Sasan Fayazmanesh is Professor of Economics at California State University, Fresno.
Writing on CounterPunch in "Dennis Ross and Iran" he reflects on what the appointment of Dennis Ross as “Special Advisor to the Secretary of State for the Gulf and Southwest Asia" [whatever that is supposed to encompass!] means, who he is and his background and all of that in the context of the Middle East:
"Whatever the reason for the postponement of Ross’s appointment and change of title, one thing is clear: the sly fox is now guarding the chicken coop. As Mel Levine said about Ross: “He’d be great for Israel.” With the help of Richard Holbrooke, Stuart Levey—Bush’s Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who is now in Obama’s Administration—and all the other “president’s Middle East men,” Dennis Ross might be able to finish the unfinished business of the neoconservatives, the containment of Iraq and Iran. The Israelis and pro-Israel communities must be jumping with joy once again!"
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Warning to the US: beware treating Afghanistan like Iraq
All the signs are that newly-minted President Obama, and the US, are determined to commit more troops into Afghanistan - seemingly on the basis that there has been success in Iraq and because as things are going from bad to worse in Afghanistan, more troops will help get things into some semblance of order in what is already described by many as a failed State. And there is the usual refrain that in order to protect America from attack, the terrorists in Afghanistan need to be curbed.
Patrick Cockburn, who reports extensively from the Middle East, writing in The Independent, in "Warning to the US: beware treating Afghanistan like Iraq" counsels the US to reflect on what those foreigners who have been in Afghanistan have encountered before embarking on their ramping up of things in the already war-torn country.
"President Obama is likely to announce in the coming days that he will withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. Many of these soldiers will end up in Afghanistan where the Taliban is getting stronger and the US-backed government weaker by the day. How much has the US learnt from its debacle in Iraq?
One lesson not learnt in Washington is that it is a bad idea to become involved in a war in any so-called "failed state". This patronising term suggests that if a state has failed, foreign intervention is justified and will face limited resistance. But the greatest US foreign policy disasters over the last generation have all been in places where organised government had largely collapsed.
There was Lebanon in 1983, when 242 US marines were blown up in Beirut, Somalia 10 years later, and Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The lesson, which applies to nowhere more than Afghanistan, is that societies with weak state structures devise lethally effective ways of defending themselves.
I remember an Iraqi neurosurgeon, who had just successfully defended his hospital in Baghdad against looters with a Kalashnikov in 2003, saying to me: "The Americans should remember that even Saddam Hussein had difficulty ruling this country." Iraq was never like an east European autocracy. Even under Saddam every Iraqi owned a gun. Iraqis would not fight for Saddam's regime, but they would fight for their own ethnic or sectarian community or their country. An error made by the US was to imagine that just because Shia and Sunni Arabs hated each other that Iraqi nationalism was not a potent force.
This conviction that a victory has already been won is leading American commentators to assume blandly that the US can leave behind 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq without any Iraqi objection. This would also be contrary to the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with enormous difficulty and after prolonged wrangling last year."
Patrick Cockburn, who reports extensively from the Middle East, writing in The Independent, in "Warning to the US: beware treating Afghanistan like Iraq" counsels the US to reflect on what those foreigners who have been in Afghanistan have encountered before embarking on their ramping up of things in the already war-torn country.
"President Obama is likely to announce in the coming days that he will withdraw all US combat troops from Iraq by August 2010. Many of these soldiers will end up in Afghanistan where the Taliban is getting stronger and the US-backed government weaker by the day. How much has the US learnt from its debacle in Iraq?
One lesson not learnt in Washington is that it is a bad idea to become involved in a war in any so-called "failed state". This patronising term suggests that if a state has failed, foreign intervention is justified and will face limited resistance. But the greatest US foreign policy disasters over the last generation have all been in places where organised government had largely collapsed.
There was Lebanon in 1983, when 242 US marines were blown up in Beirut, Somalia 10 years later, and Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. The lesson, which applies to nowhere more than Afghanistan, is that societies with weak state structures devise lethally effective ways of defending themselves.
I remember an Iraqi neurosurgeon, who had just successfully defended his hospital in Baghdad against looters with a Kalashnikov in 2003, saying to me: "The Americans should remember that even Saddam Hussein had difficulty ruling this country." Iraq was never like an east European autocracy. Even under Saddam every Iraqi owned a gun. Iraqis would not fight for Saddam's regime, but they would fight for their own ethnic or sectarian community or their country. An error made by the US was to imagine that just because Shia and Sunni Arabs hated each other that Iraqi nationalism was not a potent force.
This conviction that a victory has already been won is leading American commentators to assume blandly that the US can leave behind 50,000 non-combat troops in Iraq without any Iraqi objection. This would also be contrary to the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated with enormous difficulty and after prolonged wrangling last year."
China's human rights "worsening"
Last year was the year of the Olympics in China. An impression was abroad that human rights had eased. Not so, says the USA. In fact, it's worsening!
BBC News reports:
"China's human rights record worsened in some areas in 2008, the US state department concluded in its annual report on rights around the world.
The report accused China of harassing dissidents and increasing its repression of ethnic minorities.
It came a week after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on a trip to China that co-operation should take precedence over tensions".
BBC News reports:
"China's human rights record worsened in some areas in 2008, the US state department concluded in its annual report on rights around the world.
The report accused China of harassing dissidents and increasing its repression of ethnic minorities.
It came a week after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on a trip to China that co-operation should take precedence over tensions".
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Slow Death of Handwriting
Like so many things in this 21st century, handwriting as we know it, is going the way of the Dodo.
BBC News reports about writing being on the wall for handwriting:
"Christmas cards, shopping lists and what else? The occasions in which we write by hand are fewer and fewer, says Neil Hallows. So is the ancient art form of handwriting dying out?
A century from now, our handwriting may only be legible to experts.
For some, that is already the case. But writer Kitty Burns Florey says the art of handwriting is declining so fast that ordinary, joined-up script may become as hard to read as a medieval manuscript.
"When your great-great-grandchildren find that letter of yours in the attic, they'll have to take it to a specialist, an old guy at the library who would decipher the strange symbols for them," says Ms Florey, author of the newly-published Script and Scribble: The Rise and Fall of Handwriting.
She argues that children - if not this generation then one soon to come - may grow up using only a crude form of printing for the rare occasions in life they need to communicate by pen."
BBC News reports about writing being on the wall for handwriting:
"Christmas cards, shopping lists and what else? The occasions in which we write by hand are fewer and fewer, says Neil Hallows. So is the ancient art form of handwriting dying out?
A century from now, our handwriting may only be legible to experts.
For some, that is already the case. But writer Kitty Burns Florey says the art of handwriting is declining so fast that ordinary, joined-up script may become as hard to read as a medieval manuscript.
"When your great-great-grandchildren find that letter of yours in the attic, they'll have to take it to a specialist, an old guy at the library who would decipher the strange symbols for them," says Ms Florey, author of the newly-published Script and Scribble: The Rise and Fall of Handwriting.
She argues that children - if not this generation then one soon to come - may grow up using only a crude form of printing for the rare occasions in life they need to communicate by pen."
Obama frees up Resources....for More War
Norman Solomon is a journalist, historian, and progressive activist. His book "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death" has been adapted into a documentary film of the same name. His most recent book is "Made Love, Got War." He has written a piece for CommonDreams.org "Freeing Up Resources... for More War".
His prediction of where President Obama is headed - and what that means for the American people and the rest of the world - warrants reading.
"Hours after President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress, the New York Times printed the news that he plans to gradually withdraw "American combat forces" from Iraq during the next 18 months. The newspaper reported that the advantages of the pullout will include "relieving the strain on the armed forces and freeing up resources for Afghanistan."
The president's speech had little to say about the plans for escalation, but the few words will come back to haunt: "With our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al Qaida and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."
Obama didn't mention the additional number of U.S. troops -- 17,000 -- that he has just ordered to Afghanistan. But his pledge that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people" and his ringing declaration, "We will not allow it," came just before this statement: "As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy."
Get the message? In his first speech to Congress, the new president threw down a 90-month-old gauntlet, reaffirming the notion that committing to war halfway around the world -- in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too -- will make Americans safer. With drumrolls like that, the mission could outlive all of us.
And so, a colossal and fateful blunder, made by a very smart leader, arguably our best and brightest, is careening forward with the help of silence that defers all too readily to power. This is how the war in Vietnam escalated, while individuals and groups muted their voices. Many people will pay with their lives.
The reasons why the war in Afghanistan cannot be won are directly connected to why the war is wrong. In essence, people do not like their country occupied for years on end, especially when the occupiers are routinely killing civilians (whatever the rationale). Monochrome words like Taliban and "terrorists" might seem tidy and clear enough as they appear in media coverage, or as they roll off a president's tongue, but in the real Afghan world the opponents of the U.S. war are diverse and wide-ranging. With every missile strike that incinerates a household or terrorizes a village, the truly implacable "extremists" can rejoice at Uncle Sam's assistance to their recruiting efforts.
Those who are fond of talking and writing about President Obama's admirable progressive values will, sooner or later, need to come to terms with the particulars of his actual policies. In foreign affairs, the realities now include the ominous pairing of his anti-terrorism rhetoric and his avowed commitment to ratchet up the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.
I don't often make predictions, but I'm confident about this one: Within a few years, some members of Congress, and leaders of some progressive groups with huge email lists, will look back with regret as they recall their failure to clearly and openly oppose the pivotal escalation of the Afghan war.
They could save themselves a lot of shame, and save others their lives, by speaking out sooner rather than later. In the process, they might help save the Obama presidency from running aground in Afghanistan."
His prediction of where President Obama is headed - and what that means for the American people and the rest of the world - warrants reading.
"Hours after President Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress, the New York Times printed the news that he plans to gradually withdraw "American combat forces" from Iraq during the next 18 months. The newspaper reported that the advantages of the pullout will include "relieving the strain on the armed forces and freeing up resources for Afghanistan."
The president's speech had little to say about the plans for escalation, but the few words will come back to haunt: "With our friends and allies, we will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat Al Qaida and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."
Obama didn't mention the additional number of U.S. troops -- 17,000 -- that he has just ordered to Afghanistan. But his pledge that he "will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people" and his ringing declaration, "We will not allow it," came just before this statement: "As we meet here tonight, our men and women in uniform stand watch abroad and more are readying to deploy."
Get the message? In his first speech to Congress, the new president threw down a 90-month-old gauntlet, reaffirming the notion that committing to war halfway around the world -- in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too -- will make Americans safer. With drumrolls like that, the mission could outlive all of us.
And so, a colossal and fateful blunder, made by a very smart leader, arguably our best and brightest, is careening forward with the help of silence that defers all too readily to power. This is how the war in Vietnam escalated, while individuals and groups muted their voices. Many people will pay with their lives.
The reasons why the war in Afghanistan cannot be won are directly connected to why the war is wrong. In essence, people do not like their country occupied for years on end, especially when the occupiers are routinely killing civilians (whatever the rationale). Monochrome words like Taliban and "terrorists" might seem tidy and clear enough as they appear in media coverage, or as they roll off a president's tongue, but in the real Afghan world the opponents of the U.S. war are diverse and wide-ranging. With every missile strike that incinerates a household or terrorizes a village, the truly implacable "extremists" can rejoice at Uncle Sam's assistance to their recruiting efforts.
Those who are fond of talking and writing about President Obama's admirable progressive values will, sooner or later, need to come to terms with the particulars of his actual policies. In foreign affairs, the realities now include the ominous pairing of his anti-terrorism rhetoric and his avowed commitment to ratchet up the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.
I don't often make predictions, but I'm confident about this one: Within a few years, some members of Congress, and leaders of some progressive groups with huge email lists, will look back with regret as they recall their failure to clearly and openly oppose the pivotal escalation of the Afghan war.
They could save themselves a lot of shame, and save others their lives, by speaking out sooner rather than later. In the process, they might help save the Obama presidency from running aground in Afghanistan."
Gaza: Closed down yet again
The Israelis know no bounds, let alone any sense of decency, in their treatment of the people of Gaza. The place is once again effectively closed down - by the Israelis. How anything for use in rebuilding the devastated territory is to get into there is a question posed by Ann Wright in a piece "Can Gaza Be Rebuilt Through Tunnels?" on truthout.org:
"How do you rebuild 5,000 homes, businesses and government buildings when the only way supplies come into the prison called Gaza is through tunnels? Will the steel I-beams for roofs bend 90 degrees to go through the tunnels from Egypt? Will the tons of cement, lumber, roofing materials, nails, dry wall and paint be hauled by hand, load after load, 70 feet underground, through a tunnel 500 to 900 feet long and then be pulled up a 70-foot hole and put into a waiting truck in Gaza?
The gates to Gaza slammed shut again on Thursday, February 5, the day our three-person group departed Gaza, having been allowed in for only 48 hours. The Egyptian government closed the border crossing into Gaza, continuing the sixteen-month international blockade and siege. The crossing had been briefly open to allow medical and humanitarian supplies into Gaza following the devastating 22-day attack by the Israeli military. The attacks killed 1,330 Palestinians and injured over 5,500. The Israeli government said the attacks were to punish Hamas and other groups for firing unguided rockets into Israeli, rockets that over the past two years have killed about 25 Israelis. Most international observers have called the Israeli response to the rocket attacks disproportionate and collective punishment, elements of war crimes.
Today, seventeen days after the gates swung closed on Gaza, they remain firmly locked. Cease-fire talks in Cairo between the Israeli government and Hamas are stalled. Opening the border with Egypt is a contentious point in the cease-fire negotiations."
"How do you rebuild 5,000 homes, businesses and government buildings when the only way supplies come into the prison called Gaza is through tunnels? Will the steel I-beams for roofs bend 90 degrees to go through the tunnels from Egypt? Will the tons of cement, lumber, roofing materials, nails, dry wall and paint be hauled by hand, load after load, 70 feet underground, through a tunnel 500 to 900 feet long and then be pulled up a 70-foot hole and put into a waiting truck in Gaza?
The gates to Gaza slammed shut again on Thursday, February 5, the day our three-person group departed Gaza, having been allowed in for only 48 hours. The Egyptian government closed the border crossing into Gaza, continuing the sixteen-month international blockade and siege. The crossing had been briefly open to allow medical and humanitarian supplies into Gaza following the devastating 22-day attack by the Israeli military. The attacks killed 1,330 Palestinians and injured over 5,500. The Israeli government said the attacks were to punish Hamas and other groups for firing unguided rockets into Israeli, rockets that over the past two years have killed about 25 Israelis. Most international observers have called the Israeli response to the rocket attacks disproportionate and collective punishment, elements of war crimes.
Today, seventeen days after the gates swung closed on Gaza, they remain firmly locked. Cease-fire talks in Cairo between the Israeli government and Hamas are stalled. Opening the border with Egypt is a contentious point in the cease-fire negotiations."
Sri Lanka: Committing War Crimes says HRW
Why is that the world, when it suits it, turns a blind eye to what are almost clearly war crimes? Israel is a constant offender - not that one would think the world is doing anything about it. The latest offender, and for some time now, is Sri Lanka - as Human Rights Watch has alleged.
Countercurrents. org reports:
"A report released last Friday by the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has provided a glimpse into the criminal character of the Sri Lankan government's war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Entitled "End ‘War' on Civilians," it calls on the government to "immediately cease its indiscriminate artillery attacks on civilians in the northern Wanni region and its policy of detaining displaced persons in internment camps".
The HRW is no friend of the LTTE. The report criticises the LTTE's failure to allow civilians to leave its small remaining territory and its shooting at those who try. It also calls on the LTTE to stop placing its fighters near population centres. "With each battlefield defeat, the Tamil Tigers appear to be treating Tamil civilians with increased brutality," James Ross, HRW legal and policy director, said in a press release.
These allegations are routinely made by the Sri Lankan government to justify its war and repeatedly echoed in the local and international media. What the HRW report does, however, is to undermine the government's own lies, which are rarely challenged in the press. The government and the military have denied all responsibility for civilian casualties and where they have been proven, blamed them on the LTTE."
Continue reading here.
Countercurrents. org reports:
"A report released last Friday by the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has provided a glimpse into the criminal character of the Sri Lankan government's war against the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Entitled "End ‘War' on Civilians," it calls on the government to "immediately cease its indiscriminate artillery attacks on civilians in the northern Wanni region and its policy of detaining displaced persons in internment camps".
The HRW is no friend of the LTTE. The report criticises the LTTE's failure to allow civilians to leave its small remaining territory and its shooting at those who try. It also calls on the LTTE to stop placing its fighters near population centres. "With each battlefield defeat, the Tamil Tigers appear to be treating Tamil civilians with increased brutality," James Ross, HRW legal and policy director, said in a press release.
These allegations are routinely made by the Sri Lankan government to justify its war and repeatedly echoed in the local and international media. What the HRW report does, however, is to undermine the government's own lies, which are rarely challenged in the press. The government and the military have denied all responsibility for civilian casualties and where they have been proven, blamed them on the LTTE."
Continue reading here.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Q & A with Robert Fisk on Gaza and the media
Reporting independently from the front lines of war is an increasingly rare engagement for journalists working for major international media outlets. From Iraq to Afghanistan, reporters are increasingly embedded with Western military forces, operating without independence.
When Israeli military forces launched an invasion into the Gaza Strip, international journalists were barred entry into the territory by the Israeli government for the majority of the conflict, despite a ruling from the Israeli Supreme Court that called on the government to allow international reporters into the territory. Major international media outlets, including CNN and the BBC, ended up reporting from hilltops in Israeli-controlled territory kilometres away from the actual conflict.
British journalist Robert Fisk has offered fiercely independent accounts of conflicts throughout the Middle East for decades. Stationed in Beirut, Lebanon, Fisk reports for the UK-based Independent newspaper and is widely read around the world.
Rabble has a Q & A with Fisk - here.
When Israeli military forces launched an invasion into the Gaza Strip, international journalists were barred entry into the territory by the Israeli government for the majority of the conflict, despite a ruling from the Israeli Supreme Court that called on the government to allow international reporters into the territory. Major international media outlets, including CNN and the BBC, ended up reporting from hilltops in Israeli-controlled territory kilometres away from the actual conflict.
British journalist Robert Fisk has offered fiercely independent accounts of conflicts throughout the Middle East for decades. Stationed in Beirut, Lebanon, Fisk reports for the UK-based Independent newspaper and is widely read around the world.
Rabble has a Q & A with Fisk - here.
Russia's dissidents deserve help.......
Johann Hari, writing in The Independent, makes out a compelling argument for people in the West to help dissidents in Russia:
"The critics of Vladimir Putin – Russia's Prime Minister and former KGB agent – have a strange habit of being found shot or stabbed or poisoned. This week, I met a man who is half-expecting an assassin's bullet – here, in London. He is not alone. Ahmed Zakayev – a big, broad man with a grey beard and grief-soaked eyes – says: "I remember holding a press conference near here with my dear friends Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya. Now they are murdered and I am the only one left. But I have no right to sit in a hole and shake. I have to speak."
Zakayev is a Chechen, and his people have been pounded by Putin and his predecessors for too long. The people of his small mountainous province in the Northern Caucusus – rich in natural resources – are one of the most abused populations on earth. In the 1940s, Joseph Stalin deported every single one of them to Siberia and elsewhere. A third died on the way there; a third died on the way back.
"My grandmother never recovered from this," Zakayev says. When the Soviet Empire finally fell in 1991, the people of Chechnya tried to carve out some autonomy from their vast neighbour – and they were then pummelled into submission by aerial bombardments and ground invasions that killed hundreds of thousands of people. "There were corpses everywhere. I see them [in my mind] all the time," Zakayev adds.
The current killing spree of Russian dissidents is, in part, an attempt to silence criticisms of these crimes. Anna Politkovskaya was a journalist – one of the greatest of our time – who travelled to Chechnya to expose the mass torture and slaughter by Russian troops there. She believed that Chechnya was a test-bed for tyranny that was spreading back across Russia itself, leading to "the re-establishment of the Soviet Union". As if to prove her point, first she was poisoned. She survived. Then she was shot dead in the lift shaft of her apartment block.
Last week, the trial for her killing ended in Moscow. The case conspicuously avoided asking who ordered her killing, or why. It focused on "the middlemen" – the alleged driver and look-out for the assassin. They were acquitted. Nobody will be punished now.
Alexander Litvinenko was a Russian agent sent to Chechnya in the 1990s. He believed he was "fighting terrorism" – but he was startled by what he found. For him, the turning point was when he arrested a 16-year-old "resistance fighter". He told the boy he should be at school. "I want to be," the boy said, "but my school was blown up."
Litvinenko began to speak out against the assault on Chechnya – and had to run for his life, to London, where he became a British citizen. His food was spiked with nuclear material in a restaurant in Central London, and he died in agony, of radiation poisoning. The trail of nuclear material ran quite literally through British Airways planes – back to Moscow.
"The critics of Vladimir Putin – Russia's Prime Minister and former KGB agent – have a strange habit of being found shot or stabbed or poisoned. This week, I met a man who is half-expecting an assassin's bullet – here, in London. He is not alone. Ahmed Zakayev – a big, broad man with a grey beard and grief-soaked eyes – says: "I remember holding a press conference near here with my dear friends Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya. Now they are murdered and I am the only one left. But I have no right to sit in a hole and shake. I have to speak."
Zakayev is a Chechen, and his people have been pounded by Putin and his predecessors for too long. The people of his small mountainous province in the Northern Caucusus – rich in natural resources – are one of the most abused populations on earth. In the 1940s, Joseph Stalin deported every single one of them to Siberia and elsewhere. A third died on the way there; a third died on the way back.
"My grandmother never recovered from this," Zakayev says. When the Soviet Empire finally fell in 1991, the people of Chechnya tried to carve out some autonomy from their vast neighbour – and they were then pummelled into submission by aerial bombardments and ground invasions that killed hundreds of thousands of people. "There were corpses everywhere. I see them [in my mind] all the time," Zakayev adds.
The current killing spree of Russian dissidents is, in part, an attempt to silence criticisms of these crimes. Anna Politkovskaya was a journalist – one of the greatest of our time – who travelled to Chechnya to expose the mass torture and slaughter by Russian troops there. She believed that Chechnya was a test-bed for tyranny that was spreading back across Russia itself, leading to "the re-establishment of the Soviet Union". As if to prove her point, first she was poisoned. She survived. Then she was shot dead in the lift shaft of her apartment block.
Last week, the trial for her killing ended in Moscow. The case conspicuously avoided asking who ordered her killing, or why. It focused on "the middlemen" – the alleged driver and look-out for the assassin. They were acquitted. Nobody will be punished now.
Alexander Litvinenko was a Russian agent sent to Chechnya in the 1990s. He believed he was "fighting terrorism" – but he was startled by what he found. For him, the turning point was when he arrested a 16-year-old "resistance fighter". He told the boy he should be at school. "I want to be," the boy said, "but my school was blown up."
Litvinenko began to speak out against the assault on Chechnya – and had to run for his life, to London, where he became a British citizen. His food was spiked with nuclear material in a restaurant in Central London, and he died in agony, of radiation poisoning. The trail of nuclear material ran quite literally through British Airways planes – back to Moscow.
Authors miss out.....yet again!
As if things weren't bad enough in the publishing industry - with publishing houses slashing staff and cutting down on the books they publish and bookstores, many of them venerable, closing down, this op-ed piece "The Kindle Swindle?" in the NY Times reveals how authors will miss out from the latest Kindle 2:
"Being president of too many well-meaning organizations put my father into an early grave. The lesson in this was not lost on me. But now I am president of the Authors Guild, whose mission is to sustain book-writing as a viable occupation. This borders on quixotic, given all the new ways of not getting paid that new technology affords authors. A case in point: Amazon’s Kindle 2, which was released yesterday.
The Kindle 2 is a portable, wireless, paperback-size device onto which people can download a virtual library of digitalized titles. Amazon sells these downloads, and where the books are under copyright, it pays royalties to the authors and publishers.
Serves readers, pays writers: so far, so good. But there’s another thing about Kindle 2 — its heavily marketed text-to-speech function. Kindle 2 can read books aloud. And Kindle 2 is not paying anyone for audio rights.
True, you can already get software that will read aloud whatever is on your computer. But Kindle 2 is being sold specifically as a new, improved, multimedia version of books — every title is an e-book and an audio book rolled into one. And whereas e-books have yet to win mainstream enthusiasm, audio books are a billion-dollar market, and growing. Audio rights are not generally packaged with e-book rights. They are more valuable than e-book rights. Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat."
"Being president of too many well-meaning organizations put my father into an early grave. The lesson in this was not lost on me. But now I am president of the Authors Guild, whose mission is to sustain book-writing as a viable occupation. This borders on quixotic, given all the new ways of not getting paid that new technology affords authors. A case in point: Amazon’s Kindle 2, which was released yesterday.
The Kindle 2 is a portable, wireless, paperback-size device onto which people can download a virtual library of digitalized titles. Amazon sells these downloads, and where the books are under copyright, it pays royalties to the authors and publishers.
Serves readers, pays writers: so far, so good. But there’s another thing about Kindle 2 — its heavily marketed text-to-speech function. Kindle 2 can read books aloud. And Kindle 2 is not paying anyone for audio rights.
True, you can already get software that will read aloud whatever is on your computer. But Kindle 2 is being sold specifically as a new, improved, multimedia version of books — every title is an e-book and an audio book rolled into one. And whereas e-books have yet to win mainstream enthusiasm, audio books are a billion-dollar market, and growing. Audio rights are not generally packaged with e-book rights. They are more valuable than e-book rights. Income from audio books helps not inconsiderably to keep authors, and publishers, afloat."
The payback for Israel's attack on Gaza
Israel might believe it succeeded in its attack on Gaza, but most pundits and commentators are of the view that Israel, in fact, opened a can of worms.
Tony Karon writing in Time:
"Fatah leaders see the Israeli election as confirming what they already knew: there's nothing to be gained by continuing the charade of U.S.-sponsored talks about talks with the Israelis. Palestinians could not get what they needed from Olmert, and they know that his successors will take even more of a hard line. From the Palestinian perspective, the past eight years of waiting for negotiations with Israel have left Abbas empty-handed, while the latest Gaza conflict has put Hamas in a stronger position than ever in the court of Palestinian public opinion. Despite the violence by Hamas gunmen against Fatah activists in Gaza since the Israeli offensive, many in Fatah view their movement's only hope of re-establishing a leading role in Palestinian politics as being to join a unity government with Hamas — and begin to directly challenge the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. The fact that such a sentiment coincides with Israel's electing a more hawkish government suggests that the Middle East could be in for a long, hot summer."
And:
"Jump-starting an Israeli-Palestinian peace process or simply preventing a further deterioration of the situation will demand a massive effort and new thinking on the part of the Obama Administration. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, progress would require a readiness by Obama to do something no U.S. Administration since that of President George H.W. Bush has done: throw Washington's weight behind positions at odds with those of the Israeli government. And few Palestinians are betting on Obama to turn up the heat on Israel. Instead, they're more likely to try to do so themselves."
