The actions of the Government of Sri Lanka know no bounds - whilst the world, outrageously, sits back and does nothing - including an intention to bomb a vessel bringing food for the Tamils - as The Island Online reports:
"The Navy said yesterday that it had been alerted about a ship carrying the International Red Cross emblem about to sail to Sri Lanka from Britain carrying 2,000 tons of food for the beleagured LTTE in the guise of food aid to the people trapped in the Mullaitivu district.
Sources said this was a Tiger ruse to rouse international opinion against the Sri Lanka government.
Naval sources said that the Sri Lanka Navy would open fire on the vessel named ‘Vananga Man’ if she enters Lankan territorial waters. She is scheduled to leave Britain on March 26.
According to the Navy, the vessel is carrying the International Red Cross emblem. An organization named British Tamil Forum had said the ship would enter Sri Lankan waters despite the Navy’s protest.
The Navy has inquired from British authorities about the ownership of the vessel."
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Now why is that not surprising!
The accusations against the IDF in relation to its action in Gaza are wide-spread - from many quarters.
It was said that the IDF would investigate what are, in the main, very serious allegations.
Given Israel's attitude to thumb its nose at anyone who dares criticise it, it comes as no surprise to read in Haaretz that the IDF has shut down its investigation into any misconduct by soldiers:
"Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avichai Mendelblit on Monday instructed the Military Police Investigation unit to close the inquiry into soldiers' accounts of alleged misconduct and serious violations of the army's rules of engagement during Operation Cast Lead.
He said it was unfortunate that the soldiers, who discussed their Gaza experiences in private on Feb. 13 at a military academy session which was later leaked verbatim to the media, had been careless about accuracy.
"It will be difficult to evaluate the damage done to the image and morals [of the armed forces] in Israel and the world", his statement said
In a press release issued Monday the army said that the preliminary Military Police investigation into the testimonies revealed that they "were based on hearsay and not first-hand experience."
It was said that the IDF would investigate what are, in the main, very serious allegations.
Given Israel's attitude to thumb its nose at anyone who dares criticise it, it comes as no surprise to read in Haaretz that the IDF has shut down its investigation into any misconduct by soldiers:
"Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avichai Mendelblit on Monday instructed the Military Police Investigation unit to close the inquiry into soldiers' accounts of alleged misconduct and serious violations of the army's rules of engagement during Operation Cast Lead.
He said it was unfortunate that the soldiers, who discussed their Gaza experiences in private on Feb. 13 at a military academy session which was later leaked verbatim to the media, had been careless about accuracy.
"It will be difficult to evaluate the damage done to the image and morals [of the armed forces] in Israel and the world", his statement said
In a press release issued Monday the army said that the preliminary Military Police investigation into the testimonies revealed that they "were based on hearsay and not first-hand experience."
Join Winnies war and mind your language
"Winston Churchill might be well known for the battles he waged in the name of the Allied forces, but it is the lesser-known war he declared on the desecration of the English language that still rages.
At the height of the Battle of Britain, with war all around him, Churchill barked out an edict banning bureaucratese, legalese, officialese, jargon and other gobbledegook in favour of plain English. To him it was the fastest method of conveying concise, unambiguous messages to command.
As a practising plain English editor and writer, I can assure you this battle is coming at us on many fronts, from the supermarket shelves to our national capital. It is fed by intellectual vanity, fear of looking dumb, pesky lawyers (of course) and a public that has been bludgeoned into submission by its heavy, dull, self-important pedantry. This enemy of clarity and friend of the obscurantist feeds off our numb acceptance of it in our everyday lives.
Speaking of pesky lawyers, here's a sample of something I recently had to turn into plain English for a reluctant law firm: "The conditions of chapters 13 and 14 shall with modifications deemed as necessary extend and apply to and in relation to this Section and others, without affect to the aforementioned in the sense of its generality, in particular with the modification that any reference to plastic or plastic products shall be construed as a reference to rubber products also in full." That's 58 words. My solution was: "What chapters 13 and 14 say about plastic and plastic products also applies to rubber." That's 15 words — say no more!"
So say all of us! Read this "interesting" piece on the English language in the SMH - and the way it is increasingly abused - by Andrew Pegler, who describes himself as a plain English editor and copywriter.
At the height of the Battle of Britain, with war all around him, Churchill barked out an edict banning bureaucratese, legalese, officialese, jargon and other gobbledegook in favour of plain English. To him it was the fastest method of conveying concise, unambiguous messages to command.
As a practising plain English editor and writer, I can assure you this battle is coming at us on many fronts, from the supermarket shelves to our national capital. It is fed by intellectual vanity, fear of looking dumb, pesky lawyers (of course) and a public that has been bludgeoned into submission by its heavy, dull, self-important pedantry. This enemy of clarity and friend of the obscurantist feeds off our numb acceptance of it in our everyday lives.
Speaking of pesky lawyers, here's a sample of something I recently had to turn into plain English for a reluctant law firm: "The conditions of chapters 13 and 14 shall with modifications deemed as necessary extend and apply to and in relation to this Section and others, without affect to the aforementioned in the sense of its generality, in particular with the modification that any reference to plastic or plastic products shall be construed as a reference to rubber products also in full." That's 58 words. My solution was: "What chapters 13 and 14 say about plastic and plastic products also applies to rubber." That's 15 words — say no more!"
So say all of us! Read this "interesting" piece on the English language in the SMH - and the way it is increasingly abused - by Andrew Pegler, who describes himself as a plain English editor and copywriter.
Iraq: Forget about getting at the truth!
The UK Government has announced that it will undertake an inquiry into the Iraq War once all British troops are out of the war-torn country - some time in the middle of this year.
Will such an inquiry ever reach the truth? Highly unlikely, as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says in her op-ed piece "It is now impossible to trust any 'official' inquiry into Iraq" in The Independent:
".....all the key players who lied grievously and sexed-up evidence have got away with it. More sickening still, the once conjoined twins Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell are today endowed with respect. Blair struts around the world stage believing himself to be a Mandela figure, a peace prophet. Campbell gets plaudits for his panache, a novel, his wit, intelligence and cockiness."
No less importantly, she begins her piece by highlighting why we won't ever learn the truth:
"I watched a report on Fallujah last week on Sky News by Lisa Holland for which she deserves our gratitude and a top television award. It featured a quietly spoken Iraqi neo-natal specialist, Dr Muntaha Hashim, who is finding that in that town, bombed and collectively punished by the allies, there has been a massive increase in the number of deformed babies. Dr Hashim sees children with two heads – one, a young girl with bountiful hair was curled up on a bed – and others limbless, or born without vital organs. The number has doubled since the days of Saddam.
Some unidentified chemical weaponry is responsible. Pro-war politicians, dodgy spooks, spin doctors and unrepentant media warriors such as Christopher Hitchens still claim triumphantly the war was a victory of good over evil. Their own offspring will not be born with two heads and, they must believe, Iraqis are paying but a small price for 'freedom'.
We will never know what was done in Fallujah in our name. We will not be told the full truth on the victimisation of civilians in Basra either, nor on the global "renditions" industry, which provides us with information obtained under torture from alleged terrorists, and certainly not on our productive links with some of the world's most diabolical regimes.
In our supposedly free and open democracy we are not even entitled to know the truth about why we went to war in Iraq – a war which made terrorism respectable and convinced millions of Muslims that the West had embarked on a new crusade."
Will such an inquiry ever reach the truth? Highly unlikely, as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown says in her op-ed piece "It is now impossible to trust any 'official' inquiry into Iraq" in The Independent:
".....all the key players who lied grievously and sexed-up evidence have got away with it. More sickening still, the once conjoined twins Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell are today endowed with respect. Blair struts around the world stage believing himself to be a Mandela figure, a peace prophet. Campbell gets plaudits for his panache, a novel, his wit, intelligence and cockiness."
No less importantly, she begins her piece by highlighting why we won't ever learn the truth:
"I watched a report on Fallujah last week on Sky News by Lisa Holland for which she deserves our gratitude and a top television award. It featured a quietly spoken Iraqi neo-natal specialist, Dr Muntaha Hashim, who is finding that in that town, bombed and collectively punished by the allies, there has been a massive increase in the number of deformed babies. Dr Hashim sees children with two heads – one, a young girl with bountiful hair was curled up on a bed – and others limbless, or born without vital organs. The number has doubled since the days of Saddam.
Some unidentified chemical weaponry is responsible. Pro-war politicians, dodgy spooks, spin doctors and unrepentant media warriors such as Christopher Hitchens still claim triumphantly the war was a victory of good over evil. Their own offspring will not be born with two heads and, they must believe, Iraqis are paying but a small price for 'freedom'.
We will never know what was done in Fallujah in our name. We will not be told the full truth on the victimisation of civilians in Basra either, nor on the global "renditions" industry, which provides us with information obtained under torture from alleged terrorists, and certainly not on our productive links with some of the world's most diabolical regimes.
In our supposedly free and open democracy we are not even entitled to know the truth about why we went to war in Iraq – a war which made terrorism respectable and convinced millions of Muslims that the West had embarked on a new crusade."
Whatever crown there was.....has slipped
Many in the world have looked to the US as a "leader" - of the so-called Free World, commercially and on all range of levels including the movie industry, technology and trends.
If the halo was ever justified - probably not!, certainly as far as many around the globe would have thought - it certainly has slipped mightily. Just think the reverberations of Wall Street, and the entire financial and economic mess in America, presently spinning around the world.
It is a theme that Nobel economics prize winner, Paul Klugman, takes up in his latest op-ed piece "America the Tarnished" in the NY Times:
"Ten years ago the cover of Time magazine featured Robert Rubin, then Treasury secretary, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Lawrence Summers, then deputy Treasury secretary. Time dubbed the three “the committee to save the world,” crediting them with leading the global financial system through a crisis that seemed terrifying at the time, although it was a small blip compared with what we’re going through now.
All the men on that cover were Americans, but nobody considered that odd. After all, in 1999 the United States was the unquestioned leader of the global crisis response. That leadership role was only partly based on American wealth; it also, to an important degree, reflected America’s stature as a role model. The United States, everyone thought, was the country that knew how to do finance right.
How times have changed.
Never mind the fact that two members of the committee have since succumbed to the magazine cover curse, the plunge in reputation that so often follows lionization in the media. (Mr. Summers, now the head of the National Economic Council, is still going strong.) Far more important is the extent to which our claims of financial soundness — claims often invoked as we lectured other countries on the need to change their ways — have proved hollow.
Indeed, these days America is looking like the Bernie Madoff of economies: for many years it was held in respect, even awe, but it turns out to have been a fraud all along".
If the halo was ever justified - probably not!, certainly as far as many around the globe would have thought - it certainly has slipped mightily. Just think the reverberations of Wall Street, and the entire financial and economic mess in America, presently spinning around the world.
It is a theme that Nobel economics prize winner, Paul Klugman, takes up in his latest op-ed piece "America the Tarnished" in the NY Times:
"Ten years ago the cover of Time magazine featured Robert Rubin, then Treasury secretary, Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Lawrence Summers, then deputy Treasury secretary. Time dubbed the three “the committee to save the world,” crediting them with leading the global financial system through a crisis that seemed terrifying at the time, although it was a small blip compared with what we’re going through now.
All the men on that cover were Americans, but nobody considered that odd. After all, in 1999 the United States was the unquestioned leader of the global crisis response. That leadership role was only partly based on American wealth; it also, to an important degree, reflected America’s stature as a role model. The United States, everyone thought, was the country that knew how to do finance right.
How times have changed.
Never mind the fact that two members of the committee have since succumbed to the magazine cover curse, the plunge in reputation that so often follows lionization in the media. (Mr. Summers, now the head of the National Economic Council, is still going strong.) Far more important is the extent to which our claims of financial soundness — claims often invoked as we lectured other countries on the need to change their ways — have proved hollow.
Indeed, these days America is looking like the Bernie Madoff of economies: for many years it was held in respect, even awe, but it turns out to have been a fraud all along".
Monday, March 30, 2009
Behind the Scenes with Barack Obama
President Obama held a news conference the other day. At the beginning he read off a teleprompter. So much for the great communicator! That aside, for correspondents to gain access to the news conference, what that all involves and what then happens, is explained in this piece - being the transcript of the radio broadcast on Correspondent's Report on ABC Radio National - by Michael Rowland:
"A presidential press conference is as stage-managed and tightly choreographed as a Broadway show.
I managed to get hold of a rare ticket for Barack Obama's big performance last the week. Along with nearly 200 other reporters it gave me a seat in the ornate White House East Room, a few rows back from the presidential podium.
Actually getting there marked the end of a marathon journey.
Reporters lucky enough to get a seat were told to arrive four hours before the media conference began so they could clear White House security and pick up their credentials.
If nothing else it allowed time to conjure up some hard-hitting questions, and just to kill any suspense, no, I didn't get the call.
Ninety minutes before show time the media heard was ushered through the front door of the White House and into the already brightly lit East Room. And as we waited for Mr Obama there were no shortage of warm-up acts.
About 20 minutes before air-time a bow-tied waiter shuffled in with a tall glass of water for the President."
Read, in full, here , a rather fascinating "peep" of what goes on at president's press conference.
"A presidential press conference is as stage-managed and tightly choreographed as a Broadway show.
I managed to get hold of a rare ticket for Barack Obama's big performance last the week. Along with nearly 200 other reporters it gave me a seat in the ornate White House East Room, a few rows back from the presidential podium.
Actually getting there marked the end of a marathon journey.
Reporters lucky enough to get a seat were told to arrive four hours before the media conference began so they could clear White House security and pick up their credentials.
If nothing else it allowed time to conjure up some hard-hitting questions, and just to kill any suspense, no, I didn't get the call.
Ninety minutes before show time the media heard was ushered through the front door of the White House and into the already brightly lit East Room. And as we waited for Mr Obama there were no shortage of warm-up acts.
About 20 minutes before air-time a bow-tied waiter shuffled in with a tall glass of water for the President."
Read, in full, here , a rather fascinating "peep" of what goes on at president's press conference.
Spanish judge to hear torture case against six Bush officials
If Bush & Co thought that leaving the White House and the end of the George W Administration would see the end of any issues in relation to their actions whilst in office, they ought to think again.
The Guardian reports that a Spanish judge is following up whether Bush officials were engaged in torture policies:
"Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Baltasar Garzón, the counter-terrorism judge whose prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet led to his arrest in Britain in 1998, has referred the case to the chief prosecutor before deciding whether to proceed.
The case is bound to threaten Spain's relations with the new administration in Washington, but Gonzalo Boyé, one of the four lawyers who wrote the lawsuit, said the prosecutor would have little choice under Spanish law but to approve the prosecution.
"The only route of escape the prosecutor might have is to ask whether there is ongoing process in the US against these people," Boyé told the Observer. "This case will go ahead. It will be against the law not to go ahead."
The officials named in the case include the most senior legal minds in the Bush administration. They are: Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney's chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defence; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon's general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were both senior justice department legal advisers."
The Guardian reports that a Spanish judge is following up whether Bush officials were engaged in torture policies:
"Criminal proceedings have begun in Spain against six senior officials in the Bush administration for the use of torture against detainees in Guantánamo Bay. Baltasar Garzón, the counter-terrorism judge whose prosecution of General Augusto Pinochet led to his arrest in Britain in 1998, has referred the case to the chief prosecutor before deciding whether to proceed.
The case is bound to threaten Spain's relations with the new administration in Washington, but Gonzalo Boyé, one of the four lawyers who wrote the lawsuit, said the prosecutor would have little choice under Spanish law but to approve the prosecution.
"The only route of escape the prosecutor might have is to ask whether there is ongoing process in the US against these people," Boyé told the Observer. "This case will go ahead. It will be against the law not to go ahead."
The officials named in the case include the most senior legal minds in the Bush administration. They are: Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney's chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defence; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon's general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were both senior justice department legal advisers."
Newspapers’ Self-Inflicted Wounds
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover” (2006) and “The Uprising” (2008). He is a fellow at the Campaign for America’s Future.
Writing on truthdig.com in "Newspapers’ Self-Inflicted Wounds" he analyses how it is that newspapers have ended up in the parlous state they have - or disappeared altogether in some cities.
"First, financially strapped newspapers undermined their comparative advantage by replacing audience-attracting local exclusives with cheaper national content. Then, the providers of that national content diverted resources from tough-to-report investigative journalism that builds loyal readership and into paparazzi-like birdcage liner that unconvincingly portrays politicians, CEOs and their minions as celebrities.
“In place of comprehensive, complex and idiosyncratic coverage, readers of even the most serious newspapers were offered celebrity and scandal, humor and light provocation,” says journalist-turned-director David Simon, whose HBO series “The Wire” examined this trend.
The most preventable tragedy was the deterioration of quality. Downsized local publications were all but forced to rely on more national content, but that content didn’t have to become so vapid.
Beltway scribes didn’t have to miss the lies about the Iraq war or the predictive signs of the Wall Street meltdown. Election correspondents weren’t compelled to devote four times the coverage to the tactical insignifica of campaigns than to candidates’ positions and records, as the Project for Excellence in Journalism found. Business reporters didn’t need to give corporate spokespeople twice the space in articles as they did workers and unions, as a Center for American Progress report documents. National editors weren’t obligated to focus on “elevat[ing] the most banal doings” in the White House to “breaking news,” as The New York Times recently noted.
But that’s what happened. Rather than investing in the valuable steel and concrete of hard reporting, national news outlets began printing the most worthless kind of commercial paper—rumors, personality profiles and other such speculative derivatives that consumers could find elsewhere. News, in short, mimicked finance: Just as Wall Street made bets on bets with credit default swaps and then watched investors bolt, print journalism mass-produced gossip about gossip, and now sees its audience flee."
Writing on truthdig.com in "Newspapers’ Self-Inflicted Wounds" he analyses how it is that newspapers have ended up in the parlous state they have - or disappeared altogether in some cities.
"First, financially strapped newspapers undermined their comparative advantage by replacing audience-attracting local exclusives with cheaper national content. Then, the providers of that national content diverted resources from tough-to-report investigative journalism that builds loyal readership and into paparazzi-like birdcage liner that unconvincingly portrays politicians, CEOs and their minions as celebrities.
“In place of comprehensive, complex and idiosyncratic coverage, readers of even the most serious newspapers were offered celebrity and scandal, humor and light provocation,” says journalist-turned-director David Simon, whose HBO series “The Wire” examined this trend.
The most preventable tragedy was the deterioration of quality. Downsized local publications were all but forced to rely on more national content, but that content didn’t have to become so vapid.
Beltway scribes didn’t have to miss the lies about the Iraq war or the predictive signs of the Wall Street meltdown. Election correspondents weren’t compelled to devote four times the coverage to the tactical insignifica of campaigns than to candidates’ positions and records, as the Project for Excellence in Journalism found. Business reporters didn’t need to give corporate spokespeople twice the space in articles as they did workers and unions, as a Center for American Progress report documents. National editors weren’t obligated to focus on “elevat[ing] the most banal doings” in the White House to “breaking news,” as The New York Times recently noted.
But that’s what happened. Rather than investing in the valuable steel and concrete of hard reporting, national news outlets began printing the most worthless kind of commercial paper—rumors, personality profiles and other such speculative derivatives that consumers could find elsewhere. News, in short, mimicked finance: Just as Wall Street made bets on bets with credit default swaps and then watched investors bolt, print journalism mass-produced gossip about gossip, and now sees its audience flee."
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Seymour Hersh: Syria Calling
One cannot easily dismiss Seymour Hersh when he writes something. He is a foremost journalist who is, usually, on the money.
He writes in The New Yorker:
"When the Israelis’ controversial twenty-two-day military campaign in Gaza ended, on January 18th, it also seemed to end the promising peace talks between Israel and Syria. The two countries had been engaged for almost a year in negotiations through intermediaries in Istanbul. Many complicated technical matters had been resolved, and there were agreements in principle on the normalization of diplomatic relations. The consensus, as an ambassador now serving in Tel Aviv put it, was that the two sides had been “a lot closer than you might think.”
At an Arab summit in Qatar in mid-January, however, Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, angrily declared that Israel’s bombing of Gaza and the resulting civilian deaths showed that the Israelis spoke only “the language of blood.” He called on the Arab world to boycott Israel, close any Israeli embassies in the region, and sever all “direct or indirect ties with Israel.” Syria, Assad said, had ended its talks over the Golan Heights.
Nonetheless, a few days after the Israeli ceasefire in Gaza, Assad said in an e-mail to me that although Israel was “doing everything possible to undermine the prospects for peace,” he was still very interested in closing the deal. “We have to wait a little while to see how things will evolve and how the situation will change,” Assad said. “We still believe that we need to conclude a serious dialogue to lead us to peace.”
Complete reading the piece here.
He writes in The New Yorker:
"When the Israelis’ controversial twenty-two-day military campaign in Gaza ended, on January 18th, it also seemed to end the promising peace talks between Israel and Syria. The two countries had been engaged for almost a year in negotiations through intermediaries in Istanbul. Many complicated technical matters had been resolved, and there were agreements in principle on the normalization of diplomatic relations. The consensus, as an ambassador now serving in Tel Aviv put it, was that the two sides had been “a lot closer than you might think.”
At an Arab summit in Qatar in mid-January, however, Bashar Assad, the President of Syria, angrily declared that Israel’s bombing of Gaza and the resulting civilian deaths showed that the Israelis spoke only “the language of blood.” He called on the Arab world to boycott Israel, close any Israeli embassies in the region, and sever all “direct or indirect ties with Israel.” Syria, Assad said, had ended its talks over the Golan Heights.
Nonetheless, a few days after the Israeli ceasefire in Gaza, Assad said in an e-mail to me that although Israel was “doing everything possible to undermine the prospects for peace,” he was still very interested in closing the deal. “We have to wait a little while to see how things will evolve and how the situation will change,” Assad said. “We still believe that we need to conclude a serious dialogue to lead us to peace.”
Complete reading the piece here.
Down Mexico Way....
Scott Horton, writing in Harper's Magazine, is right when he says that the "story" of what is happening in Mexico is under-reported:
"The most under-reported story of the last year is, simply, the turmoil in Mexico. We’ve heard about kidnappings and assassinations, usually followed by warnings that the troubles in Mexico may well “spill” across the border, and newspapers in the border states pay the issue more attention, but for the last several years a nominally conservative government in Washington has responded to the pleas of a conservative, pro-American government in Mexico City with a shrug of the shoulders and talk about building a fence on the border. Anyway, talk of “spilling across the border” is stupid. The seat of the Mexican problems is in the United States, not vice-versa."
With suggestions that the country could become a failed-State it is more than timely to establish what is going on there. Read Horton's piece here.
"The most under-reported story of the last year is, simply, the turmoil in Mexico. We’ve heard about kidnappings and assassinations, usually followed by warnings that the troubles in Mexico may well “spill” across the border, and newspapers in the border states pay the issue more attention, but for the last several years a nominally conservative government in Washington has responded to the pleas of a conservative, pro-American government in Mexico City with a shrug of the shoulders and talk about building a fence on the border. Anyway, talk of “spilling across the border” is stupid. The seat of the Mexican problems is in the United States, not vice-versa."
With suggestions that the country could become a failed-State it is more than timely to establish what is going on there. Read Horton's piece here.
Please tell me, where is Israel headed?
John Meirsheimer - he of the book The Israel Lobby fame - writing on Stephen Walt's blog under the headline "Please tell me, where is Israel headed?":
"The Palestinians, of course, will remain locked up in Gaza and a handful of enclaves on the West Bank. In essence, Netanyahu and his two key ministers -- Ehud Barak (Defense) and Avigdor Lieberman (Foreign Affairs) -- are committed to creating a Greater Israel, which will cover all of the territory that was once Mandate Palestine.
The Obama administration will surely try to push Netanyahu to change his thinking about a two-state solution and work to give the Palestinians a real state of their own. The Israel lobby, however, will adamantly defend Israel's right to do whatever it wants in the Occupied Territories and make it impossible for the president to put significant pressure on Israel. Netanyahu, like all Israeli leaders, understands this basic fact of life. He knows that he will just have to say a few nice words about the "peace process" and blame the whole thing on the Palestinians, who he believes are a bunch of terrorists anyway, and he will be pretty much free to do whatever he wants in Gaza and the West Bank.
It seems clear to me and to many smart people I know that this story does not have a happy ending. Indeed, it looks like a disastrous ending. Greater Israel cannot be a democratic state, because there will soon be -- if there aren't already -- more Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea than there are Israeli Jews. So, if you give each person one vote, Israel becomes Palestine. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, which leaves two possible outcomes: apartheid and expelling the Palestinians -- and there are more than 5 million of them -- from Greater Israel. Talk about repulsive options. It is worth remembering that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that if there is no two-state solution, Israel will end up in a South Africa-like situation and that will mean the end of the Jewish state. In effect, he is saying that Israel is turning itself into an apartheid state.
My bottom line is that Israel, with the backing of the lobby, is pursuing a remarkably foolish -- Ehud Olmert would say suicidal -- policy towards the Palestinians.
I would appreciate it greatly if Israel's American backers would explain what I am missing here. They must think that there is a happy ending to this story that Olmert and I simply fail to see. Otherwise they would not be backing the Greater Israel enterprise. There is no need for Christian Zionists to respond, because I know what their happy ending is: the Battle of Armageddon and then the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's Jewish backers do not buy this story, which, in fact, many consider anti-Semitic. But they must have an alternative explanation for how Greater Israel is good for the Jews. What is it?"
"The Palestinians, of course, will remain locked up in Gaza and a handful of enclaves on the West Bank. In essence, Netanyahu and his two key ministers -- Ehud Barak (Defense) and Avigdor Lieberman (Foreign Affairs) -- are committed to creating a Greater Israel, which will cover all of the territory that was once Mandate Palestine.
The Obama administration will surely try to push Netanyahu to change his thinking about a two-state solution and work to give the Palestinians a real state of their own. The Israel lobby, however, will adamantly defend Israel's right to do whatever it wants in the Occupied Territories and make it impossible for the president to put significant pressure on Israel. Netanyahu, like all Israeli leaders, understands this basic fact of life. He knows that he will just have to say a few nice words about the "peace process" and blame the whole thing on the Palestinians, who he believes are a bunch of terrorists anyway, and he will be pretty much free to do whatever he wants in Gaza and the West Bank.
It seems clear to me and to many smart people I know that this story does not have a happy ending. Indeed, it looks like a disastrous ending. Greater Israel cannot be a democratic state, because there will soon be -- if there aren't already -- more Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea than there are Israeli Jews. So, if you give each person one vote, Israel becomes Palestine. That is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever, which leaves two possible outcomes: apartheid and expelling the Palestinians -- and there are more than 5 million of them -- from Greater Israel. Talk about repulsive options. It is worth remembering that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said that if there is no two-state solution, Israel will end up in a South Africa-like situation and that will mean the end of the Jewish state. In effect, he is saying that Israel is turning itself into an apartheid state.
My bottom line is that Israel, with the backing of the lobby, is pursuing a remarkably foolish -- Ehud Olmert would say suicidal -- policy towards the Palestinians.
I would appreciate it greatly if Israel's American backers would explain what I am missing here. They must think that there is a happy ending to this story that Olmert and I simply fail to see. Otherwise they would not be backing the Greater Israel enterprise. There is no need for Christian Zionists to respond, because I know what their happy ending is: the Battle of Armageddon and then the Second Coming of Christ. Israel's Jewish backers do not buy this story, which, in fact, many consider anti-Semitic. But they must have an alternative explanation for how Greater Israel is good for the Jews. What is it?"
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Jeff Halper speaks in Australia
The Israeli- Palestinian conflict is an issue that has divided opinions since the state of Israel was formed in 1948. What are the obstacles to achieving peace in the Middle East? Dr. Jeff Halper is an Israeli academic and activist who is no stranger to controversy. On his recent tour to Australia, the Australian Jewish News refused to advertise his lectures. This would come as little surprise to Halper, who is a vocal critic of Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank. Halper claims that Israeli policy towards the Palestinians is akin to apartheid, and that the issue of settlements are intrinsically linked to a wider policy to disempower the Palestinian people. As co-founder of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions he is actively involved in the non-violent protest of demolitions of Palestinian properties on what Israel deems is illegal land.
Jeff Halper grew up in Hibbing, Minnesota (alongside a young Bob Dylan) and throughout the 1960s was involved in the civil rights and anti-war movements. He has lectured in anthropology and written numerous articles and books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict including "Obstacles to Peace" and "An Israeli in Palestine".
ABC FORA has Halper's talk.
Jeff Halper grew up in Hibbing, Minnesota (alongside a young Bob Dylan) and throughout the 1960s was involved in the civil rights and anti-war movements. He has lectured in anthropology and written numerous articles and books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict including "Obstacles to Peace" and "An Israeli in Palestine".
ABC FORA has Halper's talk.
The Two Toxics?
Australian PM met President Obama at the White House this past week.
The meeting of great minds......or perhaps something else?
Cartoon by Peter Broelman on newmatilda.com
The meeting of great minds......or perhaps something else?
Cartoon by Peter Broelman on newmatilda.com
How the West lost its way in the East
Kabul was taken in days, but then the 'liberation of Afghanistan' became a slow-motion disaster. Patrick Cockburn, who has reported on the conflict for The Independent since 2001, has charted the fatal mistakes in his latest piece:
"After seven long years in which it seemed a sideshow to the bigger conflict in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has reached a critical point. The US must now choose how far it will become further embroiled in a messy conflict which affects its relations with Pakistan, India and the wider Middle East including Iran. At a moment when the world is convulsed by the worst economic disaster since 1929, Washington will have to decide if it really wants to invest time, money, military and political resources in beating back the ragged bands of Taliban who increasingly control southern Afghanistan".
"After seven long years in which it seemed a sideshow to the bigger conflict in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan has reached a critical point. The US must now choose how far it will become further embroiled in a messy conflict which affects its relations with Pakistan, India and the wider Middle East including Iran. At a moment when the world is convulsed by the worst economic disaster since 1929, Washington will have to decide if it really wants to invest time, money, military and political resources in beating back the ragged bands of Taliban who increasingly control southern Afghanistan".
The Real Economic Crisis
Robert Dreyfuss writing in The Nation:
"Today I want to highlight an example of remarkably good and important journalism, namely, a story in the Washington Post by Karin Brulliard that opens the door, a crack at least, on the effects of the worldwide economic crisis on the most vulnerable: people who live in Africa and other "least developed" countries.
The story is called: "Zambia's Copperbelt Reels from Global Crisis."
It's important because it points out that the effects of the crisis, while bad here at home, are magnified a hundred-fold in many poor countries, which are being pushed over the brink toward societal disintegration.
First a quote:
Mines here in Zambia's Copperbelt region drive this poor nation's economy, but a plunge in global trade has slashed demand for the copper used to construct electronics and houses in the United States and Asia. That is prompting mines here to slow and shut, limiting tens of thousands of Zambians' access to schooling, health care and regular meals."
Read another dimension to the GFC here.
"Today I want to highlight an example of remarkably good and important journalism, namely, a story in the Washington Post by Karin Brulliard that opens the door, a crack at least, on the effects of the worldwide economic crisis on the most vulnerable: people who live in Africa and other "least developed" countries.
The story is called: "Zambia's Copperbelt Reels from Global Crisis."
It's important because it points out that the effects of the crisis, while bad here at home, are magnified a hundred-fold in many poor countries, which are being pushed over the brink toward societal disintegration.
First a quote:
Mines here in Zambia's Copperbelt region drive this poor nation's economy, but a plunge in global trade has slashed demand for the copper used to construct electronics and houses in the United States and Asia. That is prompting mines here to slow and shut, limiting tens of thousands of Zambians' access to schooling, health care and regular meals."
Read another dimension to the GFC here.
Some choice as Foreign Minister
"Imagine a country that appoints someone who has been found guilty of striking a 12-year-old boy to be its foreign minister. The person in question is also under investigation for money-laundering, fraud and breach of trust; in addition, he was a bona fide member of an outlawed racist party and currently leads a political party that espouses fascist ideas. On top of all this, he does not even reside in the country he has been chosen to represent.
Even though such a portrayal may appear completely outlandish, Israel's new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, actually fits the above depiction to the letter."
So begins a piece by Neve Gordon in The Guardian.
What makes the piece so compelling [read it, here, in full] is that the newly appointed FM for Israel is so unsuitable to be appointed to the position that one can readily see the direction the new Government will take despite the new PM's talk about peace with the Palestinians. Pipe dream would seem to be the appropriate appellation! And then there has to be question how foreign governments will receive Lieberman. Remember, too, that Israel withdrew its ambassador from Austria when it had Joerg Haider as its extreme right leader.
Even though such a portrayal may appear completely outlandish, Israel's new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, actually fits the above depiction to the letter."
So begins a piece by Neve Gordon in The Guardian.
What makes the piece so compelling [read it, here, in full] is that the newly appointed FM for Israel is so unsuitable to be appointed to the position that one can readily see the direction the new Government will take despite the new PM's talk about peace with the Palestinians. Pipe dream would seem to be the appropriate appellation! And then there has to be question how foreign governments will receive Lieberman. Remember, too, that Israel withdrew its ambassador from Austria when it had Joerg Haider as its extreme right leader.
Friday, March 27, 2009
A "lost" voice of hope for youth in Iran
"I had to ask a staff member in the state library to help me because I couldn't figure out how to use the printers. While showing me the procedures she asked where I came from. "Iran," I answered. "That's awful. How come Iranians support terrorism?"
"We do not …," I murmured, having reservations about whether to stand up for my nation (and my identity).
I wish we, the Iranian youths, had a Fox News of sorts to broadcast our voice. I wish we had the media to show that we are not President Ahmadinejad; that Mohammad Khatami is not Ahmadinejad.
I was one of those 22 million people who voted for Khatami in 1997 when he was elected president of Iran. Intentions to vote for Khatami aside, what my friends and I shared were being Iranian and being fed up with the fanaticism present in Iran.
Those who voted for Khatami were Muslims, non-believers, Christians, gays and first-time voters. We had mostly grown up in the first decade after the 1977 revolution; the decade in which girls wearing white socks could expect to be expelled from school and where talking to the opposite sex in public could have put you in jail."
Writing under an alias, Mimi Mehraben in a piece in The Age newspaper describes the hope the youth, and others, had in Iran when Mohammad Khatami was elected President back in 1997. Read her piece, in full, here.
Meanwhile, the LA Times reports in "'We want a change,' Iran reformist says" on the upcoming election and Reza Norouzadeh, a top official in the presidential campaign of reformist former parliament speaker Mehdi Karroubi. He says the government of conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created a mess.
"We do not …," I murmured, having reservations about whether to stand up for my nation (and my identity).
I wish we, the Iranian youths, had a Fox News of sorts to broadcast our voice. I wish we had the media to show that we are not President Ahmadinejad; that Mohammad Khatami is not Ahmadinejad.
I was one of those 22 million people who voted for Khatami in 1997 when he was elected president of Iran. Intentions to vote for Khatami aside, what my friends and I shared were being Iranian and being fed up with the fanaticism present in Iran.
Those who voted for Khatami were Muslims, non-believers, Christians, gays and first-time voters. We had mostly grown up in the first decade after the 1977 revolution; the decade in which girls wearing white socks could expect to be expelled from school and where talking to the opposite sex in public could have put you in jail."
Writing under an alias, Mimi Mehraben in a piece in The Age newspaper describes the hope the youth, and others, had in Iran when Mohammad Khatami was elected President back in 1997. Read her piece, in full, here.
Meanwhile, the LA Times reports in "'We want a change,' Iran reformist says" on the upcoming election and Reza Norouzadeh, a top official in the presidential campaign of reformist former parliament speaker Mehdi Karroubi. He says the government of conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has created a mess.
Obama follows Bush......with more of the same
Each day he occupies the Oval Office reveals that despite all the hype and expectations heaped on Obama, that, bottom line, he isn't all that different from his discredited predecessor George W.
Example #1. The Washington Post reports:
"Civil liberties advocates are accusing the Obama administration of forsaking campaign rhetoric and adopting the same expansive arguments that his predecessor used to cloak some of the most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs of the Bush White House.
The first signs have come just weeks into the new administration, in a case filed by an Oregon charity suspected of funding terrorism. President Obama's Justice Department not only sought to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that it implicated "state secrets," but also escalated the standoff -- proposing that government lawyers might take classified documents from the court's custody to keep the charity's representatives from reviewing them."
Example #2. It is all in the wording and playing semantics, as this IPS report "Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq" shows:
"Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.
US soldiers secure the area during a handover ceremony of one of Baghdad's government buildings in the al-Yarmouk district of the Iraqi capital on March 16, 2009. (AFP/File/Ahmad al-Rubaye)A spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.
But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.
Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterized differently".
"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."
Obama's decision to go along with the military proposal for a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along - the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010."
Example #1. The Washington Post reports:
"Civil liberties advocates are accusing the Obama administration of forsaking campaign rhetoric and adopting the same expansive arguments that his predecessor used to cloak some of the most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs of the Bush White House.
The first signs have come just weeks into the new administration, in a case filed by an Oregon charity suspected of funding terrorism. President Obama's Justice Department not only sought to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that it implicated "state secrets," but also escalated the standoff -- proposing that government lawyers might take classified documents from the court's custody to keep the charity's representatives from reviewing them."
Example #2. It is all in the wording and playing semantics, as this IPS report "Despite Obama’s Vow, Combat Brigades Will Stay in Iraq" shows:
"Despite President Barack Obama's statement at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina Feb. 27 that he had "chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months," a number of Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), which have been the basic U.S. Army combat unit in Iraq for six years, will remain in Iraq after that date under a new non-combat label.
US soldiers secure the area during a handover ceremony of one of Baghdad's government buildings in the al-Yarmouk district of the Iraqi capital on March 16, 2009. (AFP/File/Ahmad al-Rubaye)A spokesman for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Lt. Col. Patrick S. Ryder, told IPS Tuesday that "several advisory and assistance brigades" would be part of a U.S. command in Iraq that will be "re-designated" as a "transition force headquarters" after August 2010.
But the "advisory and assistance brigades" to remain in Iraq after that date will in fact be the same as BCTs, except for the addition of a few dozen officers who would carry out the advice and assistance missions, according to military officials involved in the planning process.
Gates has hinted that the withdrawal of combat brigades will be accomplished through an administrative sleight of hand rather than by actually withdrawing all the combat brigade teams. Appearing on Meet the Press Mar. 1, Gates said the "transition force" would have "a very different kind of mission", and that the units remaining in Iraq "will be characterized differently".
"They will be called advisory and assistance brigades," said Gates. "They won't be called combat brigades."
Obama's decision to go along with the military proposal for a "transition force" of 35,000 to 50,000 troops thus represents a complete abandonment of his own original policy of combat troop withdrawal and an acceptance of what the military wanted all along - the continued presence of several combat brigades in Iraq well beyond mid-2010."
9/11 Mark II?
The way in which the GFC has impacted on people and cities is amply shown in two pieces.
First, Tom Englehardt on TomDispatch.com in "A Second 9/11 in Slow Motion" reflects on the change of NY on "on the street":
"Now, understand, in New York City, there's nothing strange about small businesses going down, or buildings going up. It's a city that, since birth, has regularly cannibalized itself.
What's strange in my experience -- a New Yorker born and bred -- is when storefronts, once emptied, aren't quickly repopulated.
Broadway in daylight now seems increasingly like an archeological dig in the making. Those storefronts with their fading decals ("Zagat rated") and their old signs look, for all the world, like teeth knocked out of a mouth. In a city in which a section of Broadway was once known as the Great White Way for its profligate use of electricity, and everything normally is aglow at any hour, these dead commercial spaces feel like so many tiny black holes. Get on the wrong set of streets -- Broadway's hardly the worst -- and New York can easily seem like a creeping vision of Hell, not as fire but as darkness slowly snuffing out the blaze of life."
Another dimension, the human one, is reflected in this piece "Are they depressed? Nowhere near" on IHT:
"It's a tragic and all too common sight now — a line of the jobless, snaking around the corner and down the block, their hopes and résumés in hand. "I've lost count of how many I've been to," said a man waiting grim-faced in the job-fair line. "Same sort of nothing when you e-mail your résumé to corporate Web pages — no one has the decency to even acknowledge receipt."
In the cold sunshine a block from Macy's, the line had intimations of a Depression-era dance marathon: gutsy stepping through the motions while job-fair managers delivered their Yowsa cheer. The survival instinct glinted; a laid-off paralegal slyly bucked the line, smiling all the way, to deliver her résumé inside at a government job kiosk.
"Nothing gets me down," she explained in Darwinian justification. "Everything is an emotion; you discipline yourself to be happy," she said, steel in her tone as she eyed the next job table.
Out on bustling Broadway, Paul Wax, a computer security specialist, inched forward and nodded toward lower Manhattan, where at that moment Bernard Madoff, Wall Street's master thief, was facing his comeuppance in court. "A new suit for him, with stripes," Wax said. Hardly comforted, he envisioned many more Wall Street bilkers walking free and rich. "CEOs and presidents should be on this line — they're the ones who failed at their jobs." Wax, a Vietnam veteran who put himself through night school and raised a family, was five years from retirement when the bottom fell out.
Salaried commerce bustled past the line with little time for empathy. Scraps of intent negotiations from hurrying cell-phone talkers. The deliverymen with office pizzas, entrepreneurs to be envied. Inside, a job-fair manager confided there would be fewer fairs because there were simply fewer jobs.
Applicants were spared this forecast. "Stay positive!" a fair manager boomed. "Keep a smile on your face!" Wax had heard that tune before. "I meditate," he said, looking strong and eminently employable. "Meditation works. So far."
First, Tom Englehardt on TomDispatch.com in "A Second 9/11 in Slow Motion" reflects on the change of NY on "on the street":
"Now, understand, in New York City, there's nothing strange about small businesses going down, or buildings going up. It's a city that, since birth, has regularly cannibalized itself.
What's strange in my experience -- a New Yorker born and bred -- is when storefronts, once emptied, aren't quickly repopulated.
Broadway in daylight now seems increasingly like an archeological dig in the making. Those storefronts with their fading decals ("Zagat rated") and their old signs look, for all the world, like teeth knocked out of a mouth. In a city in which a section of Broadway was once known as the Great White Way for its profligate use of electricity, and everything normally is aglow at any hour, these dead commercial spaces feel like so many tiny black holes. Get on the wrong set of streets -- Broadway's hardly the worst -- and New York can easily seem like a creeping vision of Hell, not as fire but as darkness slowly snuffing out the blaze of life."
Another dimension, the human one, is reflected in this piece "Are they depressed? Nowhere near" on IHT:
"It's a tragic and all too common sight now — a line of the jobless, snaking around the corner and down the block, their hopes and résumés in hand. "I've lost count of how many I've been to," said a man waiting grim-faced in the job-fair line. "Same sort of nothing when you e-mail your résumé to corporate Web pages — no one has the decency to even acknowledge receipt."
In the cold sunshine a block from Macy's, the line had intimations of a Depression-era dance marathon: gutsy stepping through the motions while job-fair managers delivered their Yowsa cheer. The survival instinct glinted; a laid-off paralegal slyly bucked the line, smiling all the way, to deliver her résumé inside at a government job kiosk.
"Nothing gets me down," she explained in Darwinian justification. "Everything is an emotion; you discipline yourself to be happy," she said, steel in her tone as she eyed the next job table.
Out on bustling Broadway, Paul Wax, a computer security specialist, inched forward and nodded toward lower Manhattan, where at that moment Bernard Madoff, Wall Street's master thief, was facing his comeuppance in court. "A new suit for him, with stripes," Wax said. Hardly comforted, he envisioned many more Wall Street bilkers walking free and rich. "CEOs and presidents should be on this line — they're the ones who failed at their jobs." Wax, a Vietnam veteran who put himself through night school and raised a family, was five years from retirement when the bottom fell out.
Salaried commerce bustled past the line with little time for empathy. Scraps of intent negotiations from hurrying cell-phone talkers. The deliverymen with office pizzas, entrepreneurs to be envied. Inside, a job-fair manager confided there would be fewer fairs because there were simply fewer jobs.
Applicants were spared this forecast. "Stay positive!" a fair manager boomed. "Keep a smile on your face!" Wax had heard that tune before. "I meditate," he said, looking strong and eminently employable. "Meditation works. So far."
The signs are all negative
It looks like President Obama isn't too sure, or confident, about securing a peace-deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.
The NY Times reports this from yesterday's press conference:
"QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
QUESTION: How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting Arabs?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s not easier than it was, but I think it’s just as necessary. We don’t yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like. And we don’t yet know what the future shape of Palestinian leadership is going to be comprised of.
What we do know is this; that the status quo is unsustainable. That it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states with peace and security. And by assigning George Mitchell the task of working as special envoy, what we’ve signaled is that we’re going to be serious from day one in trying to move the parties in a direction that acknowledges that reality. How effective these negotiations may be, I think we’re going to have to wait and see."
One can readily understand Obama's caution given this report, from Haaretz, of the secret deal said to have been struck between Netanyahu and Lieberman to build another 3000 housing units on the West Bank. So much for the new PM's hollow words of seeking peace with the Palestinians.
The NY Times reports this from yesterday's press conference:
"QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah.
QUESTION: How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting Arabs?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: It’s not easier than it was, but I think it’s just as necessary. We don’t yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like. And we don’t yet know what the future shape of Palestinian leadership is going to be comprised of.
What we do know is this; that the status quo is unsustainable. That it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states with peace and security. And by assigning George Mitchell the task of working as special envoy, what we’ve signaled is that we’re going to be serious from day one in trying to move the parties in a direction that acknowledges that reality. How effective these negotiations may be, I think we’re going to have to wait and see."
One can readily understand Obama's caution given this report, from Haaretz, of the secret deal said to have been struck between Netanyahu and Lieberman to build another 3000 housing units on the West Bank. So much for the new PM's hollow words of seeking peace with the Palestinians.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Urgent Need for Peace
One has to wonder what is propelling NY Times op-ed columnist Roger Cohen to write - and the Times to publish - so regularly on the topic, but again his latest piece "The Fierce Urgency of Peace" addresses the Israel-Palestine conflict and the need for a resolution there.
"Pressure on President Obama to recast the failed American approach to Israel-Palestine is building from former senior officials whose counsel he respects.
Following up on a letter dated Nov. 6, 2008, that was handed to Obama late last year by Paul Volcker, now a senior economic adviser to the president, these foreign policy mandarins have concluded a “Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking” that should become an essential template.
Deploring “seven years of absenteeism” under the Bush administration, they call for intense American mediation in pursuit of a two-state solution, “a more pragmatic approach toward Hamas,” and eventual U.S. leadership of a multinational force to police transitional security between Israel and Palestine.
The 10 signatories — of both the four-page letter and the report — include Volcker himself, former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Senator Chuck Hagel, former World Bank President James Wolfensohn, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering.
And:
"Of Hamas, the target of Israel’s futile pounding of Gaza, the eminent Group of 10 writes that, “Shutting out the movement and isolating Gaza has only made it stronger and Fatah weaker.”
They urge a fundamental change: “Shift the U.S. objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior, offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might clarify the movement’s view and test its behavior.”
"Pressure on President Obama to recast the failed American approach to Israel-Palestine is building from former senior officials whose counsel he respects.
Following up on a letter dated Nov. 6, 2008, that was handed to Obama late last year by Paul Volcker, now a senior economic adviser to the president, these foreign policy mandarins have concluded a “Bipartisan Statement on U.S. Middle East Peacemaking” that should become an essential template.
Deploring “seven years of absenteeism” under the Bush administration, they call for intense American mediation in pursuit of a two-state solution, “a more pragmatic approach toward Hamas,” and eventual U.S. leadership of a multinational force to police transitional security between Israel and Palestine.
The 10 signatories — of both the four-page letter and the report — include Volcker himself, former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Senator Chuck Hagel, former World Bank President James Wolfensohn, former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills, former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering.
And:
"Of Hamas, the target of Israel’s futile pounding of Gaza, the eminent Group of 10 writes that, “Shutting out the movement and isolating Gaza has only made it stronger and Fatah weaker.”
They urge a fundamental change: “Shift the U.S. objective from ousting Hamas to modifying its behavior, offer it inducements that will enable its more moderate elements to prevail, and cease discouraging third parties from engaging with Hamas in ways that might clarify the movement’s view and test its behavior.”
It's in the numbers
Just two "interesting" stats which have been reported today:
*** The ILO says that 90 million jobs need to be created, worldwide, by the end of next year in order to avoid a global job crisis
*** there were some 7200 drug-related deaths in Mexico in 2008 [see the IHT here].
Last week Apple reported that it had sold some 30 million iPhones and iTouches up to the end of 2008 and there had been some 800,000 downloads of Apps from the iTunes Store in the 8 months post release of Apps.
*** The ILO says that 90 million jobs need to be created, worldwide, by the end of next year in order to avoid a global job crisis
*** there were some 7200 drug-related deaths in Mexico in 2008 [see the IHT here].
Last week Apple reported that it had sold some 30 million iPhones and iTouches up to the end of 2008 and there had been some 800,000 downloads of Apps from the iTunes Store in the 8 months post release of Apps.
Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay
Lawrence B. Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and is chairman of the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.
One can, therefore, assume, that he knows what he is talking about.
Writing in The Washington Note [reproduced on truthout.org] he says:
"There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware. For that matter, few within the government who were not directly involved are aware either."
Read this rather astounding piece, and its revelations,in full, here.
Wilkerson concludes:
"But al-Qa'ida will be back. Iraq, GITMO, Abu Ghraib, heavily-biased U.S. support for Israel, and a host of other strategic errors have insured al-Qa'ida's resilience, staying power and motivation. How we deal with the future attacks of this organization and its cohorts could well seal our fate, for good or bad. Osama bin Laden and his brain trust, Aman al-Zawahiri, are counting on us to produce the bad. With people such as Cheney assisting them, they are far more likely to succeed."
One can, therefore, assume, that he knows what he is talking about.
Writing in The Washington Note [reproduced on truthout.org] he says:
"There are several dimensions to the debate over the U.S. prison facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba that the media have largely missed and, thus, of which the American people are almost completely unaware. For that matter, few within the government who were not directly involved are aware either."
Read this rather astounding piece, and its revelations,in full, here.
Wilkerson concludes:
"But al-Qa'ida will be back. Iraq, GITMO, Abu Ghraib, heavily-biased U.S. support for Israel, and a host of other strategic errors have insured al-Qa'ida's resilience, staying power and motivation. How we deal with the future attacks of this organization and its cohorts could well seal our fate, for good or bad. Osama bin Laden and his brain trust, Aman al-Zawahiri, are counting on us to produce the bad. With people such as Cheney assisting them, they are far more likely to succeed."
Latest financial "medicine". Good or bad?
President Obama has just told the people of America that he sees progress in the current economic quagmire. Where that optimism comes from is hard to say other than the US Treasury Secretary having made a statement yesterday on quarantining toxic debts - in a seemingly one-sided public-private investment vehicle - and consideration being given to taxing excessive executive bonuses at 90%.
Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University. Among many books, he is the author of Globalization and Its Discontents. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for research on the economics of information. Most recently, he is the co-author, with Linda Bilmes, of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.
Writing in Project Syndicate [reproduced on CommonDreams] the professor questions the Admininistration's moves in bringing the current financial mess, and the fallout from it, into some sort of order:
"Let's be clear: President Barack Obama inherited an economy in freefall and could not possibly have turned things around in the short time since his election. Unfortunately, what he is doing is not enough.
The real failings in the Obama recovery program lie not in the stimulus package -- though it is too heavily weighted toward tax cuts, and much of it merely offsets cutbacks by states -- but in its efforts to revive financial markets. America's failures provide important lessons to countries around the world that are or will be facing increasing problems with their banks."
Continue reading here.
Joseph E. Stiglitz is University Professor at Columbia University. Among many books, he is the author of Globalization and Its Discontents. He received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 for research on the economics of information. Most recently, he is the co-author, with Linda Bilmes, of The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Costs of the Iraq Conflict.
Writing in Project Syndicate [reproduced on CommonDreams] the professor questions the Admininistration's moves in bringing the current financial mess, and the fallout from it, into some sort of order:
"Let's be clear: President Barack Obama inherited an economy in freefall and could not possibly have turned things around in the short time since his election. Unfortunately, what he is doing is not enough.
The real failings in the Obama recovery program lie not in the stimulus package -- though it is too heavily weighted toward tax cuts, and much of it merely offsets cutbacks by states -- but in its efforts to revive financial markets. America's failures provide important lessons to countries around the world that are or will be facing increasing problems with their banks."
Continue reading here.
Hitchens: An Army of Extremists
There is often much not to like about writer, journalist and commentator Christopher Hitchens. In some ways he is a chameleon who takes himself far too seriously.
That said, in a piece in Slate "An Army of Extremists" he reflects on how rabbis in Israel are radicalising Israeli soldiers the whole settler movement. As an aside, the use of "settlers" is a misnomer and implies small groups of people living in tents or fairly makeshift accommodation. Certainly there are instances of that but in the main in the West Bank the Israelis have built fully functional towns or small cities with many have something like 60,000 inhabitants.
Hitchens writes:
"The zealot settlers and their clerical accomplices are establishing an army within the army so that one day, if it is ever decided to disband or evacuate the colonial settlements, there will be enough officers and soldiers, stiffened by enough rabbis and enough extremist sermons, to refuse to obey the order. Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs. The dress rehearsals for this have already taken place, with the religious excuses given for Baruch Goldstein's rampage and the Talmudic evasions concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Once considered highly extreme, such biblical exegeses are moving ever closer to the mainstream. It's high time the United States cut off any financial support for Israel that can be used even indirectly for settler activity, not just because such colonization constitutes a theft of another people's land but also because our Constitution absolutely forbids us to spend public money on the establishment of any religion."
That said, in a piece in Slate "An Army of Extremists" he reflects on how rabbis in Israel are radicalising Israeli soldiers the whole settler movement. As an aside, the use of "settlers" is a misnomer and implies small groups of people living in tents or fairly makeshift accommodation. Certainly there are instances of that but in the main in the West Bank the Israelis have built fully functional towns or small cities with many have something like 60,000 inhabitants.
Hitchens writes:
"The zealot settlers and their clerical accomplices are establishing an army within the army so that one day, if it is ever decided to disband or evacuate the colonial settlements, there will be enough officers and soldiers, stiffened by enough rabbis and enough extremist sermons, to refuse to obey the order. Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs. The dress rehearsals for this have already taken place, with the religious excuses given for Baruch Goldstein's rampage and the Talmudic evasions concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Once considered highly extreme, such biblical exegeses are moving ever closer to the mainstream. It's high time the United States cut off any financial support for Israel that can be used even indirectly for settler activity, not just because such colonization constitutes a theft of another people's land but also because our Constitution absolutely forbids us to spend public money on the establishment of any religion."
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A "partner for peace?"
Israel's centre-left Labor party has voted at a conference to join a coalition government led by Benyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister-designate and Likud leader.
The move provides the parliamentary majority necessary for government, which will include the nationalist Yisrael Beitenu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister-designate, and the orthodox Jewish Shas party.
Ehud Barak, the Labor leader, says that his party will provide balance to a right-wing government, while others argue that Labor itself is moving to the right.
Al Jazeera has 3 commentators reflect on what this new coalition means. Meanwhile the news agency also reports on the new Israeli PM's claim that he seeks peace with the Palestinians and will be a "partner for peace". But on what terms and where would it leave the Palestinians? The prognosis isn't good.
The move provides the parliamentary majority necessary for government, which will include the nationalist Yisrael Beitenu, led by Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister-designate, and the orthodox Jewish Shas party.
Ehud Barak, the Labor leader, says that his party will provide balance to a right-wing government, while others argue that Labor itself is moving to the right.
Al Jazeera has 3 commentators reflect on what this new coalition means. Meanwhile the news agency also reports on the new Israeli PM's claim that he seeks peace with the Palestinians and will be a "partner for peace". But on what terms and where would it leave the Palestinians? The prognosis isn't good.
Entry into the USA.....You had better be on song!
Entry into the US may depend on whether you have been heard or seen to espouse political views which don't accord with those of America. Forget about freedom of expression, etc. etc. It's all a dangerous and slippery slope.
The ACLU has challenged the barring of an academic to the US as it records:
"The American Civil Liberties Union is in a federal appeals court today to present arguments in the case of a Swiss professor and leading scholar of the Muslim world who was denied entry to the United States based on his political views. The ACLU is arguing that the government's exclusion of Professor Tariq Ramadan is illegal and was motivated not by anything he did but by his vocal criticism of U.S. foreign policy.
"By denying visas to prominent foreign scholars and writers simply because they were critical of United States foreign policy, the Bush administration used immigration laws to skew and stifle political debate inside the U.S.," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, who will argue the case for the plaintiffs. "While the government has an interest in excluding people who present a threat to the country, it doesn't have any legitimate interest in excluding foreign nationals simply because of their political views. The Bush administration was wrong to revive this Cold War practice, and the Obama administration should not defend it."
Ramadan was invited to teach at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 but the U.S. government revoked his visa, citing a statute that applies to those who have "endorsed or espoused" terrorism. In January 2006, the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Professor Ramadan's exclusion from the U.S. on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and the PEN American Center. After the ACLU filed suit, the government abandoned its claim that Ramadan had endorsed terrorism, but it continues to exclude him because he made small donations to a Swiss charity that the government alleges has given money to Hamas."
Continue reading here. Meanwhile, the Canadians the other day barred no-lesser-a-person than a British MP. Read about this outrageous decision on Information Clearing House here.
The ACLU has challenged the barring of an academic to the US as it records:
"The American Civil Liberties Union is in a federal appeals court today to present arguments in the case of a Swiss professor and leading scholar of the Muslim world who was denied entry to the United States based on his political views. The ACLU is arguing that the government's exclusion of Professor Tariq Ramadan is illegal and was motivated not by anything he did but by his vocal criticism of U.S. foreign policy.
"By denying visas to prominent foreign scholars and writers simply because they were critical of United States foreign policy, the Bush administration used immigration laws to skew and stifle political debate inside the U.S.," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, who will argue the case for the plaintiffs. "While the government has an interest in excluding people who present a threat to the country, it doesn't have any legitimate interest in excluding foreign nationals simply because of their political views. The Bush administration was wrong to revive this Cold War practice, and the Obama administration should not defend it."
Ramadan was invited to teach at the University of Notre Dame in 2004 but the U.S. government revoked his visa, citing a statute that applies to those who have "endorsed or espoused" terrorism. In January 2006, the ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Professor Ramadan's exclusion from the U.S. on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American Association of University Professors and the PEN American Center. After the ACLU filed suit, the government abandoned its claim that Ramadan had endorsed terrorism, but it continues to exclude him because he made small donations to a Swiss charity that the government alleges has given money to Hamas."
Continue reading here. Meanwhile, the Canadians the other day barred no-lesser-a-person than a British MP. Read about this outrageous decision on Information Clearing House here.
Using the Web to Reunite Refugees
The plight of refugees is never far away but seemingly under the radar in the media - unless some sort of tragedy comes to light like a ship drowning with refugees. It follows with so many people on the march somewhere around the world that families are often lost to one another. Add to the mix of refugees those who simply flee terror a la as in Darfur or famine and natural disasters.
Now, an attempt is being made to locate and re-unite refugees - using the "power" of the internet.
As Spiegel International writes:
"Facebook is great if you want to find long-lost classmates. But what if you're a refugee looking for family members? A new Web site seeks to provide those displaced by war or disaster with a platform to search themselves -- provided they have Internet access."
So:
"More to the point, though, you also have a decent chance of finding that cute girl who sat next to you in the fifth grade -- the one you haven't seen in 15 years. That, at least, was the function that caught the imaginations of Danish brothers Christopher and David Mikkelsen. Years ago, the two realized that a social networking platform might be a great tool refugees could use to help them find their families. Now, just a few months after the launch of www.refunite.org, the site has made great strides toward becoming the go-to search engine for displaced people around the world.
The idea is actually a very simple one. Each year, millions of people are uprooted by war, famine or natural disaster. Escaping catastrophe, though, is not always an orderly process. Families can easily get separated and, once the displaced cross borders, often get sent to widely dispersed destinations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that there are over 1.5 million minors who have lost contact with their parents."
Read the complete piece here.
Now, an attempt is being made to locate and re-unite refugees - using the "power" of the internet.
As Spiegel International writes:
"Facebook is great if you want to find long-lost classmates. But what if you're a refugee looking for family members? A new Web site seeks to provide those displaced by war or disaster with a platform to search themselves -- provided they have Internet access."
So:
"More to the point, though, you also have a decent chance of finding that cute girl who sat next to you in the fifth grade -- the one you haven't seen in 15 years. That, at least, was the function that caught the imaginations of Danish brothers Christopher and David Mikkelsen. Years ago, the two realized that a social networking platform might be a great tool refugees could use to help them find their families. Now, just a few months after the launch of www.refunite.org, the site has made great strides toward becoming the go-to search engine for displaced people around the world.
The idea is actually a very simple one. Each year, millions of people are uprooted by war, famine or natural disaster. Escaping catastrophe, though, is not always an orderly process. Families can easily get separated and, once the displaced cross borders, often get sent to widely dispersed destinations. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that there are over 1.5 million minors who have lost contact with their parents."
Read the complete piece here.
Horrific 'Guardian' reports will stoke international pressure for Gaza war crimes investigation
From Mondoweiss:
"The Guardian has published three videos with statements from Palestinians supporting allegations of Israeli war crimes in the Gaza assault. The Guardian says Israeli soldiers used Palestinian children as human shields for tanks, targeted medics and ambulances, and used drones to fire missiles, sometimes killing whole families. Ilene Cohen writes:
I think we can by now safely move beyond the word "allegation." Among the conclusions:
In a report released today, doctors for Human Rights Israel said there was "certainty" that Israel violated international humanitarian law during the three-week war in January, with attacks on medics, damage to medical buildings, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and delays in medical treatment for the injured.
"We have noticed a stark decline in IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] morals concerning the Palestinian population of Gaza, which in reality amounts to a contempt for Palestinian lives," said Dani Filc, chairman of Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
The first crime, of course, was initiating this war. And its accomplishments? It brought incalculable harm to the people of Gaza and their world; it did nothing for Israel's security; and it yielded probably six or seven additional Knesset seats for Tzipi Livni.
From there, the rest is the fallout of war, wanton killing and destruction in one tiny, densely populated piece of our world. But somehow the Israelis always seem to do their wars and operations with an especial--frightening--zeal. It is not to be expected that Israel, an old hand at committing war crimes and evading accountability, will do anything about this. How could it when clearly nothing here was an "accident"? I was not pleased to see a crawling head on the home page of Haaretz stating that the US has labeled the UN rapporteur for the Occupied Territories (Richard Falk) "biased," echoing the Israeli response to Professor Falk, as well as to all others who dare to call war crimes by their proper name. Perhaps this is not so; unfortunately, however, it may be exactly so.
But even the United States, I think, will not be able to cover for Israel this time (nor should it want to). This is not going away: the evidence is mounting and coming from too many quarters. In the end, we will not need Israel to complete the investigation--or even to start it. And it may be that it has taken the atrocity of Gaza 2008-9 to finally bring an end to this pattern Israeli warmongering against the Palestinian people. That is--if the response from around the world is sharp and unequivocal. I hope that is not wishful thinking
The report from The Guardian includes three videos. I hope you will watch them all. Each also provides the "official" IDF response. Expect the Israelis to mount vicious attacks against those making the allegations. We owe it to the victims, whom we have ignored for far too long, to pay attention this time."
"The Guardian has published three videos with statements from Palestinians supporting allegations of Israeli war crimes in the Gaza assault. The Guardian says Israeli soldiers used Palestinian children as human shields for tanks, targeted medics and ambulances, and used drones to fire missiles, sometimes killing whole families. Ilene Cohen writes:
I think we can by now safely move beyond the word "allegation." Among the conclusions:
In a report released today, doctors for Human Rights Israel said there was "certainty" that Israel violated international humanitarian law during the three-week war in January, with attacks on medics, damage to medical buildings, indiscriminate attacks on civilians and delays in medical treatment for the injured.
"We have noticed a stark decline in IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] morals concerning the Palestinian population of Gaza, which in reality amounts to a contempt for Palestinian lives," said Dani Filc, chairman of Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
The first crime, of course, was initiating this war. And its accomplishments? It brought incalculable harm to the people of Gaza and their world; it did nothing for Israel's security; and it yielded probably six or seven additional Knesset seats for Tzipi Livni.
From there, the rest is the fallout of war, wanton killing and destruction in one tiny, densely populated piece of our world. But somehow the Israelis always seem to do their wars and operations with an especial--frightening--zeal. It is not to be expected that Israel, an old hand at committing war crimes and evading accountability, will do anything about this. How could it when clearly nothing here was an "accident"? I was not pleased to see a crawling head on the home page of Haaretz stating that the US has labeled the UN rapporteur for the Occupied Territories (Richard Falk) "biased," echoing the Israeli response to Professor Falk, as well as to all others who dare to call war crimes by their proper name. Perhaps this is not so; unfortunately, however, it may be exactly so.
But even the United States, I think, will not be able to cover for Israel this time (nor should it want to). This is not going away: the evidence is mounting and coming from too many quarters. In the end, we will not need Israel to complete the investigation--or even to start it. And it may be that it has taken the atrocity of Gaza 2008-9 to finally bring an end to this pattern Israeli warmongering against the Palestinian people. That is--if the response from around the world is sharp and unequivocal. I hope that is not wishful thinking
The report from The Guardian includes three videos. I hope you will watch them all. Each also provides the "official" IDF response. Expect the Israelis to mount vicious attacks against those making the allegations. We owe it to the victims, whom we have ignored for far too long, to pay attention this time."
Israel's Most Revolting Law?
Uri Avnery has been a long-time critic of Israel. He is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
He writes in his latest piece "Israel's Most Revolting Law" on CounterPunch:
"The most important sentence written in Israel this week was lost in the general tumult of exciting events."
So what are these words and what context were they said? The words were:
"The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.”
Read what occasioned these words to be said - read the Avnery piece, in full, here - and as he writers says:
"If we are at war with “the Palestinian people”, this means that every Palestinian, wherever he or she may be, is an enemy. That includes the inhabitants of the occupied territories, the refugees scattered throughout the world as well as the Arab citizens of Israel proper. A mason in Taibeh, Israel, a farmer near Nablus in the West Bank, a policeman of the Palestinian Authority in Jenin, a Hamas fighter in Gaza, a girl in a school in the Mia Mia refugee camp near Sidon, Lebanon, a naturalized American shopkeeper in New York – “collective against collective”.
He writes in his latest piece "Israel's Most Revolting Law" on CounterPunch:
"The most important sentence written in Israel this week was lost in the general tumult of exciting events."
So what are these words and what context were they said? The words were:
"The State of Israel is at war with the Palestinian people, people against people, collective against collective.”
Read what occasioned these words to be said - read the Avnery piece, in full, here - and as he writers says:
"If we are at war with “the Palestinian people”, this means that every Palestinian, wherever he or she may be, is an enemy. That includes the inhabitants of the occupied territories, the refugees scattered throughout the world as well as the Arab citizens of Israel proper. A mason in Taibeh, Israel, a farmer near Nablus in the West Bank, a policeman of the Palestinian Authority in Jenin, a Hamas fighter in Gaza, a girl in a school in the Mia Mia refugee camp near Sidon, Lebanon, a naturalized American shopkeeper in New York – “collective against collective”.
Afghanistan: West Stares into the Abyss
Afghanistan is on the brink of chaos. That is the stark message from local leaders, the US military and development workers in the troubled country. The elected government, they warn, can no longer compete with the Taliban.
As the US steps up its commitment to sending more troops into Afghanistan and calls on its allies to also do so, this piece from Spiegel International paints a grim picture of the situation in war-torn country:
"Internal reports by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) paint grim pictures of the situation. US generals say that they are seeing a "significant challenge from insurgents" in Wardak, and their commander-in-chief, President Barack Obama, recently responded with a simple "no" to the question of whether the United States and its allies are currently winning the war in Afghanistan."
And:
"The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) classifies the situation in 26 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces as "insecure." But this is not exclusively the doing of terrorists. The world is too quick to lump all those standing in the way of positive development in Afghanistan together under the term "Taliban." In fact, the Taliban is only one of many groups struggling for political and military power in the country."
Read the full piece here.
As the US steps up its commitment to sending more troops into Afghanistan and calls on its allies to also do so, this piece from Spiegel International paints a grim picture of the situation in war-torn country:
"Internal reports by the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) paint grim pictures of the situation. US generals say that they are seeing a "significant challenge from insurgents" in Wardak, and their commander-in-chief, President Barack Obama, recently responded with a simple "no" to the question of whether the United States and its allies are currently winning the war in Afghanistan."
And:
"The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) classifies the situation in 26 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces as "insecure." But this is not exclusively the doing of terrorists. The world is too quick to lump all those standing in the way of positive development in Afghanistan together under the term "Taliban." In fact, the Taliban is only one of many groups struggling for political and military power in the country."
Read the full piece here.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Now physicians accuse the IDF
Whilst Israel keeps trotting out the canard that it has the "most moral army in the world" and that those IDF T-shirts which have gained notoriety in the last days were "tasteless" [mmm!] now Physicians for Human Rights has come out with yet another damning accusation of the IDF.
Reuters reports in "Israeli troops violated medical ethics-rights group":
"An Israeli human rights group said on Monday the military violated medical ethics codes during its Gaza offensive, the latest accusation against the conduct in combat of Israel's military.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR) described alleged incidents which "reveal that not only did the (military) not evacuate besieged and wounded families, it also prevented Palestinian (medical) teams from reaching the wounded".
PHR's report followed accusations by other human rights groups and Palestinians that Israel's actions during the 22-day offensive in the Palestinian coastal enclave, controlled by the Islamist Hamas group, warranted war crimes investigations.
The Israeli military said the High Court had dismissed a petition PHR lodged on Jan. 19, a day after the offensive ended, and that the allegations were still being investigated.
PHR quoted figures issued by the World Health Organisation which showed 16 Palestinian medical personnel were killed by Israeli fire during the offensive and that 25 were wounded while performing their duties."
Reuters reports in "Israeli troops violated medical ethics-rights group":
"An Israeli human rights group said on Monday the military violated medical ethics codes during its Gaza offensive, the latest accusation against the conduct in combat of Israel's military.
Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR) described alleged incidents which "reveal that not only did the (military) not evacuate besieged and wounded families, it also prevented Palestinian (medical) teams from reaching the wounded".
PHR's report followed accusations by other human rights groups and Palestinians that Israel's actions during the 22-day offensive in the Palestinian coastal enclave, controlled by the Islamist Hamas group, warranted war crimes investigations.
The Israeli military said the High Court had dismissed a petition PHR lodged on Jan. 19, a day after the offensive ended, and that the allegations were still being investigated.
PHR quoted figures issued by the World Health Organisation which showed 16 Palestinian medical personnel were killed by Israeli fire during the offensive and that 25 were wounded while performing their duties."
Is the West watching?
That things are going awry in Pakistan is probably an understatement. Sad to say the West still seems to believe that the new President and his Government should be supported. Perhaps closer scrutiny would be in order. More to the point, too, is that diplomats get things terribly wrong - that is to say, emphasising that which doesn't deserve it.
That is a subject taken up by Mustafa Qadri in an op-ed piece "Pakistan's clear message to the West" in the LA Times. Qadri is Pakistan correspondent for the Diplomat magazine and newmatilda.com. He writes in relation to the recent protests leading in the restoration of Pakistan's Chief Justice:
"Despite millions of dollars spent by the State Department on opinion polls in Pakistan, there has been a catastrophic failure to understand the local mind-set. As recently as Monday, that failure was in evidence when President Obama's envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, praised Zardari, of all people, for his "statesmanlike" decision to reinstate the chief justice.
Where was the praise for the chief justice who had braved two authoritarian presidents, or for the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Pakistanis who risked assault and arrest to support him? To ordinary Pakistanis, it sent the familiar signal that the United States supports the autocrats over the people.
The Chaudhry victory will not solve Pakistan's problems. But by demonstrating the importance of functioning and accountable institutions, the country's lawyers may well have found an opening for the long road out of the country's present hell.
Is the West watching?"
That is a subject taken up by Mustafa Qadri in an op-ed piece "Pakistan's clear message to the West" in the LA Times. Qadri is Pakistan correspondent for the Diplomat magazine and newmatilda.com. He writes in relation to the recent protests leading in the restoration of Pakistan's Chief Justice:
"Despite millions of dollars spent by the State Department on opinion polls in Pakistan, there has been a catastrophic failure to understand the local mind-set. As recently as Monday, that failure was in evidence when President Obama's envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, praised Zardari, of all people, for his "statesmanlike" decision to reinstate the chief justice.
Where was the praise for the chief justice who had braved two authoritarian presidents, or for the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Pakistanis who risked assault and arrest to support him? To ordinary Pakistanis, it sent the familiar signal that the United States supports the autocrats over the people.
The Chaudhry victory will not solve Pakistan's problems. But by demonstrating the importance of functioning and accountable institutions, the country's lawyers may well have found an opening for the long road out of the country's present hell.
Is the West watching?"
Airports: What security?
The killing of a bikie at the Qantas Domestic Terminal at Sydney Airport yesterday raises a question that travellers the world over must mull over whenever they check in and are subjected to some of the absurd security checks. The US probably take first prize for idiocy. A handkerchief through the x-ray machine?
Crikey editorialises on the Sydney incident and the whole over-zealous security "nonsense":
"The amount of taxpayer money soaked up by the post 9/11 pretence at airport security must run into the hundreds of millions. How many shoe searches? How many sheep yard herds of frustrated travellers shuffling toward hypersensitive metal detectors? How many confiscated nail files? All for our own good of course.
All just slivers of comfort and convenience willingly sacrificed in the noble cause of fighting terror and making the skies safe for the innocent traveller. What piffle.
If one thing is proven beyond doubt by the bikie brawl at Sydney airport it is that the gestures of the past decade toward airport security are nothing more than a highly expensive, inconvenient public relations posture. Never mind the strictest security strictures imaginable, all you had to do to kill on the check-in concourse, was reef a lump of metal out of the ground and swing it with a will.
Proof that in this instance governments have acted not because through acting they could make us safer, but because they needed to be seen simply to act."
Point made! Stop!
Crikey editorialises on the Sydney incident and the whole over-zealous security "nonsense":
"The amount of taxpayer money soaked up by the post 9/11 pretence at airport security must run into the hundreds of millions. How many shoe searches? How many sheep yard herds of frustrated travellers shuffling toward hypersensitive metal detectors? How many confiscated nail files? All for our own good of course.
All just slivers of comfort and convenience willingly sacrificed in the noble cause of fighting terror and making the skies safe for the innocent traveller. What piffle.
If one thing is proven beyond doubt by the bikie brawl at Sydney airport it is that the gestures of the past decade toward airport security are nothing more than a highly expensive, inconvenient public relations posture. Never mind the strictest security strictures imaginable, all you had to do to kill on the check-in concourse, was reef a lump of metal out of the ground and swing it with a will.
Proof that in this instance governments have acted not because through acting they could make us safer, but because they needed to be seen simply to act."
Point made! Stop!
From Teheran to Tel Aviv
"With his bold message to Iran’s leaders, President Obama achieved four things essential to any rapprochement.
He abandoned regime change as an American goal. He shelved the so-called military option. He buried a carrot-and-sticks approach viewed with contempt by Iranians as fit only for donkeys. And he placed Iran’s nuclear program within “the full range of issues before us.”
By doing so, Obama made it almost inevitable that one of the defining strategic issues of his presidency will be a painful but necessary redefinition of America’s relations with Israel as differences over Iran sharpen. I will return to that below."
So begins an op-ed piece one simply would not have seen in the NY Times even a while back. Is it fair to say that the recent Gaza war has changed things? The above was written by none other than one of the Time's op-ed columnist Roger Cohen, himself a Jew.
How things have changed for the better. Doubtlessly Cohen and the Times will get more than flack for the column - read it in full, here - but the concluding paragraphs are worthy of note:
"I think there’s some bluster in this. Israel does not want Obama to talk, talk, talk, so it’s suggesting military action could happen in 2009, within nine months.
Still, this much is clear to me: Obama’s new Middle Eastern diplomacy and engagement will involve reining in Israeli bellicosity and a probable cooling of U.S.-Israeli relations. It’s about time. America’s Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy has been disastrous, not least for Israel’s long-term security."
He abandoned regime change as an American goal. He shelved the so-called military option. He buried a carrot-and-sticks approach viewed with contempt by Iranians as fit only for donkeys. And he placed Iran’s nuclear program within “the full range of issues before us.”
By doing so, Obama made it almost inevitable that one of the defining strategic issues of his presidency will be a painful but necessary redefinition of America’s relations with Israel as differences over Iran sharpen. I will return to that below."
So begins an op-ed piece one simply would not have seen in the NY Times even a while back. Is it fair to say that the recent Gaza war has changed things? The above was written by none other than one of the Time's op-ed columnist Roger Cohen, himself a Jew.
How things have changed for the better. Doubtlessly Cohen and the Times will get more than flack for the column - read it in full, here - but the concluding paragraphs are worthy of note:
"I think there’s some bluster in this. Israel does not want Obama to talk, talk, talk, so it’s suggesting military action could happen in 2009, within nine months.
Still, this much is clear to me: Obama’s new Middle Eastern diplomacy and engagement will involve reining in Israeli bellicosity and a probable cooling of U.S.-Israeli relations. It’s about time. America’s Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy has been disastrous, not least for Israel’s long-term security."
Monday, March 23, 2009
IDF: No moral army there!
As ever-worsening news emerges of the way Israel's Defence Forces conducted themselves during the recent onslaught into Gaza - and the IDF says it will investigate the allegations - Gideon Levy, op-ed writer at Haaretz says in a piece "IDF ceased long ago being 'most moral army in the world":
"The IDF is incapable of investigating the crimes of its soldiers and commanders, and it is ridiculous to expect it to do so. These are not instances of "errant fire," but of deliberate fire resulting from an order. These are not "a few bad apples," but rather the spirit of the commander, and this spirit has been bad and corrupt for quite some time.
Change will not come without a major change in mindset. Until we recognize the Palestinians as human beings, just as we are, nothing will change. But then, the occupation would collapse, God forbid. In the meantime, prepare for the next war and the horrific testimonies about the most moral army in the world."
"The IDF is incapable of investigating the crimes of its soldiers and commanders, and it is ridiculous to expect it to do so. These are not instances of "errant fire," but of deliberate fire resulting from an order. These are not "a few bad apples," but rather the spirit of the commander, and this spirit has been bad and corrupt for quite some time.
Change will not come without a major change in mindset. Until we recognize the Palestinians as human beings, just as we are, nothing will change. But then, the occupation would collapse, God forbid. In the meantime, prepare for the next war and the horrific testimonies about the most moral army in the world."
Toxic R Us
"Barack Obama prides himself on consensus, soothing warring sides into agreement. But the fury directed at the robber barons by the robbed blind in America has been getting hotter, not cooler. And that’s because the president and his Treasury secretary have been coddling the Wall Street elite, fretting that if they curtail executives’ pay and perks too much, if they make the negotiations with those who siphoned our 401(k)’s too tough, the spoiled Sherman McCoys will run away, the rescue plan will fail and the markets will wither. (Now that Mr. Obama has made $8,605,429 on his books — including $500,000 for letting his memoir be condensed into a kids’ book — maybe he’s lost touch with his hole-in-the-shoe, hole-in-the-Datsun, have-not roots.)"
In the style of writing one has come to expect from Maureen Dowd, in her latest op-ed piece "Toxic R Us" in the NY Times she effectively challenges what Obama and his Treasury Secretary are doing - or rather not doing! - in the light of the "toxic" issues out in Main Street in relation to Wall Street's excesses and the tanking of the US economy.
In the style of writing one has come to expect from Maureen Dowd, in her latest op-ed piece "Toxic R Us" in the NY Times she effectively challenges what Obama and his Treasury Secretary are doing - or rather not doing! - in the light of the "toxic" issues out in Main Street in relation to Wall Street's excesses and the tanking of the US economy.
More People in Love Than Previously Thought
It's Monday.....and why not start out the week with something pleasant for once.
Love flourishes! Who says? LiveScience in a piece "More People in Love Than Previously Thought":
"Romeo and Juliet would approve: A new study found that romantic love can stand the test of time.
Though it is widely held that romance and sex must ultimately yield to friendly companionship over time, new research found that's not the case. Instead about 13 percent of people reported high levels of romance in their long-term relationships, in a new study published in the March issue of the journal Review of General Psychology.
Researchers analyzed data from surveys of more than 6,000 people, including some in newly-formed pairs and many in marriages of more than 20 years. The scientists found that a surprisingly high number of people were still very much in love with their long-term partners, though the researchers drew a distinction between romantic love, which can endure, and passionate or obsessive love, which often fades after the beginning of a relationship.
"I think generally, in the literature, love has been measured as passionate love, so I think that's one reason for this widely-held assumption that love had to fade in relationships," said Bianca Acevedo, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who authored the study while she was a graduate student at Stony Brook University. "The obsessive component is generally combined with the romantic component. Thought of that way, it looks like it's diminishing, but if you assess the romantic love differently than the obsessive component, it happens for a greater proportion than what was generally thought."
Romantic love has the same intensity, engagement and sexual chemistry as passionate love has, but without the obsession, Acevedo said. Passionate love, on the other hand, includes feelings of uncertainty and anxiety."
Read on here.
Love flourishes! Who says? LiveScience in a piece "More People in Love Than Previously Thought":
"Romeo and Juliet would approve: A new study found that romantic love can stand the test of time.
Though it is widely held that romance and sex must ultimately yield to friendly companionship over time, new research found that's not the case. Instead about 13 percent of people reported high levels of romance in their long-term relationships, in a new study published in the March issue of the journal Review of General Psychology.
Researchers analyzed data from surveys of more than 6,000 people, including some in newly-formed pairs and many in marriages of more than 20 years. The scientists found that a surprisingly high number of people were still very much in love with their long-term partners, though the researchers drew a distinction between romantic love, which can endure, and passionate or obsessive love, which often fades after the beginning of a relationship.
"I think generally, in the literature, love has been measured as passionate love, so I think that's one reason for this widely-held assumption that love had to fade in relationships," said Bianca Acevedo, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who authored the study while she was a graduate student at Stony Brook University. "The obsessive component is generally combined with the romantic component. Thought of that way, it looks like it's diminishing, but if you assess the romantic love differently than the obsessive component, it happens for a greater proportion than what was generally thought."
Romantic love has the same intensity, engagement and sexual chemistry as passionate love has, but without the obsession, Acevedo said. Passionate love, on the other hand, includes feelings of uncertainty and anxiety."
Read on here.
Obama: A "Katrina moment"?
Now that Obama has settled into office - well, at least a little - there seems more than a little disquiet as people see a marked difference between the presidential candidate and him actually in the Oval Office. Man of decisive action? No! Generally adopting the mantle of the man in charge? No there either!
Frank Rich, writing his regular column in the NY Times wonders whether Obama is already having his "Katrina moment" as someone dubbed it:
"A charming visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. It would be foolish to dismiss as hyperbole the stark warning delivered by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif., in a letter to the editor published by The Times last week: “President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived.”
Six weeks ago I wrote in this space that the country’s surge of populist rage could devour the president’s best-laid plans, including the essential Act II of the bank rescue, if he didn’t get in front of it. The occasion then was the Tom Daschle firestorm. The White House seemed utterly blindsided by the public’s revulsion at the moneyed insiders’ culture illuminated by Daschle’s post-Senate career. Yet last week’s events suggest that the administration learned nothing from that brush with disaster."
Frank Rich, writing his regular column in the NY Times wonders whether Obama is already having his "Katrina moment" as someone dubbed it:
"A charming visit with Jay Leno won’t fix it. A 90 percent tax on bankers’ bonuses won’t fix it. Firing Timothy Geithner won’t fix it. Unless and until Barack Obama addresses the full depth of Americans’ anger with his full arsenal of policy smarts and political gifts, his presidency and, worse, our economy will be paralyzed. It would be foolish to dismiss as hyperbole the stark warning delivered by Paulette Altmaier of Cupertino, Calif., in a letter to the editor published by The Times last week: “President Obama may not realize it yet, but his Katrina moment has arrived.”
Six weeks ago I wrote in this space that the country’s surge of populist rage could devour the president’s best-laid plans, including the essential Act II of the bank rescue, if he didn’t get in front of it. The occasion then was the Tom Daschle firestorm. The White House seemed utterly blindsided by the public’s revulsion at the moneyed insiders’ culture illuminated by Daschle’s post-Senate career. Yet last week’s events suggest that the administration learned nothing from that brush with disaster."
Worried about apartheid? Too late, Mr Olmert, it’s already here
Tony Karon, writing in The National:
"In a remarkable interview last November, the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert cautioned that unless it could achieve a two-state solution quickly, Israel would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished”. The reason, he said, was that Israel would be internationally isolated. “The Jewish organisations, which are our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.”
And:
"Even as Israeli officials admitted last week that they were hoping to “rebrand” Israel’s image abroad, the Israeli media were reporting that six Israeli soldiers who had fought in Gaza were alleging that men in their units had indiscriminately killed Palestinian civilians because of what they said were permissive rules of engagement. There is only so much that “rebranding” can achieve when it is the product, rather than its packaging, that is at the root of the problem.
And that is where the apartheid warning used by Mr Olmert and other Israeli advocates of a two-state solution becomes an unintended confession. It is not some demographic milestone that will tip Israel into the realm of apartheid, because apartheid is a qualitative rather than a quantitative term: it refers to a situation in which a whole category of people were denied the rights of citizenship in the state that ruled over them. South Africa’s apartheid would have been no more acceptable to the world had black people comprised 45 per cent of the population rather than 80 per cent. And since 1967, the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza have been living under the control of a state that denies them citizenship.
What Mr Olmert and others are really saying, without realising it, is that Israel is already in an apartheid situation – and that if it doesn’t end that situation soon, the world will notice and begin to respond accordingly."
"In a remarkable interview last November, the Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert cautioned that unless it could achieve a two-state solution quickly, Israel would “face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, and as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished”. The reason, he said, was that Israel would be internationally isolated. “The Jewish organisations, which are our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.”
And:
"Even as Israeli officials admitted last week that they were hoping to “rebrand” Israel’s image abroad, the Israeli media were reporting that six Israeli soldiers who had fought in Gaza were alleging that men in their units had indiscriminately killed Palestinian civilians because of what they said were permissive rules of engagement. There is only so much that “rebranding” can achieve when it is the product, rather than its packaging, that is at the root of the problem.
And that is where the apartheid warning used by Mr Olmert and other Israeli advocates of a two-state solution becomes an unintended confession. It is not some demographic milestone that will tip Israel into the realm of apartheid, because apartheid is a qualitative rather than a quantitative term: it refers to a situation in which a whole category of people were denied the rights of citizenship in the state that ruled over them. South Africa’s apartheid would have been no more acceptable to the world had black people comprised 45 per cent of the population rather than 80 per cent. And since 1967, the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza have been living under the control of a state that denies them citizenship.
What Mr Olmert and others are really saying, without realising it, is that Israel is already in an apartheid situation – and that if it doesn’t end that situation soon, the world will notice and begin to respond accordingly."
Sunday, March 22, 2009
That [AIG] bonus furore
Who hasn't read or heard about the US$165 million bonus which AIG executives took for themselves. Whether it is capitalism gone mad, plain excess or ineptitude in the light of the current GFC doesn't really matter in the end. AIG and that bonus is etched in people's minds.
As Governments around the world grapple with excessive remuneration for executives - many of them plain duds and even getting a "packet" when they walk away from the wreck - the way the Obama administration has dealt with the AIG debacle has, rightly, attracted criticism. Now the US wants to tax excessive bonuses or payments at 90%.
In his usual way Nobel Prize [for economics] winner, Paul Krugman, puts it all in context in this piece in the NY Times:
"Preliminary thoughts on the tax bill:
1. It’s not the way you should make policy — it’s clumsy, and it will punish some innocent parties while letting the most guilty off scot-free
2. But — there wasn’t much alternative at this point. And for that I blame the Obama people.
I’ll leave to others the question of who knew or should have known that the bonus firestorm was coming; but it’s part of a pattern. At every stage, Geithner et al have made it clear that they still have faith in the people who created the financial crisis — that they believe that all we have is a liquidity crisis that can be undone with a bit of financial engineering, that “governments do a bad job of running banks” (as opposed, presumably, to the wonderful job the private bankers have done), that financial bailouts and guarantees should come with no strings attached.
This was bad analysis, bad policy, and terrible politics. This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers. And that leaves it with no ability to counter crude populism."
As Governments around the world grapple with excessive remuneration for executives - many of them plain duds and even getting a "packet" when they walk away from the wreck - the way the Obama administration has dealt with the AIG debacle has, rightly, attracted criticism. Now the US wants to tax excessive bonuses or payments at 90%.
In his usual way Nobel Prize [for economics] winner, Paul Krugman, puts it all in context in this piece in the NY Times:
"Preliminary thoughts on the tax bill:
1. It’s not the way you should make policy — it’s clumsy, and it will punish some innocent parties while letting the most guilty off scot-free
2. But — there wasn’t much alternative at this point. And for that I blame the Obama people.
I’ll leave to others the question of who knew or should have known that the bonus firestorm was coming; but it’s part of a pattern. At every stage, Geithner et al have made it clear that they still have faith in the people who created the financial crisis — that they believe that all we have is a liquidity crisis that can be undone with a bit of financial engineering, that “governments do a bad job of running banks” (as opposed, presumably, to the wonderful job the private bankers have done), that financial bailouts and guarantees should come with no strings attached.
This was bad analysis, bad policy, and terrible politics. This administration, elected on the promise of change, has already managed, in an astonishingly short time, to create the impression that it’s owned by the wheeler-dealers. And that leaves it with no ability to counter crude populism."
“Internet monitored and controlled, even in democracies”
A troubling report from Reporters Without Borders:
"After joint appeal with Amnesty International for an end to online censorship, Reporters Without Borders issues report on “Enemies of the Internet” Reporters Without Borders today issued a report entitled “Enemies of the Internet” in which it examines Internet censorship and other threats to online free expression in 22 countries.
“The 12 ‘Enemies of the Internet’ - Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam - have all transformed their Internet into an Intranet in order to prevent their population from accessing ‘undesirable’ online information,” Reporters Without Borders said.
“All these countries distinguish themselves not only by their ability to censor online news and information but also by their virtually systematic persecution of troublesome Internet users,” the press freedom organisation said. Reporters Without Borders has placed 10 other governments “under surveillance” for adopting worrying measures that could open the way to abuses. The organisation draws particular attention to Australia and South Korea, where recent measures may endanger online free expression.
“Not only is the Internet more and more controlled, but new forms of censorship are emerging based on the manipulation of information,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Orchestrating the posting of comments on popular websites or organising hacker attacks is also used by repressive regimes to scramble or jam online content.”
A total of 70 cyber-dissidents are currently detained because of what they posted online. China is the world’s biggest prison for cyber-dissidents, followed by Vietnam and Iran."
"After joint appeal with Amnesty International for an end to online censorship, Reporters Without Borders issues report on “Enemies of the Internet” Reporters Without Borders today issued a report entitled “Enemies of the Internet” in which it examines Internet censorship and other threats to online free expression in 22 countries.
“The 12 ‘Enemies of the Internet’ - Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam - have all transformed their Internet into an Intranet in order to prevent their population from accessing ