest of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Still, in the face of unprecedented global criticism, the U.S. didn't dare veto, but merely abstained. Europe, never Israel's close ally, erupted in near unanimous outrage over Gaza, with fits of anti-Semitic violence in France, Sweden and Belgium.
Israel is accustomed to attacks from the left and the U.N. This time, though, Amnesty International has accused Israel of war crimes (using white phosphorus against civilians), and the secretary-general was unusually outspoken. After Israel bombed five U.N. compounds, Ban Ki-moon called the attack "heartbreaking … outrageous and unacceptable." His condemnation of Hamas rocket attacks came later, in milder terms.
Israel's last major military excursion, into Lebanon in 2006, aroused less anger. Its closest European ally is Britain, where Tony Blair initially refused to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon. By day two in Gaza, his Labour successors were pushing for a ceasefire; one M.P. called Israel's leaders "mass murderers." The global outcry in 2006 was tempered by disgust at Hizbullah's rocket campaign, which killed 43 in heavily populated northern Israel. This time, Hamas rockets hit a patch of sparsely populated southern Israel, killing three, while the Israeli response has been far more deadly. Some 1,300 Palestinians have been killed—compared with 500 Shiites in Lebanon.
The one region where Israel is arguably not more isolated is the Middle East. Israel's push for Arab recognition suffered a setback when Mauritania and Qatar severed relations, but four Arab summits have reached no consensus on how to respond to Gaza. Major states, led by Jordan and Egypt, want to lend no comfort to their Persian rival, Iran, the backer of Hamas. Moreover, Hamas has not emerged as a plucky hero to the Arab world, the way Hizbullah did in 2006. When the fighting quieted last week, Hamas held a "victory" parade in Gaza City, and it fizzled.
Israel has just one key friend. Could Obama, who promised the Muslim world "a new way forward" in his Inaugural Address, loosen the bond? A recent Pew poll shows 55 percent of U.S. Republicans, but only 45 percent of Democrats, approve of Israel's actions in Gaza. Given that Democrats now rule, Israel may need to worry more about the mood on Main Street than on the Arab Street."
When No News is Bad News
In a piece in The Atlantic "When No News is Bad News" a former managing editor of The Chicago Tribune probes the collapse of the newspaper industry and tries, mostly in vain, to find hope for the future of journalism.
"To give you an idea of the state of journalism today, I probably couldn’t do better than to tell you something about John Crewdson, a big, burly guy just past age 60, with whom I worked when I ran the Washington bureau of the Tribune. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on immigration at The New York Times in 1981, and is one of the premier investigative reporters of his generation.
Twenty years ago, Crewdson revealed (in a Tribune article so expansive it merited its own special Sunday section) that it was in fact a French research doctor named Luc Montagnier who had discovered the AIDS virus, rather than a self-promoting American, Dr. Robert Gallo, who had claimed full credit and been showered with media attention. To investigate the piece, Crewdson spent months wading into dense, difficult material, becoming almost as conversant in the science of AIDS as any researcher. (And just this year, Montagnier’s work—and Crewdson’s—was prominently rewarded, when Montaignier instead of Gallo received the Nobel prize for the discovery of the virus.)
Among other great Crewdson pieces was his 1996 series about people dying needlessly of heart attacks on commercial airliners, which resulted in all airlines now carrying defibrillators on board. (If you survive a heart attack at 30,000 feet, thank John.) And more recently, Crewdson dug deep into the Bush administration’s secret “rendition” program, matching tail numbers with FAA records, among other painstaking work, to unearth such disturbing details as the fact that a Boston Red Sox owner had been allowing his Gulfstream jet (sometimes used by the team) to be flown by the government on these covert flights.
Any one of Crewdson’s 15 to 20 major exposés would be the highlight of most journalists’ careers. But this fall, not long after Montagnier learned that he would get his Nobel, John Crewdson got his walking papers, shown the door by new management at the Tribune. A solemn farewell party was held at a Mexican restaurant near the Washington office that he had been given 24 hours to vacate."
"To give you an idea of the state of journalism today, I probably couldn’t do better than to tell you something about John Crewdson, a big, burly guy just past age 60, with whom I worked when I ran the Washington bureau of the Tribune. He won a Pulitzer Prize for his work on immigration at The New York Times in 1981, and is one of the premier investigative reporters of his generation.
Twenty years ago, Crewdson revealed (in a Tribune article so expansive it merited its own special Sunday section) that it was in fact a French research doctor named Luc Montagnier who had discovered the AIDS virus, rather than a self-promoting American, Dr. Robert Gallo, who had claimed full credit and been showered with media attention. To investigate the piece, Crewdson spent months wading into dense, difficult material, becoming almost as conversant in the science of AIDS as any researcher. (And just this year, Montagnier’s work—and Crewdson’s—was prominently rewarded, when Montaignier instead of Gallo received the Nobel prize for the discovery of the virus.)
Among other great Crewdson pieces was his 1996 series about people dying needlessly of heart attacks on commercial airliners, which resulted in all airlines now carrying defibrillators on board. (If you survive a heart attack at 30,000 feet, thank John.) And more recently, Crewdson dug deep into the Bush administration’s secret “rendition” program, matching tail numbers with FAA records, among other painstaking work, to unearth such disturbing details as the fact that a Boston Red Sox owner had been allowing his Gulfstream jet (sometimes used by the team) to be flown by the government on these covert flights.
Any one of Crewdson’s 15 to 20 major exposés would be the highlight of most journalists’ careers. But this fall, not long after Montagnier learned that he would get his Nobel, John Crewdson got his walking papers, shown the door by new management at the Tribune. A solemn farewell party was held at a Mexican restaurant near the Washington office that he had been given 24 hours to vacate."
He's out of the loop.....
The pundits warned of it all along. Courting Abbas of the PLO and Fatah was destined to cause its own problems. Now with the latest violence by the Israelis in Gaza, Fatah has almost lost whatever credibility it had.
Patrick Cockburn, who lives in the West Bank, and has been reporting on the area for The Independent for some time, reports in "Fatah fears Gaza conflict has put Hamas in the ascendancy" on the rise of Hamas and the corresponding diminution of Fatah - and the implications for those, like the USA and the EU, who seek to deal with the Palestinians, especially given recent events:
"The Islamic movement Hamas is taking over from Fatah, the party created by Yasser Arafat, as the main Palestinian national organisation as a result of the war in Gaza, says a leading Fatah militant. "We have moved into the era of Hamas which is now much stronger than it was," said Husam Kadr, a veteran Fatah leader in the West Bank city of Nablus, recently released after five-and-a-half years in Israeli prisons.
"Its era started when Israel attacked Gaza on 27 December."
The sharp decline in support for Fatah and the discrediting of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, because of his inertia during the 22-day Gaza war, will make it very difficult for the US and the EU to pretend that Fatah are the true representatives of the Palestinian community. The international community is likely to find it impossible to marginalise Hamas in reconstructing Gaza.
"Hamas has been highly successful in portraying itself as the party of the resistance, and Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas as the opponents of resistance at a time [when] the public wants to resist," said Ghassan Khatib, a former Palestinian minister of planning. He adds that Mr Abbas was badly damaged in the eyes of Palestinians when he blamed Hamas for Israel's assault on Gaza in the conflict's first two days."
Patrick Cockburn, who lives in the West Bank, and has been reporting on the area for The Independent for some time, reports in "Fatah fears Gaza conflict has put Hamas in the ascendancy" on the rise of Hamas and the corresponding diminution of Fatah - and the implications for those, like the USA and the EU, who seek to deal with the Palestinians, especially given recent events:
"The Islamic movement Hamas is taking over from Fatah, the party created by Yasser Arafat, as the main Palestinian national organisation as a result of the war in Gaza, says a leading Fatah militant. "We have moved into the era of Hamas which is now much stronger than it was," said Husam Kadr, a veteran Fatah leader in the West Bank city of Nablus, recently released after five-and-a-half years in Israeli prisons.
"Its era started when Israel attacked Gaza on 27 December."
The sharp decline in support for Fatah and the discrediting of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, because of his inertia during the 22-day Gaza war, will make it very difficult for the US and the EU to pretend that Fatah are the true representatives of the Palestinian community. The international community is likely to find it impossible to marginalise Hamas in reconstructing Gaza.
"Hamas has been highly successful in portraying itself as the party of the resistance, and Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas as the opponents of resistance at a time [when] the public wants to resist," said Ghassan Khatib, a former Palestinian minister of planning. He adds that Mr Abbas was badly damaged in the eyes of Palestinians when he blamed Hamas for Israel's assault on Gaza in the conflict's first two days."
Saturday, January 24, 2009
No humanity here
Israel is forever proclaiming that it wishes no harm to the people of Gaza. Hamas is their target. Israel also claims that it does not prevent humanitarian aid reaching the Gazans.
This report from NPR gives the lie to yet another lie of the Israelis. Aid isn't getting through and the Israelis are actively obstructing it.
"International aid agencies trying to get supplies and personnel from Israel into the Gaza Strip are increasingly frustrated and angry.
Israel eased its blockade of Gaza on Thursday, opening the border, but only under pressure and only to a few organizations.
Aid organizations say they need to get into Gaza to assess needs and relieve colleagues who are exhausted after the three-week Israeli offensive.
But Mike Baily of Oxfam International says for six days since the cease-fire, the Israeli government has given them the runaround.
"We've had every reason under the sun given to us for not going in … security, not the right day, that is was closed for holiday, that the right people were not available, that we would hear tomorrow," he says".
This report from NPR gives the lie to yet another lie of the Israelis. Aid isn't getting through and the Israelis are actively obstructing it.
"International aid agencies trying to get supplies and personnel from Israel into the Gaza Strip are increasingly frustrated and angry.
Israel eased its blockade of Gaza on Thursday, opening the border, but only under pressure and only to a few organizations.
Aid organizations say they need to get into Gaza to assess needs and relieve colleagues who are exhausted after the three-week Israeli offensive.
But Mike Baily of Oxfam International says for six days since the cease-fire, the Israeli government has given them the runaround.
"We've had every reason under the sun given to us for not going in … security, not the right day, that is was closed for holiday, that the right people were not available, that we would hear tomorrow," he says".
"to those who cling to power through.. the silencing of dissent"
No comment called for! The article from FP speaks for itself.....
"On his first day in office, Barack Obama placed calls to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Excellent! What a perfect opportunity to talk to
"those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent"
Hosni Mubarak -- whose regime has spent the last several years locking up Ayman Nour for challenging him in the Presidential election, brutally cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood for the sin of competing in Parliamentary elections, disciplining independent judges who tried to oversee elections, extending Emergency Law, harassing bloggers, torturing and beating political activists, and indicting independent journalists -- no doubt warmly welcomed the discussion of how it felt to "know that you are on the wrong side of history."
Oh, they didn't talk about that? Pity. At least immediately engaging on Gaza is a good first step.
One other thing: everyone in the region will immediately notice that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah was not on the list. Especially the Saudis. Obama also skipped Saudi Arabia during his trip to the Middle East in July -- which was also noticed. In each case, I'm sure that there were very good reasons: in July, no doubt time was tight and he couldn't go everywhere; today, he no doubt wanted to touch base with the front-line states to demonstrate his commitment to engaging with the Gaza crisis. But these sorts of perceived slights add up quickly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something a bit nasty about Obama (but seemingly unrelated) come up in one of the Saudi media outlets in the next few days."
"On his first day in office, Barack Obama placed calls to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Excellent! What a perfect opportunity to talk to
"those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent"
Hosni Mubarak -- whose regime has spent the last several years locking up Ayman Nour for challenging him in the Presidential election, brutally cracking down on the Muslim Brotherhood for the sin of competing in Parliamentary elections, disciplining independent judges who tried to oversee elections, extending Emergency Law, harassing bloggers, torturing and beating political activists, and indicting independent journalists -- no doubt warmly welcomed the discussion of how it felt to "know that you are on the wrong side of history."
Oh, they didn't talk about that? Pity. At least immediately engaging on Gaza is a good first step.
One other thing: everyone in the region will immediately notice that Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah was not on the list. Especially the Saudis. Obama also skipped Saudi Arabia during his trip to the Middle East in July -- which was also noticed. In each case, I'm sure that there were very good reasons: in July, no doubt time was tight and he couldn't go everywhere; today, he no doubt wanted to touch base with the front-line states to demonstrate his commitment to engaging with the Gaza crisis. But these sorts of perceived slights add up quickly, and I wouldn't be surprised to see something a bit nasty about Obama (but seemingly unrelated) come up in one of the Saudi media outlets in the next few days."
Some advise Obama might not want to ignore
Obama has hit the road running! So, let's see whether action translates into positive outcomes.
The Saudis are allies of the US. The US needs Saudi oil. Accordingly, it's a country one doesn't lightly ignore.
The Financial Times reports on a more than timely warning in an op-ed piece in the FT from a Saudi Prince to newly-elected president Obama:
"In an article in today's Financial Times, Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington, says that if the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and maintain its strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, it "will have to drastically revise its policies vis-Ã -vis Israel and Palestine".
Writing days after the end of Israel's three-week Gaza offensive, he says the Bush administration, which supported the onslaught, had left a "sickening legacy in the region". And while Saudi Arabia has so far resisted Iranian calls to lead a "jihad" against Israel, "eventually the kingdom will not be able to prevent its citizens from joining the worldwide revolt against Israel".
The prince - writing before President Barack Obama made his comments on the Arab-Israel conflict last night - holds no official position in the Saudi government at the moment but his views reflect the mounting frustrations within the al-Saud royal family and the apparent need to exert immediate pressure on the Obama administration for a more even-handed Middle East policy."
The Saudis are allies of the US. The US needs Saudi oil. Accordingly, it's a country one doesn't lightly ignore.
The Financial Times reports on a more than timely warning in an op-ed piece in the FT from a Saudi Prince to newly-elected president Obama:
"In an article in today's Financial Times, Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington, says that if the US wants to continue playing a leadership role in the Middle East and maintain its strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, it "will have to drastically revise its policies vis-Ã -vis Israel and Palestine".
Writing days after the end of Israel's three-week Gaza offensive, he says the Bush administration, which supported the onslaught, had left a "sickening legacy in the region". And while Saudi Arabia has so far resisted Iranian calls to lead a "jihad" against Israel, "eventually the kingdom will not be able to prevent its citizens from joining the worldwide revolt against Israel".
The prince - writing before President Barack Obama made his comments on the Arab-Israel conflict last night - holds no official position in the Saudi government at the moment but his views reflect the mounting frustrations within the al-Saud royal family and the apparent need to exert immediate pressure on the Obama administration for a more even-handed Middle East policy."
Robert Fisk: So far, Obama's missed the point on Gaza...
"It would have helped if Obama had the courage to talk about what everyone in the Middle East was talking about. No, it wasn't the US withdrawal from Iraq. They knew about that. They expected the beginning of the end of Guantanamo and the probable appointment of George Mitchell as a Middle East envoy was the least that was expected. Of course, Obama did refer to "slaughtered innocents", but these were not quite the "slaughtered innocents" the Arabs had in mind.
There was the phone call yesterday to Mahmoud Abbas. Maybe Obama thinks he's the leader of the Palestinians, but as every Arab knows, except perhaps Mr Abbas, he is the leader of a ghost government, a near-corpse only kept alive with the blood transfusion of international support and the "full partnership" Obama has apparently offered him, whatever "full" means. And it was no surprise to anyone that Obama also made the obligatory call to the Israelis.
But for the people of the Middle East, the absence of the word "Gaza" – indeed, the word "Israel" as well – was the dark shadow over Obama's inaugural address. Didn't he care? Was he frightened? Did Obama's young speech-writer not realise that talking about black rights – why a black man's father might not have been served in a restaurant 60 years ago – would concentrate Arab minds on the fate of a people who gained the vote only three years ago but were then punished because they voted for the wrong people? It wasn't a question of the elephant in the china shop. It was the sheer amount of corpses heaped up on the floor of the china shop."
Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent. Read the full article here.
There was the phone call yesterday to Mahmoud Abbas. Maybe Obama thinks he's the leader of the Palestinians, but as every Arab knows, except perhaps Mr Abbas, he is the leader of a ghost government, a near-corpse only kept alive with the blood transfusion of international support and the "full partnership" Obama has apparently offered him, whatever "full" means. And it was no surprise to anyone that Obama also made the obligatory call to the Israelis.
But for the people of the Middle East, the absence of the word "Gaza" – indeed, the word "Israel" as well – was the dark shadow over Obama's inaugural address. Didn't he care? Was he frightened? Did Obama's young speech-writer not realise that talking about black rights – why a black man's father might not have been served in a restaurant 60 years ago – would concentrate Arab minds on the fate of a people who gained the vote only three years ago but were then punished because they voted for the wrong people? It wasn't a question of the elephant in the china shop. It was the sheer amount of corpses heaped up on the floor of the china shop."
Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent. Read the full article here.
Israel's Lies
Henry Siegman, director of the US Middle East Project in New York, is a visiting research professor at SOAS, University of London. He is a former national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America.
He has written a a number of pieces for the London Review of Books. His latest piece "Israel's Lies" analyses the just concluded attack on Gaza by the Israelis. Siegman puts the whole thing into context and asserts that Israel has lied in the whole process it undertook:
"Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.
I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel’s actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF’s carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.
Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’
Continue reading this worthwhile piece here.
He has written a a number of pieces for the London Review of Books. His latest piece "Israel's Lies" analyses the just concluded attack on Gaza by the Israelis. Siegman puts the whole thing into context and asserts that Israel has lied in the whole process it undertook:
"Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.
I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel’s actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF’s carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.
Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’
Continue reading this worthwhile piece here.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Obama: What a family!
Whilst some things have been revealed about the new president Obama and his wife, little has been written about their respective family histories and backgrounds. It most certainly is diverse, as this IHT article "A family to herald diversity" reveals:
"The president's elderly Kenyan step-grandmother came, bearing a gift of an oxtail fly whisk. Cousins journeyed from the South Carolina town where the first lady's great-great-grandfather was born into slavery, while the rabbi in the family came from the synagogue where he had been commemorating Martin Luther King's birthday. The president and first lady's siblings were there, too, of course: his Indonesian-American half-sister, who brought her Chinese-Canadian husband, and her brother, a black man with a white wife."
Continue reading here.
"The president's elderly Kenyan step-grandmother came, bearing a gift of an oxtail fly whisk. Cousins journeyed from the South Carolina town where the first lady's great-great-grandfather was born into slavery, while the rabbi in the family came from the synagogue where he had been commemorating Martin Luther King's birthday. The president and first lady's siblings were there, too, of course: his Indonesian-American half-sister, who brought her Chinese-Canadian husband, and her brother, a black man with a white wife."
Continue reading here.
Wish you were here
A lot has already been written about the momentous event and "story" of Obama becoming US president. There is no denying it on so many levels.
Perhaps one of the best pieces encapsulating how historic it is, and the context in the lifetimes of many of us, comes from Bob Herbert, himself Afro-American, writing his regular op-ed piece in the NY Times [republished in the IHT]:
"And so it has happened, this very strange convergence. The holiday celebrating the birth of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. became, in the midnight hour, the day that America inaugurated its first black president.
It's a day on which smiles give way to tears and then return quickly to smiles again, a day of celebration and reflection.
King would have been 80 years old now. He came to national prominence not trying to elect an African-American president, but just trying to get us past the depraved practice of blacks being forced to endure the humiliation of standing up and giving their seat on a bus to a white person, some man or woman or child.
Get up, girl. Get up, boy.
King was just 26 at the time, a national treasure in a stylish, broad-brimmed hat. He was only 39 when he was killed, eight years younger than Obama is now."
Do read this insightful piece here.
Perhaps one of the best pieces encapsulating how historic it is, and the context in the lifetimes of many of us, comes from Bob Herbert, himself Afro-American, writing his regular op-ed piece in the NY Times [republished in the IHT]:
"And so it has happened, this very strange convergence. The holiday celebrating the birth of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. became, in the midnight hour, the day that America inaugurated its first black president.
It's a day on which smiles give way to tears and then return quickly to smiles again, a day of celebration and reflection.
King would have been 80 years old now. He came to national prominence not trying to elect an African-American president, but just trying to get us past the depraved practice of blacks being forced to endure the humiliation of standing up and giving their seat on a bus to a white person, some man or woman or child.
Get up, girl. Get up, boy.
King was just 26 at the time, a national treasure in a stylish, broad-brimmed hat. He was only 39 when he was killed, eight years younger than Obama is now."
Do read this insightful piece here.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
There's no escaping it. Talk they must - and will!
Hilary Clinton has already said the US won't talk to Hamas. Others, including Israel, maintain the same stance.
Come what may, eventually, there will have to be dialogue, however difficult that might be.
It is refreshing to read that an Israeli writer who lost a son in Lebanon accuses his countrymen of 'cruelty' - as reported in The Independent in "Dialogue with Hamas is only path to peace, urges novelist" - and more particularly exhorts his countrymen to talk to Hamas:
"David Grossman, the renowned Israeli novelist, issued a pained rebuke to his countrymen over the Gaza invasion yesterday and called for the immediate opening of talks with the militant Hamas movement.
Embarking on what he conceded would be a daunting dialogue with Hamas, which refuses Israel's right to exist, "will contribute more to our security than a hundred planes dropping bombs on a city and its inhabitants", the dovish author wrote in a front-page article in the daily Haaretz.
Grossman accused Israelis of using "sophisticated defence mechanisms and self-righteousness" to avoid recognising the scope of the killing and destruction the army has wrought on Gaza. When this subsides, perhaps Israelis will realise there is "something deep and basic in our behaviour in the region, for time immemorial, that is mistaken, immoral and unwise and that time and again fans the flames that are consuming us", he wrote.
Come what may, eventually, there will have to be dialogue, however difficult that might be.
It is refreshing to read that an Israeli writer who lost a son in Lebanon accuses his countrymen of 'cruelty' - as reported in The Independent in "Dialogue with Hamas is only path to peace, urges novelist" - and more particularly exhorts his countrymen to talk to Hamas:
"David Grossman, the renowned Israeli novelist, issued a pained rebuke to his countrymen over the Gaza invasion yesterday and called for the immediate opening of talks with the militant Hamas movement.
Embarking on what he conceded would be a daunting dialogue with Hamas, which refuses Israel's right to exist, "will contribute more to our security than a hundred planes dropping bombs on a city and its inhabitants", the dovish author wrote in a front-page article in the daily Haaretz.
Grossman accused Israelis of using "sophisticated defence mechanisms and self-righteousness" to avoid recognising the scope of the killing and destruction the army has wrought on Gaza. When this subsides, perhaps Israelis will realise there is "something deep and basic in our behaviour in the region, for time immemorial, that is mistaken, immoral and unwise and that time and again fans the flames that are consuming us", he wrote.
The Israel Lobby at work.....in Australia
The Israel Lobby knows no bounds - as this rather disturbing piece by a well regarded journalist, author and media commentator in Australia, Margaret Simon reveals on her blog reveals in her piece "The Michael Backman Column: Weird and Unpleasant Happenings at The Age":
"I was out frying other fish yesterday so did not catch up with the controversy consuming The Age newsroom until late afternoon. This morning as I ring around, it is clear that the newsroom remains tense and upset. Staff are rallying around. They fear unfairness.
It’s all about an anti-Semitic column by regular contributor to the business pages, Michael Backman. published last Saturday - and about the bizarre “apology” The Age had on page two yesterday.
The original column has been taken down from the Age website, but is still available on Backman’s own website,
Bad enough. Very bad, in fact. How did such a racist column come to be published? Keep reading, but first some more background.
Yesterday a bizarre apology was published on page two of the Age, under the usual pro forma information about contact numbers and the like:
A column by Michael Backman headlined “Israel living high on US expense account’’ was published in error.
The Age does not in any way endorse the views of the columnist, apologises for the distress the column caused to many readers, particularly in the Jewish community and regrets publication of the column.’
Now, if publishing the column was strange, this was even stranger. The wording suggested that the column was - woops - published as a production error - without anyone realising or thinking about it or noticing what it said. This was not the case, as I detail below."
"I was out frying other fish yesterday so did not catch up with the controversy consuming The Age newsroom until late afternoon. This morning as I ring around, it is clear that the newsroom remains tense and upset. Staff are rallying around. They fear unfairness.
It’s all about an anti-Semitic column by regular contributor to the business pages, Michael Backman. published last Saturday - and about the bizarre “apology” The Age had on page two yesterday.
The original column has been taken down from the Age website, but is still available on Backman’s own website,
Bad enough. Very bad, in fact. How did such a racist column come to be published? Keep reading, but first some more background.
Yesterday a bizarre apology was published on page two of the Age, under the usual pro forma information about contact numbers and the like:
A column by Michael Backman headlined “Israel living high on US expense account’’ was published in error.
The Age does not in any way endorse the views of the columnist, apologises for the distress the column caused to many readers, particularly in the Jewish community and regrets publication of the column.’
Now, if publishing the column was strange, this was even stranger. The wording suggested that the column was - woops - published as a production error - without anyone realising or thinking about it or noticing what it said. This was not the case, as I detail below."
Israel wanted a humanitarian crisis
Targeting civilians was a deliberate part of this bid to humiliate Hamas and the Palestinians, and pulverise Gaza into chaos
"The scale of Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip, and the almost daily reports of war crimes over the last three weeks, has drawn criticism from even longstanding friends and sympathisers. Despite the Israeli government's long-planned and comprehensive PR campaign, hundreds of dead children is a hard sell. As a former Israeli government press adviser put it, in a wonderful bit of unintentional irony, "When you have a Palestinian kid facing an Israeli tank, how do you explain that the tank is actually David and the kid is Goliath?"
Despite a mass of evidence that includes Israel's targets in Operation Cast Lead, public remarks by Israeli leaders over some time, and the ceasefire manoeuvring of this last weekend, much of the analysis offered by politicians or commentators has been disappointingly limited, and characterised by false assumptions, or misplaced emphases, about Israel's motivations.
First, to what this war on Gaza is not about: it's not about the rockets. During the truce last year, rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was reduced by 97%, with the few projectiles that were fired coming from non-Hamas groups opposed to the agreement. Despite this success in vastly improving the security of Israelis in the south, Israel did everything it could to undermine the calm, and provoke Hamas into a conflict."
So begins a piece by Ben White, writing for The Guardian from Jerusalem. He goes through the events leading up to the onslaught unleashed against the Gazans on 27 December and what has occurred since, and continues:
"There is, however, no shortage of evidence available that points to rather different Israeli aims. Estimates for the proportion of civilian deaths among the 1,360 Palestinians killed range from more than half to two-thirds. Politicians, diplomats and journalists are by and large shying away from the obvious, namely that Israel has been deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to – in the best colonial style – teach the natives a lesson."
"The scale of Israel's attack on the Gaza Strip, and the almost daily reports of war crimes over the last three weeks, has drawn criticism from even longstanding friends and sympathisers. Despite the Israeli government's long-planned and comprehensive PR campaign, hundreds of dead children is a hard sell. As a former Israeli government press adviser put it, in a wonderful bit of unintentional irony, "When you have a Palestinian kid facing an Israeli tank, how do you explain that the tank is actually David and the kid is Goliath?"
Despite a mass of evidence that includes Israel's targets in Operation Cast Lead, public remarks by Israeli leaders over some time, and the ceasefire manoeuvring of this last weekend, much of the analysis offered by politicians or commentators has been disappointingly limited, and characterised by false assumptions, or misplaced emphases, about Israel's motivations.
First, to what this war on Gaza is not about: it's not about the rockets. During the truce last year, rocket fire from the Gaza Strip was reduced by 97%, with the few projectiles that were fired coming from non-Hamas groups opposed to the agreement. Despite this success in vastly improving the security of Israelis in the south, Israel did everything it could to undermine the calm, and provoke Hamas into a conflict."
So begins a piece by Ben White, writing for The Guardian from Jerusalem. He goes through the events leading up to the onslaught unleashed against the Gazans on 27 December and what has occurred since, and continues:
"There is, however, no shortage of evidence available that points to rather different Israeli aims. Estimates for the proportion of civilian deaths among the 1,360 Palestinians killed range from more than half to two-thirds. Politicians, diplomats and journalists are by and large shying away from the obvious, namely that Israel has been deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians and the very infrastructure of normal life, in order to – in the best colonial style – teach the natives a lesson."
Bringing light into Myanmar's darkness
The world seems to have "forgotten" Mynmar [formerly Burma] post the horrendous floods there and the protest marches principally by monks. The Generals in power have kept a tight clamp on the country's people and those allowed into the country even if only to provide humanitarian aid.
To its credit, the IHT reports on how those who have stepped out of line have been dealt with and an organisation seeking to help them:
"By the time he had contracted tuberculosis, Htay Aung, a dissident jailed for seven years in Myanmar, was incapable of telling prison guards about his condition. He had already lost his voice from the years of exposure to the cold concrete floor that prisoners slept on.
So Htay Aung decided to announce his illness in a more graphic form. He coughed up enough blood to fill a small cup. "When the guard came around I showed him," said Htay Aung, who has now recuperated but whose voice remains raspy. "They transferred me to the leprosy ward."
Htay Aung recently told the story to a reporter and a small group of former political prisoners who have settled in this small Thai city on the border with Myanmar. Many of them work at the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, a group that tracks the plight of the more than 2,100 jailed dissidents inside Myanmar and organizes aid for them and their families.
Founded nine years ago, the association has never been busier.
Last year, Myanmar's military government sentenced 410 dissidents to prison terms ranging from a few years to five decades or more. The association lists details of the convictions in its online database, which is widely consulted by diplomats, UN officials and human rights workers. Bo Kyi, the co-founder of the association, says that another 600 dissidents are in detention and have yet to be tried.
Among those convicted last year was an 80-year-old Buddhist nun, Daw Ponnami, who was given four years' hard labor for her involvement in the street demonstrations led by Buddhist monks in September 2007. She has been spared the hard labor, the association says, but in what may be the final insult of her twilight years, Daw Ponnami's conviction was for insulting Buddhism.
Zarganar, a well-known comedian, received 59 years' imprisonment after criticizing the government for neglecting the victims of the cyclone that swept through lower Myanmar in May, killing more than 130,000 people.
U Gambira, a monk who helped lead the 2007 protests, was sentenced to 68 years."
Continue reading here. Isn't it time that the world confronted the despots who rule Myanmar?
To its credit, the IHT reports on how those who have stepped out of line have been dealt with and an organisation seeking to help them:
"By the time he had contracted tuberculosis, Htay Aung, a dissident jailed for seven years in Myanmar, was incapable of telling prison guards about his condition. He had already lost his voice from the years of exposure to the cold concrete floor that prisoners slept on.
So Htay Aung decided to announce his illness in a more graphic form. He coughed up enough blood to fill a small cup. "When the guard came around I showed him," said Htay Aung, who has now recuperated but whose voice remains raspy. "They transferred me to the leprosy ward."
Htay Aung recently told the story to a reporter and a small group of former political prisoners who have settled in this small Thai city on the border with Myanmar. Many of them work at the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners, a group that tracks the plight of the more than 2,100 jailed dissidents inside Myanmar and organizes aid for them and their families.
Founded nine years ago, the association has never been busier.
Last year, Myanmar's military government sentenced 410 dissidents to prison terms ranging from a few years to five decades or more. The association lists details of the convictions in its online database, which is widely consulted by diplomats, UN officials and human rights workers. Bo Kyi, the co-founder of the association, says that another 600 dissidents are in detention and have yet to be tried.
Among those convicted last year was an 80-year-old Buddhist nun, Daw Ponnami, who was given four years' hard labor for her involvement in the street demonstrations led by Buddhist monks in September 2007. She has been spared the hard labor, the association says, but in what may be the final insult of her twilight years, Daw Ponnami's conviction was for insulting Buddhism.
Zarganar, a well-known comedian, received 59 years' imprisonment after criticizing the government for neglecting the victims of the cyclone that swept through lower Myanmar in May, killing more than 130,000 people.
U Gambira, a monk who helped lead the 2007 protests, was sentenced to 68 years."
Continue reading here. Isn't it time that the world confronted the despots who rule Myanmar?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Israel may face war-crimes case for alleged atrocities
As the people of Gaza assess the horrendous pounding Israel inflicted on them - leaving aside the loss of life and injury - calls are growing for Israel to be prosecuted for war crimes. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, there seems more than strong prima facie evidence that Israel should be brought to account for its actions.
The SMH reports in what doesn't make for "pretty" reading but serves to show the brutality of Israel's actions:
"The sight of her dead four-year-old son's blood splashed on a breeze-block wall was enough to start Zinad Samouni sobbing.
But the 35-year-old Palestinian mother of eight then composed herself to give the most complete allegation yet of atrocities committed by Israeli forces when they occupied the village of Zeitoun on the outskirts of Gaza City.
Standing in the wreckage of her home, she described the cold-blooded shooting of her 46-year-old husband, Atiyeh, and her son, Ahmed, in an incident that could form the core of a war crimes investigation against Israel.
The United Nations commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, has already said Israel should be investigated for what happened in Zeitoun on January 4 and 5."
Continue to read a horrifying tale of wanton violence here.
Even the mostly mild-mannered and seemingly ineffective UN General Secretary has spoken out, as the TimesOnLine reports:
"Ban Ki-moon today called for those responsible for bombing UN-run buildings and schools in Gaza to be held accountable following Israel’s 22-day war on Hamas.
Clearly angry, the United Nations Secretary-General was speaking outside the still-smouldering main UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) compound in Gaza City that was hit during shelling by Israeli artillery last Thursday, setting fire to the building and to the food aid stored inside.
Other UN buildings were hit during the fighting, and a number of Palestinian refugees allowed by the UN to take shelter inside its schools were killed.
“It is an outrageous and totally unacceptable attack on the United Nations,” said Mr Ban."
The SMH reports in what doesn't make for "pretty" reading but serves to show the brutality of Israel's actions:
"The sight of her dead four-year-old son's blood splashed on a breeze-block wall was enough to start Zinad Samouni sobbing.
But the 35-year-old Palestinian mother of eight then composed herself to give the most complete allegation yet of atrocities committed by Israeli forces when they occupied the village of Zeitoun on the outskirts of Gaza City.
Standing in the wreckage of her home, she described the cold-blooded shooting of her 46-year-old husband, Atiyeh, and her son, Ahmed, in an incident that could form the core of a war crimes investigation against Israel.
The United Nations commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, has already said Israel should be investigated for what happened in Zeitoun on January 4 and 5."
Continue to read a horrifying tale of wanton violence here.
Even the mostly mild-mannered and seemingly ineffective UN General Secretary has spoken out, as the TimesOnLine reports:
"Ban Ki-moon today called for those responsible for bombing UN-run buildings and schools in Gaza to be held accountable following Israel’s 22-day war on Hamas.
Clearly angry, the United Nations Secretary-General was speaking outside the still-smouldering main UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) compound in Gaza City that was hit during shelling by Israeli artillery last Thursday, setting fire to the building and to the food aid stored inside.
Other UN buildings were hit during the fighting, and a number of Palestinian refugees allowed by the UN to take shelter inside its schools were killed.
“It is an outrageous and totally unacceptable attack on the United Nations,” said Mr Ban."
Good speech......pity about the cofffee though!
Well, the Obama inauguration speech is in! Good, but not brilliant, sober, and no catchy phrases to readily remember in the future.
So, who writes all Obama's speeches? One Jon Favreau. Who?
The Guardian backgrounds the 27 year old who helps frame Obama's speeches - and the process behind it - and in relation to the inaugural address writes:
"Favreau then went away and spent weeks on research. His team interviewed historians and speech writers, studied periods of crisis, and listened to past inaugural orations. When ready, he took up residence in Starbucks in Washington and wrote the first draft. The end result will be uttered on the steps of the Capitol".
So, who writes all Obama's speeches? One Jon Favreau. Who?
The Guardian backgrounds the 27 year old who helps frame Obama's speeches - and the process behind it - and in relation to the inaugural address writes:
"Favreau then went away and spent weeks on research. His team interviewed historians and speech writers, studied periods of crisis, and listened to past inaugural orations. When ready, he took up residence in Starbucks in Washington and wrote the first draft. The end result will be uttered on the steps of the Capitol".
Olbermann | Bush Years: 8 in 8 Minutes
Keith Olbermann has been one of George W's most trenchant critics. Deservedly so!
So, as the presidential baton is handed by George Shrub to Obama, let Olbermann have the last say on the 8 years of the Bush administration on truthout.org - here.
So, as the presidential baton is handed by George Shrub to Obama, let Olbermann have the last say on the 8 years of the Bush administration on truthout.org - here.
Gaza was demolished in three weeks. Rebuilding it will take years
There is something quite perverse in all of this.
First, most of the West effectively allowed Israel carte blanche to bomb Gaza for 3 weeks without any sort of restraint or even calls to cease and desist. The devastation as the world now sees has been horrendous - leaving aside the loss of life and disruption to people's lives. Now the West is considering massive aid to assist the re-building of Gaza - and in times when the world's economic crisis is severe and money is in short supply. Where is the logic, let alone any sense, in any of this?
The extent of what Gaza faces is explained by Patrick Cockburn - who has been reporting from the Middle East for considerable time - in this piece from The Independent:
"The rebuilding of Gaza after the Israeli bombardment already faces unique problems and is likely to be the most difficult reconstruction project in the world. This is because of the sheer scale of the devastation, the economic siege of the Palestinian enclave by Israel and Egypt, and the attempt to exclude Hamas, the elected rulers of Gaza, from any role in the rebuilding.
The difficulties are all the greater because of the destruction of much of the tunnel system linking Gaza to Egypt. Israeli and European leaders talk of the tunnel system – by one estimate there are 1,100 of them – as if it was exclusively devoted to supplying weapons and ammunition to Hamas. In reality, "the tunnel economy" has been the way in which food, fuel and everything else has reached Gaza since Israel and Egypt sealed off the Strip 18 months ago, when Hamas drove out the rival Palestinian faction Fatah in 2007. Military supplies were always a very small part of Gaza's imports through the tunnels."
No less significantly, and equally importantly, also in The Indpendent, Robert Fisk in "Posturing and laughter as victims rot" writes:
"The front page of the Beirut daily As-Safir said it all yesterday. Across the top was a terrible photograph of the bloated body of a Palestinian man newly discovered in the ruins of his home while two male members of his family shrieked and roared their grief. Below, at half the size, was a photograph from Israel of Western leaders joking with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister. Olmert was roaring with laughter. Silvio Berlusconi, arms on the back of Olmert's shoulders, was also joshing and roaring – with laughter, not grief – and on Olmert's right was Nicolas Sarkozy of France wearing his stupidest of smiles. Only Chancellor Merkel appeared to understand the moral collapse. No smiles from Germany.
Europe laughs while Palestinians mourn their dead. No wonder that in the streets of Beirut, shops were doing a flourishing trade in Palestinian scarves and flags. Even some of Palestine's most serious enemies in Lebanon wore the Palestinian keffiyeh in solidarity with the people of Gaza. Over and over again, Al-Jazeera television strapped headlines on to their news reports of Palestinians carrying the decomposing corpses of their dead: "More than 1,300 dead in Gaza, 400 of them women and children – Israeli dead in the war 13, three of them civilians." That, too, said it all."
First, most of the West effectively allowed Israel carte blanche to bomb Gaza for 3 weeks without any sort of restraint or even calls to cease and desist. The devastation as the world now sees has been horrendous - leaving aside the loss of life and disruption to people's lives. Now the West is considering massive aid to assist the re-building of Gaza - and in times when the world's economic crisis is severe and money is in short supply. Where is the logic, let alone any sense, in any of this?
The extent of what Gaza faces is explained by Patrick Cockburn - who has been reporting from the Middle East for considerable time - in this piece from The Independent:
"The rebuilding of Gaza after the Israeli bombardment already faces unique problems and is likely to be the most difficult reconstruction project in the world. This is because of the sheer scale of the devastation, the economic siege of the Palestinian enclave by Israel and Egypt, and the attempt to exclude Hamas, the elected rulers of Gaza, from any role in the rebuilding.
The difficulties are all the greater because of the destruction of much of the tunnel system linking Gaza to Egypt. Israeli and European leaders talk of the tunnel system – by one estimate there are 1,100 of them – as if it was exclusively devoted to supplying weapons and ammunition to Hamas. In reality, "the tunnel economy" has been the way in which food, fuel and everything else has reached Gaza since Israel and Egypt sealed off the Strip 18 months ago, when Hamas drove out the rival Palestinian faction Fatah in 2007. Military supplies were always a very small part of Gaza's imports through the tunnels."
No less significantly, and equally importantly, also in The Indpendent, Robert Fisk in "Posturing and laughter as victims rot" writes:
"The front page of the Beirut daily As-Safir said it all yesterday. Across the top was a terrible photograph of the bloated body of a Palestinian man newly discovered in the ruins of his home while two male members of his family shrieked and roared their grief. Below, at half the size, was a photograph from Israel of Western leaders joking with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister. Olmert was roaring with laughter. Silvio Berlusconi, arms on the back of Olmert's shoulders, was also joshing and roaring – with laughter, not grief – and on Olmert's right was Nicolas Sarkozy of France wearing his stupidest of smiles. Only Chancellor Merkel appeared to understand the moral collapse. No smiles from Germany.
Europe laughs while Palestinians mourn their dead. No wonder that in the streets of Beirut, shops were doing a flourishing trade in Palestinian scarves and flags. Even some of Palestine's most serious enemies in Lebanon wore the Palestinian keffiyeh in solidarity with the people of Gaza. Over and over again, Al-Jazeera television strapped headlines on to their news reports of Palestinians carrying the decomposing corpses of their dead: "More than 1,300 dead in Gaza, 400 of them women and children – Israeli dead in the war 13, three of them civilians." That, too, said it all."
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Gaza: Latest analysis and commentary
*** John Mearsheimer, co-author of the best-selling book, The Israel Lobby, writing in "Another War, Another Defeat" in The American Conservative:
"There is also little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. The destruction is just too obvious to miss, and too many people—especially in the Arab and Islamic world—care about the Palestinians’ fate. Moreover, discourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims. What is happening in Gaza will accelerate that changing picture of the conflict and long be seen as a dark stain on Israel’s reputation.
The bottom line is that no matter what happens on the battlefield, Israel cannot win its war in Gaza. In fact, it is pursuing a strategy—with lots of help from its so-called friends in the Diaspora—that is placing its long-term future at risk."
*** Robert Fisk writing "So, I asked the UN secretary general, isn't it time for a war crimes tribunal?" in The Independent:
"Poor old Ban Ki-moon. He tried to make his voice heard just before the ceasefire, saying Israel's troops had acted "outrageously" and should be "punished" for the third school killing. Some hope. At a Beirut press conference, he admitted he had failed to get a call through to Israel's Foreign Minister to complain.
It was pathetic. When I asked Mr Ban if he would consider a UN war crimes tribunal in Gaza, he said this would not be for him to "determine". But only a few journalists bothered to listen to him and his officials were quickly folding up the UN flag on the table. About time too. Bring back the League of Nations. All is forgiven."
*** Aluf Benn in Haaretz "Israel fears wave of war crimes lawsuits over Gaza offensive"
*** Akiva Eldar in Haaretz in "Obama's choice: Truman or Marshall":
"Obama has two choices. First, he can let the Israelis bleed and kill all the way to an ostracized apartheid state, observing from the sidelines as Israel endangers peace in the Middle East and undermines his country's interests, just as George Marshall predicted. The second option is to stand at Israel's side in its struggle to achieve peace and maintain its Jewish and moral character en route to regional acceptance, which has been offered by 22 Arab states".
"There is also little chance that people around the world who follow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon forget the appalling punishment that Israel is meting out in Gaza. The destruction is just too obvious to miss, and too many people—especially in the Arab and Islamic world—care about the Palestinians’ fate. Moreover, discourse about this longstanding conflict has undergone a sea change in the West in recent years, and many of us who were once wholly sympathetic to Israel now see that the Israelis are the victimizers and the Palestinians are the victims. What is happening in Gaza will accelerate that changing picture of the conflict and long be seen as a dark stain on Israel’s reputation.
The bottom line is that no matter what happens on the battlefield, Israel cannot win its war in Gaza. In fact, it is pursuing a strategy—with lots of help from its so-called friends in the Diaspora—that is placing its long-term future at risk."
*** Robert Fisk writing "So, I asked the UN secretary general, isn't it time for a war crimes tribunal?" in The Independent:
"Poor old Ban Ki-moon. He tried to make his voice heard just before the ceasefire, saying Israel's troops had acted "outrageously" and should be "punished" for the third school killing. Some hope. At a Beirut press conference, he admitted he had failed to get a call through to Israel's Foreign Minister to complain.
It was pathetic. When I asked Mr Ban if he would consider a UN war crimes tribunal in Gaza, he said this would not be for him to "determine". But only a few journalists bothered to listen to him and his officials were quickly folding up the UN flag on the table. About time too. Bring back the League of Nations. All is forgiven."
*** Aluf Benn in Haaretz "Israel fears wave of war crimes lawsuits over Gaza offensive"
*** Akiva Eldar in Haaretz in "Obama's choice: Truman or Marshall":
"Obama has two choices. First, he can let the Israelis bleed and kill all the way to an ostracized apartheid state, observing from the sidelines as Israel endangers peace in the Middle East and undermines his country's interests, just as George Marshall predicted. The second option is to stand at Israel's side in its struggle to achieve peace and maintain its Jewish and moral character en route to regional acceptance, which has been offered by 22 Arab states".
Author sells 7 books.....gets 3 years jail
Why would anyone want to visit Thailand if the experience of an Australian author is anything to go by?
BBC News reports on what ought to be regarded as an outrage on just about every level one can think of:
"Australian writer Harry Nicolaides has been sentenced to three years in a Thai jail for insulting the monarchy.
Nicolaides wrote a novel four years ago, which contained a brief passage referring to an unnamed crown prince. It sold just seven copies.
He admitted the charge of insulting the royal family, but said he was unaware he was committing an offence. Thailand's monarchy is sheltered from public debate by some of the world's most stringent "lese-majeste" laws."
And:
"But he is just one of a growing number of people being investigated and charged under Thailand's draconian "lese-majeste" law, as the police and army try to suppress what they fear is a rising tide of anti-monarchy sentiment.
More than 3,000 websites have now been blocked, and one political activist was jailed for six years in November for an anti-monarchy speech she made just a stone's throw from the old royal palace last July.
Several other people are now awaiting trial.
As a repentant foreigner, Harry Nicolaides does at least have a good chance of being pardoned by the king, according to the BBC correspondent in Bangkok, Jonathan Head.
The king did the same for a Swiss man given a 10-year sentence two years ago for defacing his portrait."
BBC News reports on what ought to be regarded as an outrage on just about every level one can think of:
"Australian writer Harry Nicolaides has been sentenced to three years in a Thai jail for insulting the monarchy.
Nicolaides wrote a novel four years ago, which contained a brief passage referring to an unnamed crown prince. It sold just seven copies.
He admitted the charge of insulting the royal family, but said he was unaware he was committing an offence. Thailand's monarchy is sheltered from public debate by some of the world's most stringent "lese-majeste" laws."
And:
"But he is just one of a growing number of people being investigated and charged under Thailand's draconian "lese-majeste" law, as the police and army try to suppress what they fear is a rising tide of anti-monarchy sentiment.
More than 3,000 websites have now been blocked, and one political activist was jailed for six years in November for an anti-monarchy speech she made just a stone's throw from the old royal palace last July.
Several other people are now awaiting trial.
As a repentant foreigner, Harry Nicolaides does at least have a good chance of being pardoned by the king, according to the BBC correspondent in Bangkok, Jonathan Head.
The king did the same for a Swiss man given a 10-year sentence two years ago for defacing his portrait."
Not in our name it wasn't!
There have many rallies around the world against Israel and in support of the poor people of Gaza who have had to endure 3 weeks of constant bombardment - apart from the 18 months blockade preceding it.
It has been heartening to see the response of many Jews, both individually and collectively, in attacking Israel's actions - and not be beholden to organisations claiming to speak for their respective Jewish communities. At one rally, in Melbourne Australia, Peter Slezak, co-founder of Australia's IAJV [Independent Australian Jewish Voices], spoke clearly of how Israel's conduct ought to be viewed:
"We have a responsibility to turn our moral concern into meaningful action, because it is here, in the West, that the fate of Palestine is decided. We must find ways to counter the barrage of deceit that prevents people from understanding what is going on and reacting to it as human beings.
History is being re-written even as it happens. So, it is a lie that Israel is defending itself. There are no Palestinian F-16 jets bombing Israel. There are no Palestinian tanks in the streets of Tel-Aviv.
The assault on Gaza is not a war, but a cowardly act of terrorism."
Read the stirring and eloquent address, in full, here.
It has been heartening to see the response of many Jews, both individually and collectively, in attacking Israel's actions - and not be beholden to organisations claiming to speak for their respective Jewish communities. At one rally, in Melbourne Australia, Peter Slezak, co-founder of Australia's IAJV [Independent Australian Jewish Voices], spoke clearly of how Israel's conduct ought to be viewed:
"We have a responsibility to turn our moral concern into meaningful action, because it is here, in the West, that the fate of Palestine is decided. We must find ways to counter the barrage of deceit that prevents people from understanding what is going on and reacting to it as human beings.
History is being re-written even as it happens. So, it is a lie that Israel is defending itself. There are no Palestinian F-16 jets bombing Israel. There are no Palestinian tanks in the streets of Tel-Aviv.
The assault on Gaza is not a war, but a cowardly act of terrorism."
Read the stirring and eloquent address, in full, here.
One man's mission....with a win-win outcome
What one man can do to achieve a positive and beneficial outcome......
Op-ed columnist in the NY Times Nicholas Kristof explains in his latest piece "Win a Trip You Won’t Forget" how his one modest step to try and do something positive has had an effect on a large scale....
"A few years ago, soon after I returned disconsolate and shellshocked from a trip to Darfur, I found New Yorkers burning with moral outrage.
The spark wasn’t genocide, war or poverty, but rather homelessness — of a red-tailed hawk nicknamed Pale Male. Managers of a Fifth Avenue apartment building had dismantled his nest.
Fury! Television cameras! And public pressure that led to a solution for rebuilding the nest.
I wondered how some of that compassion for a hawk could be rechanneled to help human beings like those I had just seen dying in Darfur. The potential is vast: just imagine if we felt the same sympathy for the 25,000 children who will die today of poverty as we do for, say, a lost and terrified puppy on the street. But it’s very difficult to generate activism for distant people whom we can’t visualize.
So I concocted a contest to take a university student with me on a reporting trip to Africa. I figured that the student’s journey might help connect American students to truly desperate needs abroad.
We’ve held two of these student trips so far, and today I’m delighted to announce the third."
Continue reading here.
Op-ed columnist in the NY Times Nicholas Kristof explains in his latest piece "Win a Trip You Won’t Forget" how his one modest step to try and do something positive has had an effect on a large scale....
"A few years ago, soon after I returned disconsolate and shellshocked from a trip to Darfur, I found New Yorkers burning with moral outrage.
The spark wasn’t genocide, war or poverty, but rather homelessness — of a red-tailed hawk nicknamed Pale Male. Managers of a Fifth Avenue apartment building had dismantled his nest.
Fury! Television cameras! And public pressure that led to a solution for rebuilding the nest.
I wondered how some of that compassion for a hawk could be rechanneled to help human beings like those I had just seen dying in Darfur. The potential is vast: just imagine if we felt the same sympathy for the 25,000 children who will die today of poverty as we do for, say, a lost and terrified puppy on the street. But it’s very difficult to generate activism for distant people whom we can’t visualize.
So I concocted a contest to take a university student with me on a reporting trip to Africa. I figured that the student’s journey might help connect American students to truly desperate needs abroad.
We’ve held two of these student trips so far, and today I’m delighted to announce the third."
Continue reading here.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Israel's latest outrage comes to light
Another dimension to the quite obvious strategy Israel developed over 6 months before attacking Gaza is revealed in an article in the SMH:
"Israel deliberately blocked the United Nations from building up vital food supplies in Gaza that feed a million people daily before the launch of its war against Hamas, according to a senior UN official in Jerusalem.
In a scathing critique of Israeli actions leading up to the conflict, the UN's chief humanitarian co-ordinator in Israel, the former Australian diplomat Maxwell Gaylard, accused Israel of failing to honour its commitments to open its border with Gaza during several months of truce from June 19 last year.
"The Israelis would not let us facilitate a regular and sufficient flow of supplies into the Strip," Mr Gaylard said.
The chief spokesman for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Yigal Palmor, said the claims were "unqualified bullshit".
"At no time was there a shortage of food in Gaza over the past three weeks," Mr Palmor said."
Continue reading the article here. The Israeli assertion, as absurd it is, flies directly in the face of many organisations - think the International Red Cross, Human Rights Office, CARE, UN agencies, et al - who have for weeks decried the lack of food and medicines, as well as other basics of life, for the people of Gaza.
"Israel deliberately blocked the United Nations from building up vital food supplies in Gaza that feed a million people daily before the launch of its war against Hamas, according to a senior UN official in Jerusalem.
In a scathing critique of Israeli actions leading up to the conflict, the UN's chief humanitarian co-ordinator in Israel, the former Australian diplomat Maxwell Gaylard, accused Israel of failing to honour its commitments to open its border with Gaza during several months of truce from June 19 last year.
"The Israelis would not let us facilitate a regular and sufficient flow of supplies into the Strip," Mr Gaylard said.
The chief spokesman for Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Yigal Palmor, said the claims were "unqualified bullshit".
"At no time was there a shortage of food in Gaza over the past three weeks," Mr Palmor said."
Continue reading the article here. The Israeli assertion, as absurd it is, flies directly in the face of many organisations - think the International Red Cross, Human Rights Office, CARE, UN agencies, et al - who have for weeks decried the lack of food and medicines, as well as other basics of life, for the people of Gaza.
Worst. President. Ever.
As Obama is about to be sworn in as President of the US, Scott Horton, writing in Harper's Magazine reflects on the outgoing president:
"Bush’s Karl Rove-directed legacy tour is over and the votes are in: he leaves office as the most disliked president in American history. The final New York Times-CBS News poll is out, and Bush scores a 22 percent approval rating. Of course this polling process is only seventy-odd years old. Some of his predecessors might have done worse—James Buchanan, for instance, or possibly Warren G. Harding. But Bush has reason for cheer–he beat Dick Cheney, who scored a 13 percent approval rating, still above Cheney’s low-water mark—at least he cracked double digits.
Cheney still has his boosters in the media, however—at least two of them, Stuart Taylor and Evan Thomas. They worked on the cover story for the last Newsweek. Like its subject, the story was deceptive and darkly insinuating–truly a missive from the Dark Side."
Over at The Huffington Post, Nora Ephron, in her review of Bush, writes:
"He was misunderestimated in every way. It was hard to imagine that this feckless leader could do so much damage. But even as the worst emerged, he was given the benefit of the doubt because of the ongoing mysteries of his administration -- mysteries that have remained unsolved in spite of the skills of hundreds of gifted journalists who have attempted to uncover them:
Who exactly was running the country these last eight years?
What did the President know, if anything, and when did he know it, if ever?
Was he capable in any way of even one sleepless night, much less the ongoing insomnia that any sentient person would suffer after so many wrong decisions and pointless deaths?
Did he mispronounce the word "nuclear" 1) on purpose, in order to make himself seem folksy 2) because he actually thought he was pronouncing it correctly or 3) just to piss us off?"
"Bush’s Karl Rove-directed legacy tour is over and the votes are in: he leaves office as the most disliked president in American history. The final New York Times-CBS News poll is out, and Bush scores a 22 percent approval rating. Of course this polling process is only seventy-odd years old. Some of his predecessors might have done worse—James Buchanan, for instance, or possibly Warren G. Harding. But Bush has reason for cheer–he beat Dick Cheney, who scored a 13 percent approval rating, still above Cheney’s low-water mark—at least he cracked double digits.
Cheney still has his boosters in the media, however—at least two of them, Stuart Taylor and Evan Thomas. They worked on the cover story for the last Newsweek. Like its subject, the story was deceptive and darkly insinuating–truly a missive from the Dark Side."
Over at The Huffington Post, Nora Ephron, in her review of Bush, writes:
"He was misunderestimated in every way. It was hard to imagine that this feckless leader could do so much damage. But even as the worst emerged, he was given the benefit of the doubt because of the ongoing mysteries of his administration -- mysteries that have remained unsolved in spite of the skills of hundreds of gifted journalists who have attempted to uncover them:
Who exactly was running the country these last eight years?
What did the President know, if anything, and when did he know it, if ever?
Was he capable in any way of even one sleepless night, much less the ongoing insomnia that any sentient person would suffer after so many wrong decisions and pointless deaths?
Did he mispronounce the word "nuclear" 1) on purpose, in order to make himself seem folksy 2) because he actually thought he was pronouncing it correctly or 3) just to piss us off?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)