Tony Karon writing in Time:
"Fatah leaders see the Israeli election as confirming what they already knew: there's nothing to be gained by continuing the charade of U.S.-sponsored talks about talks with the Israelis. Palestinians could not get what they needed from Olmert, and they know that his successors will take even more of a hard line. From the Palestinian perspective, the past eight years of waiting for negotiations with Israel have left Abbas empty-handed, while the latest Gaza conflict has put Hamas in a stronger position than ever in the court of Palestinian public opinion. Despite the violence by Hamas gunmen against Fatah activists in Gaza since the Israeli offensive, many in Fatah view their movement's only hope of re-establishing a leading role in Palestinian politics as being to join a unity government with Hamas — and begin to directly challenge the Israeli occupation in the West Bank. The fact that such a sentiment coincides with Israel's electing a more hawkish government suggests that the Middle East could be in for a long, hot summer."
And:
"Jump-starting an Israeli-Palestinian peace process or simply preventing a further deterioration of the situation will demand a massive effort and new thinking on the part of the Obama Administration. As far as the Palestinians are concerned, progress would require a readiness by Obama to do something no U.S. Administration since that of President George H.W. Bush has done: throw Washington's weight behind positions at odds with those of the Israeli government. And few Palestinians are betting on Obama to turn up the heat on Israel. Instead, they're more likely to try to do so themselves."
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
How dumb is that!
As we all know, the Israelis unleashed its savage bombing of Gaza [for 22 days] last month - causing untold numbers of deaths and massive physical devastation to the narrow strip of land.
The Bush Administration said or did nothing to halt the Israeli offensive. It is now being suggested that then president-elect Obama also determined not to come out condemning Israel for its actions or even calling for a halt of the savage bombing. Not to be overlooked, of course, is that much of Israel's hardware was supplied by the US in the first place.
So, having seen Gaza effectively pulverised, now we have the US seemingly on the verge of providing a massive aid package of US$900 million - in times of America suffering an economic meltdown- to help re-build Gaza. Is this dumb or what?
The Washington Post reports:
"United States aid for the Gaza Strip's reconstruction will likely top $900 million, an official said, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared to make her first Mideast trip as America's top diplomat.
Israeli and Palestinian officials said Clinton will visit Israel and the West Bank during the first week of March. Clinton said during her trip to Asia last week that she would attend an international donors conference in Egypt on March 2 to discuss reconstruction in Gaza.
She provided no other details, but a U.S. official in the United States said Monday that the Obama administration's donation will be at least $900 million in humanitarian and rebuilding aid to the Palestinian Authority to help Gaza recover from Israel's offensive against Hamas last month.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the donation had not received final approval, said the exact amount was still to be determined.
The official added that the aid would not go to Hamas. The U.S. recognizes the West Bank-based government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and has no formal contacts with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which runs a separate Palestinian administration in the Gaza Strip.
Money often is funneled into Gaza through international organizations such as the United Nations, or through Abbas' government, which deposits it directly into Gazans' bank accounts."
The Bush Administration said or did nothing to halt the Israeli offensive. It is now being suggested that then president-elect Obama also determined not to come out condemning Israel for its actions or even calling for a halt of the savage bombing. Not to be overlooked, of course, is that much of Israel's hardware was supplied by the US in the first place.
So, having seen Gaza effectively pulverised, now we have the US seemingly on the verge of providing a massive aid package of US$900 million - in times of America suffering an economic meltdown- to help re-build Gaza. Is this dumb or what?
The Washington Post reports:
"United States aid for the Gaza Strip's reconstruction will likely top $900 million, an official said, as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton prepared to make her first Mideast trip as America's top diplomat.
Israeli and Palestinian officials said Clinton will visit Israel and the West Bank during the first week of March. Clinton said during her trip to Asia last week that she would attend an international donors conference in Egypt on March 2 to discuss reconstruction in Gaza.
She provided no other details, but a U.S. official in the United States said Monday that the Obama administration's donation will be at least $900 million in humanitarian and rebuilding aid to the Palestinian Authority to help Gaza recover from Israel's offensive against Hamas last month.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the donation had not received final approval, said the exact amount was still to be determined.
The official added that the aid would not go to Hamas. The U.S. recognizes the West Bank-based government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and has no formal contacts with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which runs a separate Palestinian administration in the Gaza Strip.
Money often is funneled into Gaza through international organizations such as the United Nations, or through Abbas' government, which deposits it directly into Gazans' bank accounts."
Listen.....and be shocked!
"It was one of President Barack Obama's first decisions when he came to office: to close the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay within a year.
A British resident who was held at Guantanamo Bay for close to five years has become the first of almost 250 prisoners to be released since the US president announced the closure of the Cuban detention camp last month.
But, as he arrived back in London today, Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed claims he was tortured with the blessing of the US and Britain."
Listen to an interview with the one-time detainee's lawyer on ABC Radio National's Breakfast program - and be shocked at the utter brutality of what Mohamed was subjected to. Bear in mind that during all the years of his renditioning and detention he was never charged with any offence.
Needless to say as what happened to Mohamed gets reported around the world - especially in the Middle East - reflect on how the Americans and Brits will be viewed especially, their pontificating and lecturing Middle East countries about democratic values, justice and the rule of law.
A British resident who was held at Guantanamo Bay for close to five years has become the first of almost 250 prisoners to be released since the US president announced the closure of the Cuban detention camp last month.
But, as he arrived back in London today, Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed claims he was tortured with the blessing of the US and Britain."
Listen to an interview with the one-time detainee's lawyer on ABC Radio National's Breakfast program - and be shocked at the utter brutality of what Mohamed was subjected to. Bear in mind that during all the years of his renditioning and detention he was never charged with any offence.
Needless to say as what happened to Mohamed gets reported around the world - especially in the Middle East - reflect on how the Americans and Brits will be viewed especially, their pontificating and lecturing Middle East countries about democratic values, justice and the rule of law.
Hit 'send,' then hit the door
A sign of the times in more ways than one. The LA Times reports on how email is shaping the "response" to being retrenched:
"It was not the most eloquent subject line for a farewell e-mail to 5,000 co-workers: "So long, suckers! I'm out!"
But Jason Shugars worked at Google, whose off-center corporate culture is more forgiving than that of your average buttoned-down investment bank. In the rest of his goodbye, Shugars, a senior sales compliance specialist, reminisced about workplace moments that included putting cake down his pants at a sales conference, stealing a boss' $8,000 leather couch and singing "Hit Me Baby One More Time" in a miniskirt and braids.
"It took me a long time to write it," said Shugars, 34, who left Google to become director of ad operations for the music streaming website Imeem. "I didn't want to send out a stale 'good working with you, please reach me here' e-mail. Who wants that?"
That's a good question these days, now that thousands of people are finding themselves with pink slips and the need to let colleagues and contacts know they are moving on and -- perhaps more important for job seekers -- how they can be reached.
The farewell e-mail has suddenly become commonplace, a new art form in the electronic age. Yet like so many aspects of the Internet era -- how to unfriend on Facebook, how much to reveal on a personal blog -- the technology has gotten ahead of the etiquette. There are, quite simply, no rules.
Some farewell e-mails, like Shugars', strike a lighthearted, even funny tone. Some are workmanlike and short. Others are poetic or poignant, expressing surprise or regret at the turn of events. A very few -- and these are the ones that get most of the attention -- use the electronic goodbye to blast the boss."
"It was not the most eloquent subject line for a farewell e-mail to 5,000 co-workers: "So long, suckers! I'm out!"
But Jason Shugars worked at Google, whose off-center corporate culture is more forgiving than that of your average buttoned-down investment bank. In the rest of his goodbye, Shugars, a senior sales compliance specialist, reminisced about workplace moments that included putting cake down his pants at a sales conference, stealing a boss' $8,000 leather couch and singing "Hit Me Baby One More Time" in a miniskirt and braids.
"It took me a long time to write it," said Shugars, 34, who left Google to become director of ad operations for the music streaming website Imeem. "I didn't want to send out a stale 'good working with you, please reach me here' e-mail. Who wants that?"
That's a good question these days, now that thousands of people are finding themselves with pink slips and the need to let colleagues and contacts know they are moving on and -- perhaps more important for job seekers -- how they can be reached.
The farewell e-mail has suddenly become commonplace, a new art form in the electronic age. Yet like so many aspects of the Internet era -- how to unfriend on Facebook, how much to reveal on a personal blog -- the technology has gotten ahead of the etiquette. There are, quite simply, no rules.
Some farewell e-mails, like Shugars', strike a lighthearted, even funny tone. Some are workmanlike and short. Others are poetic or poignant, expressing surprise or regret at the turn of events. A very few -- and these are the ones that get most of the attention -- use the electronic goodbye to blast the boss."
Changing the news to prevent a tantrum
Extraordinary, but true! - from Noam Chomsky's book Understanding Power as reported on FAIR [Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting]:
"[A] few years ago George Will wrote a column in Newsweek called "Mideast Truth and Falsehood," about how peace activists are lying about the Middle East, everything they say is a lie. And in the article, there was one statement that had a vague relation to fact: He said that Sadat had refused to deal with Israel until 1977. So I wrote them a letter, the kind of letter you write to Newsweek--you know, four lines--in which I said, "Will has one statement of fact, it's false; Sadat made a peace offer in 1971, and Israel and the United States turned it down." Well, a couple days later I got a call from a research editor who checks facts for the Newsweek "Letters" column. She said: "We're kind of interested in your letter; where did you get those facts?" So I told her, "Well, they're published in Newsweek, on February 8, 1971" --which is true, because it was a big proposal, it just happened to go down the memory hole in the United States because it was the wrong story. So she looked it up and called me back, and said, "Yeah, you're right, we found it there; okay, we'll run your letter." An hour later she called again and said, "Gee, I'm sorry, but we can't run the letter." I said, "What's the problem?" She said, "Well, the editor mentioned it to Will and he's having a tantrum; they decided they can't run it." Well, okay."
"[A] few years ago George Will wrote a column in Newsweek called "Mideast Truth and Falsehood," about how peace activists are lying about the Middle East, everything they say is a lie. And in the article, there was one statement that had a vague relation to fact: He said that Sadat had refused to deal with Israel until 1977. So I wrote them a letter, the kind of letter you write to Newsweek--you know, four lines--in which I said, "Will has one statement of fact, it's false; Sadat made a peace offer in 1971, and Israel and the United States turned it down." Well, a couple days later I got a call from a research editor who checks facts for the Newsweek "Letters" column. She said: "We're kind of interested in your letter; where did you get those facts?" So I told her, "Well, they're published in Newsweek, on February 8, 1971" --which is true, because it was a big proposal, it just happened to go down the memory hole in the United States because it was the wrong story. So she looked it up and called me back, and said, "Yeah, you're right, we found it there; okay, we'll run your letter." An hour later she called again and said, "Gee, I'm sorry, but we can't run the letter." I said, "What's the problem?" She said, "Well, the editor mentioned it to Will and he's having a tantrum; they decided they can't run it." Well, okay."
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Murdoch and his Press Up to Their Old Racist Tricks
To think that the Sun King, Rupert Murdoch, is courted and entertained by various leaders around the world........for the man, and his media empire, can be shown to be racist and prejudiced in so much that is written and aired. And that doesn't take into account skewing the news!
This from AlterNet:
"Much has been said and written about the NY Post's racist cartoon that likened President Obama to a slain monkey, and rightly so. Jack and Jill Politics blogger Baratunde Thurston posted a must-read article about the connection between Blacks and apes, citing Dr. Phillip Atiba Goff's thoughts on how this cognitive association leads to increased racially motivated violence in our society. (Thurston and Young Turks host Cenk Uygur are holding an ongoing YouTube conversation on the issues of race surrounding this cartoon.) Open Left's Paul Rosenberg has a good piece breaking down "colorblind racism." And Earl Ofari Hutchinson took Rupert Murdoch and New York Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan to task for the Post's pathetic attempt at an "apology."
But what hasn't been discussed nearly enough is that this is the same type of racially loaded trash we've seen from News Corp time and time again. The Post has a long history of publishing racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic cartoons, and that's just from the cartoonist who penned last week's gem. Then there's Murdoch's other right-wing mouthpiece, Fox News. It's hard to know where to begin describing the prejudice we've seen from Fox over the last few years, but for a sampler, check out Fox Attacks Obama, Fox Attacks Obama 2, Fox Attacks Michelle Obama, and Fox Attacks Black America."
Continue reading here.
This from AlterNet:
"Much has been said and written about the NY Post's racist cartoon that likened President Obama to a slain monkey, and rightly so. Jack and Jill Politics blogger Baratunde Thurston posted a must-read article about the connection between Blacks and apes, citing Dr. Phillip Atiba Goff's thoughts on how this cognitive association leads to increased racially motivated violence in our society. (Thurston and Young Turks host Cenk Uygur are holding an ongoing YouTube conversation on the issues of race surrounding this cartoon.) Open Left's Paul Rosenberg has a good piece breaking down "colorblind racism." And Earl Ofari Hutchinson took Rupert Murdoch and New York Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan to task for the Post's pathetic attempt at an "apology."
But what hasn't been discussed nearly enough is that this is the same type of racially loaded trash we've seen from News Corp time and time again. The Post has a long history of publishing racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic cartoons, and that's just from the cartoonist who penned last week's gem. Then there's Murdoch's other right-wing mouthpiece, Fox News. It's hard to know where to begin describing the prejudice we've seen from Fox over the last few years, but for a sampler, check out Fox Attacks Obama, Fox Attacks Obama 2, Fox Attacks Michelle Obama, and Fox Attacks Black America."
Continue reading here.
A depressing saga of secrets, lies and medieval horrors
The above headline to an op-ed piece in The Independent has this by-line:
"The US and UK pay others to do what Saddam used to do to his jailed adversaries".
In a heard-hitting piece, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown takes the Brits, and especially their Foreign Minister, to task for not standing up to the US in being an accomplice in the torture of prisoners and the renditioning process:
"This is Britain’s position on torture: we ratified the UN Convention against it in 1988 and we then passed an Act of Parliament giving authority to the investigation and prosecution of torturers no matter where they cowered. But impressive as all this sounds, how precisely has it helped Binyam Mohamed?
Today, God willing, he will arrive back from Guantanamo Bay, the sunny Caribbean resort funded hitherto by the generous USA for the Mad Men of Islam who, we have been told for years, are the biggest danger to world peace. Mohamed’s doctors have found serious bruising, organ damage, acute injuries and emotional and psychological collapse.
His lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith said: “What Binyam has been through should have been left behind in the Middle Ages.” His client is also suffering from malnutrition and stomach problems – which must be the result of a long hunger-strike, a silent protest which might have killed and released him. And our government is suffering from the discomfort of having to justify the immorality of the actions and that keep the global torture industry robust. Mohamed will not be received at the airport by a contrite Foreign Secretary, who has long obfuscated and denied any responsibility for all the bad stuff – unseen and unheard – that goes on around the world, ostensibly to combat Islamicist terrorism.
Recently Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said the UK Government had been forced by the US to suppress information on this case, a claim breezily rejected by the Foreign Secretary, an accomplished operator.
Yet the case against the government grows. I find that deeply depressing. For the two talented Milibands are, in other ways, good men whose father Ralph, a Polish-Jewish exile, was a left-wing academic with a consuming sense of justice. An opponent of the US Vietnam war, he condemned the “catalogue of horrors” perpetrated by the US “in the name of an enormous lie”.
"The US and UK pay others to do what Saddam used to do to his jailed adversaries".
In a heard-hitting piece, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown takes the Brits, and especially their Foreign Minister, to task for not standing up to the US in being an accomplice in the torture of prisoners and the renditioning process:
"This is Britain’s position on torture: we ratified the UN Convention against it in 1988 and we then passed an Act of Parliament giving authority to the investigation and prosecution of torturers no matter where they cowered. But impressive as all this sounds, how precisely has it helped Binyam Mohamed?
Today, God willing, he will arrive back from Guantanamo Bay, the sunny Caribbean resort funded hitherto by the generous USA for the Mad Men of Islam who, we have been told for years, are the biggest danger to world peace. Mohamed’s doctors have found serious bruising, organ damage, acute injuries and emotional and psychological collapse.
His lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith said: “What Binyam has been through should have been left behind in the Middle Ages.” His client is also suffering from malnutrition and stomach problems – which must be the result of a long hunger-strike, a silent protest which might have killed and released him. And our government is suffering from the discomfort of having to justify the immorality of the actions and that keep the global torture industry robust. Mohamed will not be received at the airport by a contrite Foreign Secretary, who has long obfuscated and denied any responsibility for all the bad stuff – unseen and unheard – that goes on around the world, ostensibly to combat Islamicist terrorism.
Recently Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said the UK Government had been forced by the US to suppress information on this case, a claim breezily rejected by the Foreign Secretary, an accomplished operator.
Yet the case against the government grows. I find that deeply depressing. For the two talented Milibands are, in other ways, good men whose father Ralph, a Polish-Jewish exile, was a left-wing academic with a consuming sense of justice. An opponent of the US Vietnam war, he condemned the “catalogue of horrors” perpetrated by the US “in the name of an enormous lie”.
Suspend military aid to Israel, Amnesty urges Obama after detailing US weapons used in Gaza
A self-explanatory piece from The Guardian:
"Detailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
The human rights group said that those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".
The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current 10-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration the US will provide $30bn (£21bn) in military aid to Israel.
"As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa programme director. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money."
For their part, Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with "unsophisticated weapons" including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China and bought from "clandestine sources", it said. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed and more than 4,000 injured during the three-week conflict. On the Israeli side 13 were killed, including three civilians. Amnesty said Israel's armed forces carried out "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate". The Israeli military declined to comment yesterday.
Palestinian militants also fired "indiscriminate rockets" at civilians, Amnesty said. It called for an independent investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides."
"Detailed evidence has emerged of Israel's extensive use of US-made weaponry during its war in Gaza last month, including white phosphorus artillery shells, 500lb bombs and Hellfire missiles.
In a report released today, Amnesty International detailed the weapons used and called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel and all Palestinian armed groups. It called on the Obama administration to suspend military aid to Israel.
The human rights group said that those arming both sides in the conflict "will have been well aware of a pattern of repeated misuse of weapons by both parties and must therefore take responsibility for the violations perpetrated".
The US has long been the largest arms supplier to Israel; under a current 10-year agreement negotiated by the Bush administration the US will provide $30bn (£21bn) in military aid to Israel.
"As the major supplier of weapons to Israel, the USA has a particular obligation to stop any supply that contributes to gross violations of the laws of war and of human rights," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty's Middle East and North Africa programme director. "To a large extent, Israel's military offensive in Gaza was carried out with weapons, munitions and military equipment supplied by the USA and paid for with US taxpayers' money."
For their part, Palestinian militants in Gaza were arming themselves with "unsophisticated weapons" including rockets made in Russia, Iran and China and bought from "clandestine sources", it said. About 1,300 Palestinians were killed and more than 4,000 injured during the three-week conflict. On the Israeli side 13 were killed, including three civilians. Amnesty said Israel's armed forces carried out "direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects in Gaza, and attacks which were disproportionate or indiscriminate". The Israeli military declined to comment yesterday.
Palestinian militants also fired "indiscriminate rockets" at civilians, Amnesty said. It called for an independent investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides."
Slumdogs Millionaire - From another perspective......
The movie "Slumdog Millionaire" has, as predicted, swept all before it in the annual Oscar awards today. Whether the movie warrants such accolades is a moot point - but, as was suggested, the Academy was likely to favour a good-feel movie in these economically-pressed times.
“Slumdog Millionaire” is a hit across the world, but in India, protesters have taken to the streets to attack the film.
Some Indians find the word “slumdog” in the movie’s title to be insulting to slum-dwellers. More generally, the rags-to-riches romance has been called “poverty porn” for the way it casts a glowing light on a very poor section of Mumbai society and promotes “slum tourism.”
The NY Times has asked some experts to write on why there are protests about the movie - here.
“Slumdog Millionaire” is a hit across the world, but in India, protesters have taken to the streets to attack the film.
Some Indians find the word “slumdog” in the movie’s title to be insulting to slum-dwellers. More generally, the rags-to-riches romance has been called “poverty porn” for the way it casts a glowing light on a very poor section of Mumbai society and promotes “slum tourism.”
The NY Times has asked some experts to write on why there are protests about the movie - here.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Diary - of a one-time editor
An all too familiar story of being retrenched.......but this diary - as published in the London Review of Books - ought to give pause for concern to all those who read and value books. Sad fact is that publishing is doing it tough and publishing houses are going through staff like there isn't going to be a tomorrow.
"I’d hardly settled behind my desk when one of my bosses asked if I would join her in the corner office. ‘Please close the door,’ she said as I entered the room. Seldom a good sign. ‘Why don’t you take the comfortable chair?’ Oh dear.
Three hours later I was back at home, jobless. I’d seen it coming, in a let’s-not-dwell-on-that-for-too-long sort of way: I was the most recently hired editor at the imprint, one of its more highly paid staff members, and my list, though filled with erudite, well-written books, was not the most profitable. If anyone was for the chop, it was likely to be me. And the possibility of staff cuts seemed far from remote. The share price of the corporation I worked for had fallen more than 80 per cent in the previous 18 months. The CEO of Barnes and Noble, the largest bookstore chain in the US, had just announced that ‘never in all my years as a bookseller have I seen a retail climate as poor as the one we are in, nothing even close.’
My boss ended our meeting with a reflection on the state of book publishing today. She said that two words sprung to mind: General Motors. She then accompanied me past the newly installed poinsettia display to Human Resources on the 11th floor. When I asked whether he was having a busy morning, the HR director told me that, yes, a number of other people were being ‘impacted’. It subsequently emerged that there were 35 of us. Elsewhere, as the online news daily Publishers Lunch reported, there were extensive layoffs at Houghton Mifflin and Thomas Nelson, as well as a pay freeze at Penguin for anyone earning more than $60,000 a year and deferred pay increases at HarperCollins. Random House announced a major reorganisation following the resignation of the heads of two of its largest groups. All of this happened on 3 December, which soon became known as New York publishing’s Black Wednesday."
"I’d hardly settled behind my desk when one of my bosses asked if I would join her in the corner office. ‘Please close the door,’ she said as I entered the room. Seldom a good sign. ‘Why don’t you take the comfortable chair?’ Oh dear.
Three hours later I was back at home, jobless. I’d seen it coming, in a let’s-not-dwell-on-that-for-too-long sort of way: I was the most recently hired editor at the imprint, one of its more highly paid staff members, and my list, though filled with erudite, well-written books, was not the most profitable. If anyone was for the chop, it was likely to be me. And the possibility of staff cuts seemed far from remote. The share price of the corporation I worked for had fallen more than 80 per cent in the previous 18 months. The CEO of Barnes and Noble, the largest bookstore chain in the US, had just announced that ‘never in all my years as a bookseller have I seen a retail climate as poor as the one we are in, nothing even close.’
My boss ended our meeting with a reflection on the state of book publishing today. She said that two words sprung to mind: General Motors. She then accompanied me past the newly installed poinsettia display to Human Resources on the 11th floor. When I asked whether he was having a busy morning, the HR director told me that, yes, a number of other people were being ‘impacted’. It subsequently emerged that there were 35 of us. Elsewhere, as the online news daily Publishers Lunch reported, there were extensive layoffs at Houghton Mifflin and Thomas Nelson, as well as a pay freeze at Penguin for anyone earning more than $60,000 a year and deferred pay increases at HarperCollins. Random House announced a major reorganisation following the resignation of the heads of two of its largest groups. All of this happened on 3 December, which soon became known as New York publishing’s Black Wednesday."
Cambodia's empty dock
There are many who dislike John Pilger - author, journalist, film-maker and commentator - but no one can accuse him of not going where others won't. He certainly serves as one pricking consciences where he, rightly, uncovers or challenges injustices.
In his latest writing - for The Guardian in "Cambodia's empty dock" he says that international justice is a farce while those in the west who sided with Pol Pot's murders escape trial.
"It is highly unlikely Pot Pot would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral Cambodia. In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia's heartland than were dropped on Japan during the second world war: equivalent to five Hiroshimas. Files reveal that the CIA was in little doubt of the effect. "[The Khmer Rouge] are using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda," reported the director of operations on May 2, 1973. "This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men [and] has been effective with refugees."
In his latest writing - for The Guardian in "Cambodia's empty dock" he says that international justice is a farce while those in the west who sided with Pol Pot's murders escape trial.
"It is highly unlikely Pot Pot would have come to power had President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, not attacked neutral Cambodia. In 1973, B-52s dropped more bombs on Cambodia's heartland than were dropped on Japan during the second world war: equivalent to five Hiroshimas. Files reveal that the CIA was in little doubt of the effect. "[The Khmer Rouge] are using damage caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda," reported the director of operations on May 2, 1973. "This approach has resulted in the successful recruitment of a number of young men [and] has been effective with refugees."
Not a good prognosis....
With Israeli President Peres having called on Bibi Netanyahu to form a Government the prognosis for any settlement of the Israel-Palestinian issue becomes even more remote. But, then, as this piece from BERNARD AVISHAI DOT COM would suggest is Nethanyahu only following on from what has been Israeli policy almost from its establishment?
"Can't you understand simple arithmetic? Why, the very point of [our] program is to have as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible!"
Avigdor Lieberman in 2009? Actually, Yitzhak Navon, Labor leader, and former president of the state, at an election rally in Yoqneam in 1984.
My point is that there is a bigger crisis here than the emergence of a "neo-fascist," as Marty Peretz called Lieberman (or shall we say even Marty Peretz, as Fareed Zacharia implied). There is the question of what national unity means, or at least how it plays. By 1984, the great danger to Israeli democracy was allegedly Meir Kahane, the caustic, menacing, ultra du jour. But his power stemmed, much like Lieberman's today, from his saying bluntly what a generation of leaders before him had fudged politely.
That Israel is for Jews, and let's not be too fine about what Jewish means. That "Jewish and democratic" means doing what we've done to privilege "Zionism"--exclude non-Jews from "nationalized" land, empower (or pander to) orthodox rabbis, root identity, even citizenship, in bloodlines, sacralize Jerusalem--and continue doing so as long as there are more of us than them. That Israel's fate is to hit regularly at Palestinian insurgents and other enemies--"mow the lawn," in the words of an Israeli intelligence officer I know--and that so long as we are not at peace, we might as well cultivate national unity by supporting, or just overlooking, West Bank settlements, whose leaders are custodians of classical Zionism's heroic spirit."
"Can't you understand simple arithmetic? Why, the very point of [our] program is to have as much land as possible and as few Arabs as possible!"
Avigdor Lieberman in 2009? Actually, Yitzhak Navon, Labor leader, and former president of the state, at an election rally in Yoqneam in 1984.
My point is that there is a bigger crisis here than the emergence of a "neo-fascist," as Marty Peretz called Lieberman (or shall we say even Marty Peretz, as Fareed Zacharia implied). There is the question of what national unity means, or at least how it plays. By 1984, the great danger to Israeli democracy was allegedly Meir Kahane, the caustic, menacing, ultra du jour. But his power stemmed, much like Lieberman's today, from his saying bluntly what a generation of leaders before him had fudged politely.
That Israel is for Jews, and let's not be too fine about what Jewish means. That "Jewish and democratic" means doing what we've done to privilege "Zionism"--exclude non-Jews from "nationalized" land, empower (or pander to) orthodox rabbis, root identity, even citizenship, in bloodlines, sacralize Jerusalem--and continue doing so as long as there are more of us than them. That Israel's fate is to hit regularly at Palestinian insurgents and other enemies--"mow the lawn," in the words of an Israeli intelligence officer I know--and that so long as we are not at peace, we might as well cultivate national unity by supporting, or just overlooking, West Bank settlements, whose leaders are custodians of classical Zionism's heroic spirit."
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Pakistan: Ally or foe in War on Terror
It's increasingly becoming a vexed question. Is Pakistan, so much heralded as an ally of the West, especially in the so-called war on terror, really so?
ABC Radio National's program, Correspondent's Report, would suggest not:
"ELIZABETH JACKSON: The Western world likes to claim that Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror, but is it? If tomorrow night's 4 Corners programme is any indication, then the answer is not for much longer.
The Taliban has been systematically and brutally working its way through Pakistan.
4 Corners reporter Matt Carney has spent many years in the Middle East for many years and through a Pakistani journalist he was able to gain unprecedented access to the north west of Pakistan and the Taliban.
His story will be featured on 4 Corners tomorrow. I spoke to Matt Carney a short time ago and asked him how bad things were in Pakistan.
MATT CARNEY: You look at Pakistan and probably maybe a quarter of the country now is under the Taliban influence.
You have the Taliban who control the tribal areas, which are known as the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). And in the North West territory, which is very close to the capital and the key cities in the North West.
They control large chunks of those areas and on top of that they've sort of busted out of their mountain strongholds into the big cities and particular places like Karachi, which are huge cities and they have good footholds in there.
So, they're literally infiltrated every part of that country.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So, you started in Peshawar; what was that like? Can you paint the picture for us?
MATT CARNEY: Peshawar these days is a very dangerous place; kidnap for ransom is a real and present threat. They had at least 140 official kidnaps last year.
So, you don't want to be there for long as a foreigner because you're a high value target. So, you literally adopt all the strategies of war reporting - you decrease your visibility, you only film interiors and you get out as quickly as you can, you don't stay around.
People are generally traumatised because they don't know when the next attack is coming, the next suicide bombers. The Taliban have infiltrated the city and according to some people, and with good reason, the city itself is teetering, you know, and the Taliban are more at the gates of that city, they're inside, and they're destabilising and perched to take control there."
Continue reading here - and watch the program "live" tomorrow night or on line at the ABC's web site.
ABC Radio National's program, Correspondent's Report, would suggest not:
"ELIZABETH JACKSON: The Western world likes to claim that Pakistan is an ally in the War on Terror, but is it? If tomorrow night's 4 Corners programme is any indication, then the answer is not for much longer.
The Taliban has been systematically and brutally working its way through Pakistan.
4 Corners reporter Matt Carney has spent many years in the Middle East for many years and through a Pakistani journalist he was able to gain unprecedented access to the north west of Pakistan and the Taliban.
His story will be featured on 4 Corners tomorrow. I spoke to Matt Carney a short time ago and asked him how bad things were in Pakistan.
MATT CARNEY: You look at Pakistan and probably maybe a quarter of the country now is under the Taliban influence.
You have the Taliban who control the tribal areas, which are known as the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). And in the North West territory, which is very close to the capital and the key cities in the North West.
They control large chunks of those areas and on top of that they've sort of busted out of their mountain strongholds into the big cities and particular places like Karachi, which are huge cities and they have good footholds in there.
So, they're literally infiltrated every part of that country.
ELIZABETH JACKSON: So, you started in Peshawar; what was that like? Can you paint the picture for us?
MATT CARNEY: Peshawar these days is a very dangerous place; kidnap for ransom is a real and present threat. They had at least 140 official kidnaps last year.
So, you don't want to be there for long as a foreigner because you're a high value target. So, you literally adopt all the strategies of war reporting - you decrease your visibility, you only film interiors and you get out as quickly as you can, you don't stay around.
People are generally traumatised because they don't know when the next attack is coming, the next suicide bombers. The Taliban have infiltrated the city and according to some people, and with good reason, the city itself is teetering, you know, and the Taliban are more at the gates of that city, they're inside, and they're destabilising and perched to take control there."
Continue reading here - and watch the program "live" tomorrow night or on line at the ABC's web site.
When will it all end?
Listen to the news or read the press and the economic news - be it job-losses, downturns in the market or company profits going through the floor - can only be described as dire and despairing.
A critical question being asked is when will it all end given governments around the world trying this or that to stimulate economies or perhaps just keep things in a holding-pattern. Bottom line no one seems to know or have any definitive answers.
Nobel prize winner [for economics] Paul Krugman, who writes for the NY Times and IHT, tries to put things into some context and to address the critical question "What will end the pain?"
"Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve released the minutes of the most recent meeting of its open market committee - the group that sets interest rates. Most press reports focused either on the Fed's downgrade of the near-term outlook or on its adoption of a long-run 2 percent inflation target.
But my eye was caught by the following chilling passage (Yes, things are so bad that the summarized musings of central bankers can keep you up at night): "All participants anticipated that unemployment would remain substantially above its longer-run sustainable rate at the end of 2011, even absent further economic shocks; a few indicated that more than five to six years would be needed for the economy to converge to a longer-run path characterized by sustainable rates of output growth and unemployment and by an appropriate rate of inflation."
So people at the Fed are troubled by the same question I've been obsessing on lately: What's supposed to end this slump? No doubt this, too, shall pass - but how, and when?
To appreciate the problem, you need to know that this isn't your father's recession. It's your grandfather's, or maybe even (as I'll explain) your great-great-grandfather's.
Your father's recession was something like the severe downturn of 1981-1982. That recession was, in effect, a deliberate creation of the Federal Reserve, which raised interest rates to as much as 17 percent in an effort to control runaway inflation. Once the Fed decided that we had suffered enough, it relented, and the economy quickly bounced back.
Your grandfather's recession, on the other hand, was something like the Great Depression, which happened in spite of the Fed's efforts, not because of them. When a stock market bubble and a credit boom collapsed, bringing down much of the banking system with them, the Fed tried to revive the economy with low interest rates - but even rates barely above zero weren't low enough to end a prolonged era of high unemployment."
A critical question being asked is when will it all end given governments around the world trying this or that to stimulate economies or perhaps just keep things in a holding-pattern. Bottom line no one seems to know or have any definitive answers.
Nobel prize winner [for economics] Paul Krugman, who writes for the NY Times and IHT, tries to put things into some context and to address the critical question "What will end the pain?"
"Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve released the minutes of the most recent meeting of its open market committee - the group that sets interest rates. Most press reports focused either on the Fed's downgrade of the near-term outlook or on its adoption of a long-run 2 percent inflation target.
But my eye was caught by the following chilling passage (Yes, things are so bad that the summarized musings of central bankers can keep you up at night): "All participants anticipated that unemployment would remain substantially above its longer-run sustainable rate at the end of 2011, even absent further economic shocks; a few indicated that more than five to six years would be needed for the economy to converge to a longer-run path characterized by sustainable rates of output growth and unemployment and by an appropriate rate of inflation."
So people at the Fed are troubled by the same question I've been obsessing on lately: What's supposed to end this slump? No doubt this, too, shall pass - but how, and when?
To appreciate the problem, you need to know that this isn't your father's recession. It's your grandfather's, or maybe even (as I'll explain) your great-great-grandfather's.
Your father's recession was something like the severe downturn of 1981-1982. That recession was, in effect, a deliberate creation of the Federal Reserve, which raised interest rates to as much as 17 percent in an effort to control runaway inflation. Once the Fed decided that we had suffered enough, it relented, and the economy quickly bounced back.
Your grandfather's recession, on the other hand, was something like the Great Depression, which happened in spite of the Fed's efforts, not because of them. When a stock market bubble and a credit boom collapsed, bringing down much of the banking system with them, the Fed tried to revive the economy with low interest rates - but even rates barely above zero weren't low enough to end a prolonged era of high unemployment."
An evaporating two-State solution
For those who follow politics in the Middle East talk of some two-State solution seems ever-more impossible to realise. If nothing else practicalities on the ground suggest that it simply could not be achieved. What, move or re-settle perhaps some 400,000 settlers now occupying the West Bank. And then there is Gaza? What to do there?
Dissident Voice in a piece "Fearing a One-State Solution, Israel’s President Serves Pabulum to Washington" claims that President Peres sees the two-State solution evaporating:
"Whatever will happen in the future, we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in leaving Gaza.
– Shimon Peres to members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations 2/18/09
You take my water. Burn my Olive Trees. Destroy my house. Take my job. Steal my Land. Imprison my Mother. Bomb my country. Starve us all. Humiliate us all. But I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.
– Sign carried near Hyde Park Corner during a demonstration in London on 2/15/09 by a Member of the British Parliament
Ain el Helwe Palestinian Refugee Camp, Sidon, Lebanon — Israeli President Shimon Peres has participated in shaping the policies of Israel for most of its existence. His Washington Post op-ed last week billed as “a peacepartners prod” to the Obama administration, evidences a major disconnect within the government of Israel concerning what is urgently required for that country’s increasingly unlikely long-term survival.
According to a CIA Study currently being shown to selected staff members on the US Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Israel’s survival in its present form beyond the next 20 years is doubtful.
The Report predicts “an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region.”
To President Peres’ chagrin, the Executive Summary states that “during the next fifteen years more than two million Israelis, including some 500,000 Israeli citizens who currently hold US green cards or passports, will move to the United States. Most Israelis not in possession of these documents will receive ‘expedited waivers.’ The Report claims that, “Alongside a decline in Jewish births and a rise in Palestinian fertility, approximately 1.6 million Israelis are likely to return to their forefather’s lands in Russia and Eastern and Western Europe with scores of thousands electing to stay, depending on the nature of the transition.”
Continue reading here.
Dissident Voice in a piece "Fearing a One-State Solution, Israel’s President Serves Pabulum to Washington" claims that President Peres sees the two-State solution evaporating:
"Whatever will happen in the future, we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in leaving Gaza.
– Shimon Peres to members of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations 2/18/09
You take my water. Burn my Olive Trees. Destroy my house. Take my job. Steal my Land. Imprison my Mother. Bomb my country. Starve us all. Humiliate us all. But I am to blame: I shot a rocket back.
– Sign carried near Hyde Park Corner during a demonstration in London on 2/15/09 by a Member of the British Parliament
Ain el Helwe Palestinian Refugee Camp, Sidon, Lebanon — Israeli President Shimon Peres has participated in shaping the policies of Israel for most of its existence. His Washington Post op-ed last week billed as “a peacepartners prod” to the Obama administration, evidences a major disconnect within the government of Israel concerning what is urgently required for that country’s increasingly unlikely long-term survival.
According to a CIA Study currently being shown to selected staff members on the US Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Israel’s survival in its present form beyond the next 20 years is doubtful.
The Report predicts “an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region.”
To President Peres’ chagrin, the Executive Summary states that “during the next fifteen years more than two million Israelis, including some 500,000 Israeli citizens who currently hold US green cards or passports, will move to the United States. Most Israelis not in possession of these documents will receive ‘expedited waivers.’ The Report claims that, “Alongside a decline in Jewish births and a rise in Palestinian fertility, approximately 1.6 million Israelis are likely to return to their forefather’s lands in Russia and Eastern and Western Europe with scores of thousands electing to stay, depending on the nature of the transition.”
Continue reading here.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The shoe-thrower speaks
"I did not mean to kill the leader of the occupation forces," Muntadar al-Zaidi said, speaking clearly and forcefully from a wooden cage before a packed courtroom. "I was expressing what's inside of me and what's inside the Iraqi people from north to south and from west to east."
And:
"I am charged now with attacking the prime minister's guest," he said stoically, making his first public remarks since the incident. "We Arabs are famous for being generous with guests. But Bush and his soldiers have been here for six years. Guests should knock on the door. Those who come sneaking in are not guests."
The now infamous shoe-thrower in Iraq - with George W as his targett - has spoken at his first appearance in Court.
Read a full report in truthout.org here.
And:
"I am charged now with attacking the prime minister's guest," he said stoically, making his first public remarks since the incident. "We Arabs are famous for being generous with guests. But Bush and his soldiers have been here for six years. Guests should knock on the door. Those who come sneaking in are not guests."
The now infamous shoe-thrower in Iraq - with George W as his targett - has spoken at his first appearance in Court.
Read a full report in truthout.org here.
I Was Illegally Detained by the U.S. Government and Held in CIA-Run "Black Sites"
Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, a citizen of Yemen, is a client of the International Human Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law, which represents him in his quest for truth and justice.
He writes in a piece on The Huffington Post [reproduced on AlterNet] about his experiences at the hands of the Americans. It doesn't make for pretty reading:
"The American public needs to face what has happened to those of us who were disappeared and mistreated in the name of their national security.
From October 2003 until May 2005, I was illegally detained by the U.S. government and held in CIA-run "black sites" with no contact with the outside world. On May 5, 2005, without explanation, my American captors removed me from my cell and cuffed, hooded, and bundled me onto a plane that delivered me to Sana'a, Yemen. I was transferred into the custody of my own government, which held me -- apparently at the behest of the United States -- until March 27, 2006, when I was finally released, never once having faced any terrorism-related charges. Since my release, the U.S. government has never explained why I was detained and has blocked all attempts to find out more about my detention.
What I do know is that the Jordanian government -- after torturing me for several days -- handed me over to a U.S. "rendition team" in Amman, which then abducted me, forced me onto a plane, and flew me to Afghanistan. During this, and several other transfers between CIA prisons, I was subjected to a brutal and deeply humiliating "preparation" ritual. I was stripped naked, dressed in a diaper, shackled, blindfolded and hooded, and then boarded onto a waiting plane. I was forced into painful positions, often reeling from the blows and kicks of the men who had "prepared" me for flight."
The above is to be put into the context of the continuing quest for the Bush Administration to be brought to account for its actions - as Scott Horton explains in a piece in The Nation "Investigating Bush's Crimes":
"When the Obama transition team opened a questions referendum on its popular change.gov website in December, one issue quickly soared to the top. "Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?" And when Obama stepped to the microphone at his first presidential press conference, the question came again, this time with reference to a Congressional call for a truth commission. Obama's response: "My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen; but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards." The answer was a slight variation on the theme he has struck consistently since the final days of his campaign. But what does it mean with respect to the criminal accountability of Bush-era policy-makers? Many are inclined to hear confirmation of their hopes--Republicans eager to see the disastrous Bush years passed over without more fuss will stress the intention not to "look back," while Obama supporters who embraced his strong criticism of Bush's torture and surveillance policies will emphasize his observation that "nobody is above the law." Others are displeased with the ambiguity and press for a conclusive decision on the question.
But these exchanges give us the essence of the "no drama Obama" style: he builds support with lofty rhetoric, giving some sense of his policy objectives, but he consciously avoids committing himself to any particular resolution. Obama is not being coy, I think. He means precisely what he says. Accountability is not a part of his affirmative agenda, least of all for his first hundred days, on which the long-term success or failure of his presidential term may hang. An economic stimulus package, healthcare initiatives and a series of foreign policy challenges occupy center stage. Even in the Justice Department, Obama's first objectives involve restoring the institution's self-confidence and resurrecting its historical role in civil rights and voting rights enforcement. It's not that Obama and his senior advisers see the accountability issue as inherently unimportant--on the contrary, they readily admit that it may be the key to long-term resolution of a series of questions surrounding the abusive extension of presidential power. But it is clearly a back-burner issue for them, something better addressed near the end of his first term or, better still, during a second term."
He writes in a piece on The Huffington Post [reproduced on AlterNet] about his experiences at the hands of the Americans. It doesn't make for pretty reading:
"The American public needs to face what has happened to those of us who were disappeared and mistreated in the name of their national security.
From October 2003 until May 2005, I was illegally detained by the U.S. government and held in CIA-run "black sites" with no contact with the outside world. On May 5, 2005, without explanation, my American captors removed me from my cell and cuffed, hooded, and bundled me onto a plane that delivered me to Sana'a, Yemen. I was transferred into the custody of my own government, which held me -- apparently at the behest of the United States -- until March 27, 2006, when I was finally released, never once having faced any terrorism-related charges. Since my release, the U.S. government has never explained why I was detained and has blocked all attempts to find out more about my detention.
What I do know is that the Jordanian government -- after torturing me for several days -- handed me over to a U.S. "rendition team" in Amman, which then abducted me, forced me onto a plane, and flew me to Afghanistan. During this, and several other transfers between CIA prisons, I was subjected to a brutal and deeply humiliating "preparation" ritual. I was stripped naked, dressed in a diaper, shackled, blindfolded and hooded, and then boarded onto a waiting plane. I was forced into painful positions, often reeling from the blows and kicks of the men who had "prepared" me for flight."
The above is to be put into the context of the continuing quest for the Bush Administration to be brought to account for its actions - as Scott Horton explains in a piece in The Nation "Investigating Bush's Crimes":
"When the Obama transition team opened a questions referendum on its popular change.gov website in December, one issue quickly soared to the top. "Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor (ideally Patrick Fitzgerald) to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?" And when Obama stepped to the microphone at his first presidential press conference, the question came again, this time with reference to a Congressional call for a truth commission. Obama's response: "My view is also that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, that people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen; but that generally speaking, I'm more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backwards." The answer was a slight variation on the theme he has struck consistently since the final days of his campaign. But what does it mean with respect to the criminal accountability of Bush-era policy-makers? Many are inclined to hear confirmation of their hopes--Republicans eager to see the disastrous Bush years passed over without more fuss will stress the intention not to "look back," while Obama supporters who embraced his strong criticism of Bush's torture and surveillance policies will emphasize his observation that "nobody is above the law." Others are displeased with the ambiguity and press for a conclusive decision on the question.
But these exchanges give us the essence of the "no drama Obama" style: he builds support with lofty rhetoric, giving some sense of his policy objectives, but he consciously avoids committing himself to any particular resolution. Obama is not being coy, I think. He means precisely what he says. Accountability is not a part of his affirmative agenda, least of all for his first hundred days, on which the long-term success or failure of his presidential term may hang. An economic stimulus package, healthcare initiatives and a series of foreign policy challenges occupy center stage. Even in the Justice Department, Obama's first objectives involve restoring the institution's self-confidence and resurrecting its historical role in civil rights and voting rights enforcement. It's not that Obama and his senior advisers see the accountability issue as inherently unimportant--on the contrary, they readily admit that it may be the key to long-term resolution of a series of questions surrounding the abusive extension of presidential power. But it is clearly a back-burner issue for them, something better addressed near the end of his first term or, better still, during a second term."
Gaza: US politician's reality check!
The US doesn't recognise Hamas. So, ostrich-like, the US has basically ignored Gaza. In fact, the recently appointed emissary for President Obama, George Mitchell, when visiting the Middle East a few weeks ago went to Ramallah and Jerusalem but did not go into Gaza or even to the border-crossings. So much for informing oneself on the facts!
Surprise, surprise, 3 US politicians having just visited Gaza - an unofficial trip it has been stressed - found devastation and expressed their horror at what they found.
news.com.au reports in "Shock at Gaza devastation":
"US Democratic representatives Brian Baird and Keith Ellison expressed shock at the plight of the war-shattered Gaza Strip during a rare visit to the Hamas-run Palestinian enclave today.
"The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering" Mr Baird said jointly with Mr Ellison during their visit which coincided with a similar trip by US Senator John Kerry.
The visits were the first by US MPs since Hamas, an Islamist movement Washington blacklists as a terrorist organisation, seized control of the overcrowded territory in June 2007.
Mr Ellison, a representative from Minnesota, harshly criticised restrictions on the delivery of desperately needed goods into the coastal strip that has been under a crippling Israeli blockade imposed after the Hamas takeover.
"People, innocent children, women and non-combatants, are going without water, food and sanitation, while the things they so desperately need are sitting in trucks at the border, being denied permission to go in," he said.
"The stories about the children affected me the most," said Mr Ellison. "No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here."
Mr Baird, from Washington state, said the situation he saw was "shocking and troubling beyond words".
"The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, of entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching," he said."
Surprise, surprise, 3 US politicians having just visited Gaza - an unofficial trip it has been stressed - found devastation and expressed their horror at what they found.
news.com.au reports in "Shock at Gaza devastation":
"US Democratic representatives Brian Baird and Keith Ellison expressed shock at the plight of the war-shattered Gaza Strip during a rare visit to the Hamas-run Palestinian enclave today.
"The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering" Mr Baird said jointly with Mr Ellison during their visit which coincided with a similar trip by US Senator John Kerry.
The visits were the first by US MPs since Hamas, an Islamist movement Washington blacklists as a terrorist organisation, seized control of the overcrowded territory in June 2007.
Mr Ellison, a representative from Minnesota, harshly criticised restrictions on the delivery of desperately needed goods into the coastal strip that has been under a crippling Israeli blockade imposed after the Hamas takeover.
"People, innocent children, women and non-combatants, are going without water, food and sanitation, while the things they so desperately need are sitting in trucks at the border, being denied permission to go in," he said.
"The stories about the children affected me the most," said Mr Ellison. "No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here."
Mr Baird, from Washington state, said the situation he saw was "shocking and troubling beyond words".
"The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, of entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching," he said."
Friday, February 20, 2009
Lesson #1: Avoiding an Afghan Pitfall
M. Shahid Alam is professor of economics at Northeastern University.
Writing on CounterPunch he says:
"As the United States prepares to escalate its eight-year war against the Taliban, it might be useful to weigh its chances of success.
Consider, first, the fate of three previous invasions of Afghanistan by two great European powers, Britain and Soviet Union, since the nineteenth century.
These invasions ended in defeat – for the Europeans."
And:
"In light of the consequences that have flowed from the US presence in Afghanistan, who would advise an escalation? President Obama still has time to put on hold his plans to send more troops to Afghanistan. Instead, the best political minds around the world should be examining the least costly exit from a war that promises to become a quagmire, at best, and, at worst, a disaster, which no US objective in the region can justify."
Writing on CounterPunch he says:
"As the United States prepares to escalate its eight-year war against the Taliban, it might be useful to weigh its chances of success.
Consider, first, the fate of three previous invasions of Afghanistan by two great European powers, Britain and Soviet Union, since the nineteenth century.
These invasions ended in defeat – for the Europeans."
And:
"In light of the consequences that have flowed from the US presence in Afghanistan, who would advise an escalation? President Obama still has time to put on hold his plans to send more troops to Afghanistan. Instead, the best political minds around the world should be examining the least costly exit from a war that promises to become a quagmire, at best, and, at worst, a disaster, which no US objective in the region can justify."
Obama: No change on that!
Charlie Savage, Pulitzer Prize winner for his exposé of the Bush policies on torture, writing in the NY Times reflects in "Obama’s War on Terror May Resemble Bush’s in Some Areas" on how things are seemingly going to be much the same, as under Bush, in the Obama administration:
"In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.
The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.
And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”
These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies".
Continue reading here.
"In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.
The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.
And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”
These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies".
Continue reading here.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
At last! The dawn of some sense
It was inevitable and obvious - except to the foolish and blind!
If there was to be any progress in getting to some Middle East settlement - or at least a meaningful truce between Hamas and the Israelis - then the principal players would have to sit down and talk with Hamas. That rather simple proposition has been resisted to date.
Now, things seem to be changing, as The Independent reports in "Europe opens covert talks with ‘blacklisted’ Hamas":
"European nations have opened a direct dialogue with Hamas as the US intensifies the search for Middle East peace under Barack Obama.
In the first meeting of its kind, two French senators travelled to Damascus two weeks ago to meet the leader of the Palestinian Islamist faction, Khaled Meshal, The Independent has learned. Two British MPs met three weeks ago in Beirut with the Hamas representative in Lebanon, Usamah Hamdan. “Far more people are talking to Hamas than anyone might think,” said a senior European diplomat. “It is the beginning of something new – although we are not negotiating.”
Mr Hamdan said yesterday that since the end of last year, MPs from Sweden, the Netherlands and three other western European nations, which he declined to identify, had consulted with Hamas representatives.
“They believe they made a mistake by blacklisting Hamas,” he said, referring to the EU decision in 2003 to add the political wing of the movement to its list of terrorist organisations. “Now they know they have to talk to Hamas.”
Political contacts with Hamas are banned under the rules of the international Quartet for Middle East peace – which groups the US, the EU, Russia and the UN – on the grounds that the Palestinian faction remains committed to the destruction of Israel. The international community insists that the ban will only be lifted once the Islamists agree to recognise Israel and renounce violence. But the policy, set out in 2006 following the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections, has been called into question since the three-week war in Gaza which is ruled by Hamas."
If there was to be any progress in getting to some Middle East settlement - or at least a meaningful truce between Hamas and the Israelis - then the principal players would have to sit down and talk with Hamas. That rather simple proposition has been resisted to date.
Now, things seem to be changing, as The Independent reports in "Europe opens covert talks with ‘blacklisted’ Hamas":
"European nations have opened a direct dialogue with Hamas as the US intensifies the search for Middle East peace under Barack Obama.
In the first meeting of its kind, two French senators travelled to Damascus two weeks ago to meet the leader of the Palestinian Islamist faction, Khaled Meshal, The Independent has learned. Two British MPs met three weeks ago in Beirut with the Hamas representative in Lebanon, Usamah Hamdan. “Far more people are talking to Hamas than anyone might think,” said a senior European diplomat. “It is the beginning of something new – although we are not negotiating.”
Mr Hamdan said yesterday that since the end of last year, MPs from Sweden, the Netherlands and three other western European nations, which he declined to identify, had consulted with Hamas representatives.
“They believe they made a mistake by blacklisting Hamas,” he said, referring to the EU decision in 2003 to add the political wing of the movement to its list of terrorist organisations. “Now they know they have to talk to Hamas.”
Political contacts with Hamas are banned under the rules of the international Quartet for Middle East peace – which groups the US, the EU, Russia and the UN – on the grounds that the Palestinian faction remains committed to the destruction of Israel. The international community insists that the ban will only be lifted once the Islamists agree to recognise Israel and renounce violence. But the policy, set out in 2006 following the Hamas victory in Palestinian elections, has been called into question since the three-week war in Gaza which is ruled by Hamas."
Uh, Sorry, Could You Make That Another Five Billion? Or Sixteen, Maybe?
More than fair comment.......
From CommonDreams.org:
"General Motors told the Federal government Tuesday it may need over $16 billion more to stay afloat, bringing its total federal loans to $30 billion. Even then, it will have to cut 47,000 jobs and close five plants. The same day, Chrysler said it needs $5 billion more, bringing its total bailout to $9 billion; it also announced it lost $8 billion last year. It likewise plans to cut 3,000 jobs.
In January, the feds loaned another $1.5 billion to Chrysler Financial, ostensibly to spur new car loans, bringing the total government aid to Chrysler and General Motors financing units to $24.9 billion. At the time, Chrysler Chief Executive Thomas F. Gilman said the money would "better position us to withstand the current economic challenges until funding becomes available through more traditional commercial sources."
You mean, like making a sound product that people will buy, and managing your production and finances in such a way that you also make money? If people ran their households the way these guys run their companies, "the current economic challenges" would have washed even more of us overboard by now."
From CommonDreams.org:
"General Motors told the Federal government Tuesday it may need over $16 billion more to stay afloat, bringing its total federal loans to $30 billion. Even then, it will have to cut 47,000 jobs and close five plants. The same day, Chrysler said it needs $5 billion more, bringing its total bailout to $9 billion; it also announced it lost $8 billion last year. It likewise plans to cut 3,000 jobs.
In January, the feds loaned another $1.5 billion to Chrysler Financial, ostensibly to spur new car loans, bringing the total government aid to Chrysler and General Motors financing units to $24.9 billion. At the time, Chrysler Chief Executive Thomas F. Gilman said the money would "better position us to withstand the current economic challenges until funding becomes available through more traditional commercial sources."
You mean, like making a sound product that people will buy, and managing your production and finances in such a way that you also make money? If people ran their households the way these guys run their companies, "the current economic challenges" would have washed even more of us overboard by now."
The death of news
If reporting vanishes, the world will get darker and uglier. Subsidizing newspapers may be the only answer.
So headlines an article on Salon.com on the presently seeming inevitable demise of newspapers as we know them - and all that means.
Gary Kamiya writes:
"Journalism as we know it is in crisis. Daily newspapers are going out of business at an unprecedented rate, and the survivors are slashing their budgets. Thousands of reporters and editors have lost their jobs. No print publication is immune, including the mighty New York Times. As analyst Allan Mutter noted, 2008 was the worst year in history for newspaper publishers, with shares dropping a stunning 83 percent on average. Newspapers lost $64.5 billion in market value in 12 months.
All traditional media is in trouble, from magazines to network TV. But newspapers are the most threatened. For readers of a certain age, newspapers stand for a vanishing era, and the pleasures of holding newsprint in their hands is one that they are loath to give up. As a former newspaperman myself, like most of the original founders of Salon, I have a strong attachment to my dose of daily ink. I get most of my news online, but I still subscribe to both the local paper, in my case the San Francisco Chronicle, and to the New York Times. At parties and in casual conversations, speculation that newspapers might vanish like the dinosaurs that once ruled the earth spurs passionate jeremiads about the decline and fall of Western civilization.
But the real problem isn't that newspapers may be doomed. I would be severely disheartened if I was forced to abandon my morning ritual of sitting on my deck with a coffee and the papers, but I would no doubt get used to burning out my retinas over the screen an hour earlier than usual. As Nation columnist Eric Alterman recently argued, the real problem isn't the impending death of newspapers, but the impending death of news -- at least news as we know it.
What is really threatened by the decline of newspapers and the related rise of online media is reporting -- on-the-ground reporting by trained journalists who know the subject, have developed sources on all sides, strive for objectivity and are working with editors who check their facts, steer them in the right direction and are a further check against unwarranted assumptions, sloppy thinking and reporting, and conscious or unconscious bias."
Continue reading here.....including how bloggers can be the providers of news.
So headlines an article on Salon.com on the presently seeming inevitable demise of newspapers as we know them - and all that means.
Gary Kamiya writes:
"Journalism as we know it is in crisis. Daily newspapers are going out of business at an unprecedented rate, and the survivors are slashing their budgets. Thousands of reporters and editors have lost their jobs. No print publication is immune, including the mighty New York Times. As analyst Allan Mutter noted, 2008 was the worst year in history for newspaper publishers, with shares dropping a stunning 83 percent on average. Newspapers lost $64.5 billion in market value in 12 months.
All traditional media is in trouble, from magazines to network TV. But newspapers are the most threatened. For readers of a certain age, newspapers stand for a vanishing era, and the pleasures of holding newsprint in their hands is one that they are loath to give up. As a former newspaperman myself, like most of the original founders of Salon, I have a strong attachment to my dose of daily ink. I get most of my news online, but I still subscribe to both the local paper, in my case the San Francisco Chronicle, and to the New York Times. At parties and in casual conversations, speculation that newspapers might vanish like the dinosaurs that once ruled the earth spurs passionate jeremiads about the decline and fall of Western civilization.
But the real problem isn't that newspapers may be doomed. I would be severely disheartened if I was forced to abandon my morning ritual of sitting on my deck with a coffee and the papers, but I would no doubt get used to burning out my retinas over the screen an hour earlier than usual. As Nation columnist Eric Alterman recently argued, the real problem isn't the impending death of newspapers, but the impending death of news -- at least news as we know it.
What is really threatened by the decline of newspapers and the related rise of online media is reporting -- on-the-ground reporting by trained journalists who know the subject, have developed sources on all sides, strive for objectivity and are working with editors who check their facts, steer them in the right direction and are a further check against unwarranted assumptions, sloppy thinking and reporting, and conscious or unconscious bias."
Continue reading here.....including how bloggers can be the providers of news.
Israel's terrorist actions
The Israelis are quick to condemn and charge Hamas as being terrorists. Similarly Hezbollah. So, what to make of Israel conducting covert and illegal acts in a sovereign State? Read this rather astounding revelation in the Telegraph.co.uk detailing Israel's actions in Iran:
"Israel has launched a covert war against Iran as an alternative to direct military strikes against Tehran's nuclear programme, US intelligence sources have revealed.
It is using hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime's illicit weapons project, the experts say.
The most dramatic element of the "decapitation" programme is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations.
Despite fears in Israel and the US that Iran is approaching the point of no return in its ability to build atom bomb, Israeli officials are aware of the change in mood in Washington since President Barack Obama took office.
They privately acknowledge the new US administration is unlikely to sanction an air attack on Iran's nuclear installations and Mr Obama's offer to extend a hand of peace to Tehran puts any direct military action beyond reach for now.
The aim is to slow down or interrupt Iran's research programme, without the gamble of a direct confrontation that could lead to a wider war."
"Israel has launched a covert war against Iran as an alternative to direct military strikes against Tehran's nuclear programme, US intelligence sources have revealed.
It is using hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime's illicit weapons project, the experts say.
The most dramatic element of the "decapitation" programme is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations.
Despite fears in Israel and the US that Iran is approaching the point of no return in its ability to build atom bomb, Israeli officials are aware of the change in mood in Washington since President Barack Obama took office.
They privately acknowledge the new US administration is unlikely to sanction an air attack on Iran's nuclear installations and Mr Obama's offer to extend a hand of peace to Tehran puts any direct military action beyond reach for now.
The aim is to slow down or interrupt Iran's research programme, without the gamble of a direct confrontation that could lead to a wider war."
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Bad News From America’s Top Spy
Chris Hedges, writing in "Bad News From America’s Top Spy" on truthdig.com. makes a sober assessment of where the world is at in 2009. And no, terrorism isn't the greatest threat. Hedges lays the blame at the feet of Wall St.
"We have a remarkable ability to create our own monsters. A few decades of meddling in the Middle East with our Israeli doppelgänger and we get Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaida, the Iraqi resistance movement and a resurgent Taliban. Now we trash the world economy and destroy the ecosystem and sit back to watch our handiwork. Hints of our brave new world seeped out Thursday when Washington’s new director of national intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He warned that the deepening economic crisis posed perhaps our gravest threat to stability and national security. It could trigger, he said, a return to the “violent extremism” of the 1920s and 1930s.
It turns out that Wall Street, rather than Islamic jihad, has produced our most dangerous terrorists. You wouldn’t know this from the Obama administration, which seems hellbent on draining the blood out of the body politic and transfusing it into the corpse of our financial system. But by the time Barack Obama is done all we will be left with is a corpse—a corpse and no blood. And then what? We will see accelerated plant and retail closures, inflation, an epidemic of bankruptcies, new rounds of foreclosures, bread lines, unemployment surpassing the levels of the Great Depression and, as Blair fears, social upheaval.
The United Nations’ International Labor Organization estimates that some 50 million workers will lose their jobs worldwide this year. The collapse has already seen 3.6 million lost jobs in the United States. The International Monetary Fund’s prediction for global economic growth in 2009 is 0.5 percent—the worst since World War II. There are 2.3 million properties in the United States that received a default notice or were repossessed last year. And this number is set to rise in 2009, especially as vacant commercial real estate begins to be foreclosed. About 20,000 major global banks collapsed, were sold or were nationalized in 2008. There are an estimated 62,000 U.S. companies expected to shut down this year. Unemployment, when you add people no longer looking for jobs and part-time workers who cannot find full-time employment, is close to 14 percent."
"We have a remarkable ability to create our own monsters. A few decades of meddling in the Middle East with our Israeli doppelgänger and we get Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaida, the Iraqi resistance movement and a resurgent Taliban. Now we trash the world economy and destroy the ecosystem and sit back to watch our handiwork. Hints of our brave new world seeped out Thursday when Washington’s new director of national intelligence, retired Adm. Dennis Blair, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He warned that the deepening economic crisis posed perhaps our gravest threat to stability and national security. It could trigger, he said, a return to the “violent extremism” of the 1920s and 1930s.
It turns out that Wall Street, rather than Islamic jihad, has produced our most dangerous terrorists. You wouldn’t know this from the Obama administration, which seems hellbent on draining the blood out of the body politic and transfusing it into the corpse of our financial system. But by the time Barack Obama is done all we will be left with is a corpse—a corpse and no blood. And then what? We will see accelerated plant and retail closures, inflation, an epidemic of bankruptcies, new rounds of foreclosures, bread lines, unemployment surpassing the levels of the Great Depression and, as Blair fears, social upheaval.
The United Nations’ International Labor Organization estimates that some 50 million workers will lose their jobs worldwide this year. The collapse has already seen 3.6 million lost jobs in the United States. The International Monetary Fund’s prediction for global economic growth in 2009 is 0.5 percent—the worst since World War II. There are 2.3 million properties in the United States that received a default notice or were repossessed last year. And this number is set to rise in 2009, especially as vacant commercial real estate begins to be foreclosed. About 20,000 major global banks collapsed, were sold or were nationalized in 2008. There are an estimated 62,000 U.S. companies expected to shut down this year. Unemployment, when you add people no longer looking for jobs and part-time workers who cannot find full-time employment, is close to 14 percent."
Rules of War Weren’t Made for Only One People
Robert Fisk, having just read a book on the Holocaust in Europe in WW2, in his latest piece in The Independent [republished on truthdig.com] reflects on the Holocaust - is it the domain of Jews only? - and how the wanton death and destruction of humans which continues to this day should be considered.
"The rules of war – the Geneva Conventions and all the other post-Second World War laws – were meant to prevent another Holocaust. They were specifically designed to ensure that no one should ever again face the destruction of Mrs Greenman and her child. They were surely not made only for one race of people. And it is these rules which Israel so disgracefully flouted in Gaza. It’s a bit like the refrain from Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara and a whole host of other apparatchiks when the torture at Abu Ghraib was revealed. Well, yes, they told us, it was bad – but not as bad as Saddam Hussein’s regime.
And of course, this argument leads to perdition. True, we were bad – but not as bad as the Baath party. Or the Khmer Rouge. Or Hitler’s Germany and the SS. Or the Ottoman Turks – though I noticed movingly that one of Lyn’s Jewish Holocaust survivors mentions the Armenians. No, the numbers game works both ways. A thousand Palestinians die in Gaza. But what if the figure were 10,000? Or 100,000? No, no, of course that wouldn’t happen. But the rules of war are made for all to obey. Yes, I know that the Jews of Europe had no Hamas to provide the Nazis with an excuse for their deaths. But a Palestinian woman and her child are as worthy of life as a Jewish woman and her child on the back of a lorry in Auschwitz."
"The rules of war – the Geneva Conventions and all the other post-Second World War laws – were meant to prevent another Holocaust. They were specifically designed to ensure that no one should ever again face the destruction of Mrs Greenman and her child. They were surely not made only for one race of people. And it is these rules which Israel so disgracefully flouted in Gaza. It’s a bit like the refrain from Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara and a whole host of other apparatchiks when the torture at Abu Ghraib was revealed. Well, yes, they told us, it was bad – but not as bad as Saddam Hussein’s regime.
And of course, this argument leads to perdition. True, we were bad – but not as bad as the Baath party. Or the Khmer Rouge. Or Hitler’s Germany and the SS. Or the Ottoman Turks – though I noticed movingly that one of Lyn’s Jewish Holocaust survivors mentions the Armenians. No, the numbers game works both ways. A thousand Palestinians die in Gaza. But what if the figure were 10,000? Or 100,000? No, no, of course that wouldn’t happen. But the rules of war are made for all to obey. Yes, I know that the Jews of Europe had no Hamas to provide the Nazis with an excuse for their deaths. But a Palestinian woman and her child are as worthy of life as a Jewish woman and her child on the back of a lorry in Auschwitz."
International jurists bewail damage to law by U.S. war on terrorism
The IHT, from Geneva, reports on what ought to trouble all citizens, be they in so-called repressive regimes or in so-called democratic states. What is increasingly being done by Governments under the banner of or in the name of fighting terrorism is cause for great concern - as, in many respects, what have been seen as liberties taken for granted are steadily eroded. And then there are still the pernicious practices of renditioning or detaining people without charge. Many countries - think the US, many Middle East countries including Israel and former Eastern European Communist nations - engage in or are willing participants in these outrageous acts.
"The U.S. war on terror has done "immense damage" to international law, lacks a credible legal basis and should be repudiated by the administration of President Barack Obama, a panel of eminent judges and lawyers said Monday.
The panel, organized by the International Commission of Jurists, a nongovernmental human rights group, also criticized the culture of secrecy associated with the violation of international laws, which it said afforded impunity to those acting unlawfully.
The report also said abuses were becoming pervasive in democratic as well as repressive states.
The panel based its assessment on a three-year study of terrorism and counterterrorism practices on behalf of the commission that took evidence from hundreds of witnesses in 40 countries. The chairman, Arthur Chaskalson, a former chief justice of South Africa, described the report as "the most extensive study of these issues yet conducted."
Read on here.
"The U.S. war on terror has done "immense damage" to international law, lacks a credible legal basis and should be repudiated by the administration of President Barack Obama, a panel of eminent judges and lawyers said Monday.
The panel, organized by the International Commission of Jurists, a nongovernmental human rights group, also criticized the culture of secrecy associated with the violation of international laws, which it said afforded impunity to those acting unlawfully.
The report also said abuses were becoming pervasive in democratic as well as repressive states.
The panel based its assessment on a three-year study of terrorism and counterterrorism practices on behalf of the commission that took evidence from hundreds of witnesses in 40 countries. The chairman, Arthur Chaskalson, a former chief justice of South Africa, described the report as "the most extensive study of these issues yet conducted."
Read on here.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
The Message: Loud and Clear
The message is unmistakable that Israel will do whatever it wants - and damn the fall-out or consequences.
With the result of the election determined but no PM in sight for quite some time - and probably seeking to taking the opportunity whilst Obama struggles with his country's economy and other pressing issues - the Washngton Post reports that in what can only be seen as a blow to whatever is left of the peace-process, that Israel intends to significantly expand a settlement on the West Bank:
"Israel has taken control of a large chunk of land near a prominent West Bank settlement, paving the way for the possible construction of 2,500 settlement homes, officials said Monday, in a new challenge to Mideast peacemaking.
Successive Israeli governments have broken promises to the United States to halt settlement expansion, defined by Washington as an obstacle to peace. Ongoing expansion is likely to create friction not only with the Palestinians, but with President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has long pushed for a settlement freeze. Obama has said he'd get involved quickly in Mideast peace efforts.
The composition of Israel's next government is not clear yet following inconclusive elections last week. However, right-wing parties are given a better chance to form a ruling coalition, with hardline leader Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm.
Netanyahu supports settlement expansion and has derided peace talks with the Palestinians as a waste of time, saying he would focus instead of trying to improve the Palestinian economy. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed Netanyahu's approach as a non-starter, and his aides said recently that peace talks can only resume after a settlement freeze."
With the result of the election determined but no PM in sight for quite some time - and probably seeking to taking the opportunity whilst Obama struggles with his country's economy and other pressing issues - the Washngton Post reports that in what can only be seen as a blow to whatever is left of the peace-process, that Israel intends to significantly expand a settlement on the West Bank:
"Israel has taken control of a large chunk of land near a prominent West Bank settlement, paving the way for the possible construction of 2,500 settlement homes, officials said Monday, in a new challenge to Mideast peacemaking.
Successive Israeli governments have broken promises to the United States to halt settlement expansion, defined by Washington as an obstacle to peace. Ongoing expansion is likely to create friction not only with the Palestinians, but with President Barack Obama, whose Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has long pushed for a settlement freeze. Obama has said he'd get involved quickly in Mideast peace efforts.
The composition of Israel's next government is not clear yet following inconclusive elections last week. However, right-wing parties are given a better chance to form a ruling coalition, with hardline leader Benjamin Netanyahu at the helm.
Netanyahu supports settlement expansion and has derided peace talks with the Palestinians as a waste of time, saying he would focus instead of trying to improve the Palestinian economy. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has dismissed Netanyahu's approach as a non-starter, and his aides said recently that peace talks can only resume after a settlement freeze."
Photo Essay: India's Real-World Slumdogs
With the nomination of Slumdog Millionaire for an Academy Award, it's easy to view Mumbai's slums as wastelands of filth and misery. But they're actually vibrant business centers filled with scrappy entrepreneurs. If some wealthy elites get their way, though, the slums' days may be numbered.
About half of Mumbai's 16 million residents live in informal settlements known as slums, the largest of which is Dharavi. Between 600,000 and 1 million people call Dharavi home, but for many, it is also their place of business, the site of approximately 15,000 cottage-industry factories powered by an unflagging entrepreneurial spirit. "You in the West so easily see the slum as a negative concept. ... But Dharavi has also been mirroring India's economic revival," one Dharavi advocate told The Guardian.
Go here for a photo essay on FP [Foreign Policy].
About half of Mumbai's 16 million residents live in informal settlements known as slums, the largest of which is Dharavi. Between 600,000 and 1 million people call Dharavi home, but for many, it is also their place of business, the site of approximately 15,000 cottage-industry factories powered by an unflagging entrepreneurial spirit. "You in the West so easily see the slum as a negative concept. ... But Dharavi has also been mirroring India's economic revival," one Dharavi advocate told The Guardian.
Go here for a photo essay on FP [Foreign Policy].
Will the relationship change? Yes it can
The Economist, in a piece "America and Israel: Will the relationship change? Yes it can", reflects on whether with Obama as president something might move on the peace-front in the Middle East:
"At first glance, the chances of peace between Arabs and Jews in the Holy Land look dimmer than ever. If Binyamin Netanyahu ends up as prime minister (see article), Israel’s voters will have elected a man who, on paper at least, is unwilling to let the Palestinians have anything more in the way of a state than a hollowed-out Swiss cheese of feebly linked cantons. He says the moderate Palestinians are too weak to control the West Bank and need to be strengthened, under Israeli supervision, before any more territory can be handed over to them.
Moreover, even if the centrist Tzipi Livni wins the day, with her support for talks leading to two states living peacefully side by side, the Palestinians are for the moment so sour and so divided that they have no government or leader strong enough to cut a deal and make it work. In any event, after Israel’s ferocious assault on the Gaza Strip in December and January, there is no certainty that the current ceasefire will hold with the Islamists of Hamas, which still rules that territory despite its pasting.
Yet hope persists, in part because Barack Obama has a chance of making American policy more even-handed and more effective, after eight years mostly wasted by George Bush and, before that, another eight years in which Bill Clinton tried but failed, to bring the two sides together. More even-handed means more sympathetic to Palestinians. But it also means more security, in the long run, for Israel.
True, nothing spectacular is likely to happen for months. For one thing, an Israeli government could take weeks or more to emerge, and could then prove hobbled by religious and other clamps. For another, Mr Obama, who sees the American economy as his priority, has yet to acquire his own Middle East team, let alone policy, under the dual aegis of Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state and George Mitchell as his special envoy. Besides, not just the Palestinians but also the Arabs and the wider region are in diplomatic disarray."
"At first glance, the chances of peace between Arabs and Jews in the Holy Land look dimmer than ever. If Binyamin Netanyahu ends up as prime minister (see article), Israel’s voters will have elected a man who, on paper at least, is unwilling to let the Palestinians have anything more in the way of a state than a hollowed-out Swiss cheese of feebly linked cantons. He says the moderate Palestinians are too weak to control the West Bank and need to be strengthened, under Israeli supervision, before any more territory can be handed over to them.
Moreover, even if the centrist Tzipi Livni wins the day, with her support for talks leading to two states living peacefully side by side, the Palestinians are for the moment so sour and so divided that they have no government or leader strong enough to cut a deal and make it work. In any event, after Israel’s ferocious assault on the Gaza Strip in December and January, there is no certainty that the current ceasefire will hold with the Islamists of Hamas, which still rules that territory despite its pasting.
Yet hope persists, in part because Barack Obama has a chance of making American policy more even-handed and more effective, after eight years mostly wasted by George Bush and, before that, another eight years in which Bill Clinton tried but failed, to bring the two sides together. More even-handed means more sympathetic to Palestinians. But it also means more security, in the long run, for Israel.
True, nothing spectacular is likely to happen for months. For one thing, an Israeli government could take weeks or more to emerge, and could then prove hobbled by religious and other clamps. For another, Mr Obama, who sees the American economy as his priority, has yet to acquire his own Middle East team, let alone policy, under the dual aegis of Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state and George Mitchell as his special envoy. Besides, not just the Palestinians but also the Arabs and the wider region are in diplomatic disarray."
You choose!
"I think the Israeli troops should get a medal for the way they conducted themselves in that war".
That is what Dan Gillerman, former Israeli ambassador to the UN, is quoted as saying in The Age.
Contrast that bold [brave? - or foolhardy?] claim with this report "In Gaza town, a bitter aftermath" in the LA Times :
"Weeks after Israel declared a unilateral end to its offensive in the Gaza Strip, the aftermath still burns in Khozaa, a farm town of 11,000 in the south of the territory. Chunks of white phosphorus still lie scattered throughout neighborhoods, buried in dirt and sand; when excavated, they immediately ignite and spew noxious smoke that smells vaguely of garlic.
As the International Criminal Court weighs a war crimes investigation of the Gaza offensive, the experience of Khozaa could be a key part in the evidence. It was here that Israeli troops staged a series of incursions from Jan. 11 to 13, facing off against local militant fighters and leaving a trail of accusations and recriminations in their wake.
These include charges of indiscriminate firing on civilians and ambulances and what one international weapons expert called the heaviest use of controversial white phosphorus munitions in the 22-day offensive.
Local officials say 19 people were killed during the assault, 16 of them civilians. About 150 people were injured, most from prolonged exposure to phosphorus smoke, local medical officials say.
It is impossible to fully confirm many of the details of what happened here. But interviews with more than a dozen Khozaa residents, medical professionals, government officials and local militant fighters depict a chaotic three-day span when phosphorus smoke filled the streets and homes as families cowered indoors."
And then there is this report from Ha'aretz "IDF probe: Cannot defend destruction of Gaza homes":
"Strip indicate the army could face significant difficulties justifying the scale of destruction of civilian homes during the fighting. A military source involved in the investigation told Haaretz, "It's clear to us that in a small portion of the combat sectors immeasurable damage was caused, and that is very difficult to justify from a legal perspective, particularly if such justifications are called for in legal proceedings with international organizations."
In the course of fighting, the IDF destroyed hundreds of houses in different sectors, and Palestinian sources estimate several thousands of houses suffered damage. Some of the homes were struck as a result of aerial strikes, others during ground fighting in densely-built urban areas.
Still others were damaged by bulldozers or in controlled explosions according to the orders of battalion and brigade commanders on the ground. However, those making the decisions were often not the brigade commanders themselves, but support staff such as operational commanders.
Senior commanders attached to units operating in Gaza last month said IDF bulldozers were in high demand during the fighting, and brigade commanders often pushed for their units to be granted such vehicles.
Last week Channel 2 reported that according to estimates produced by the security establishment, about one-third of those killed during the fighting were "uninvolved civilians," a figure which Palestinian sources put much higher".
That is what Dan Gillerman, former Israeli ambassador to the UN, is quoted as saying in The Age.
Contrast that bold [brave? - or foolhardy?] claim with this report "In Gaza town, a bitter aftermath" in the LA Times :
"Weeks after Israel declared a unilateral end to its offensive in the Gaza Strip, the aftermath still burns in Khozaa, a farm town of 11,000 in the south of the territory. Chunks of white phosphorus still lie scattered throughout neighborhoods, buried in dirt and sand; when excavated, they immediately ignite and spew noxious smoke that smells vaguely of garlic.
As the International Criminal Court weighs a war crimes investigation of the Gaza offensive, the experience of Khozaa could be a key part in the evidence. It was here that Israeli troops staged a series of incursions from Jan. 11 to 13, facing off against local militant fighters and leaving a trail of accusations and recriminations in their wake.
These include charges of indiscriminate firing on civilians and ambulances and what one international weapons expert called the heaviest use of controversial white phosphorus munitions in the 22-day offensive.
Local officials say 19 people were killed during the assault, 16 of them civilians. About 150 people were injured, most from prolonged exposure to phosphorus smoke, local medical officials say.
It is impossible to fully confirm many of the details of what happened here. But interviews with more than a dozen Khozaa residents, medical professionals, government officials and local militant fighters depict a chaotic three-day span when phosphorus smoke filled the streets and homes as families cowered indoors."
And then there is this report from Ha'aretz "IDF probe: Cannot defend destruction of Gaza homes":
"Strip indicate the army could face significant difficulties justifying the scale of destruction of civilian homes during the fighting. A military source involved in the investigation told Haaretz, "It's clear to us that in a small portion of the combat sectors immeasurable damage was caused, and that is very difficult to justify from a legal perspective, particularly if such justifications are called for in legal proceedings with international organizations."
In the course of fighting, the IDF destroyed hundreds of houses in different sectors, and Palestinian sources estimate several thousands of houses suffered damage. Some of the homes were struck as a result of aerial strikes, others during ground fighting in densely-built urban areas.
Still others were damaged by bulldozers or in controlled explosions according to the orders of battalion and brigade commanders on the ground. However, those making the decisions were often not the brigade commanders themselves, but support staff such as operational commanders.
Senior commanders attached to units operating in Gaza last month said IDF bulldozers were in high demand during the fighting, and brigade commanders often pushed for their units to be granted such vehicles.
Last week Channel 2 reported that according to estimates produced by the security establishment, about one-third of those killed during the fighting were "uninvolved civilians," a figure which Palestinian sources put much higher".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)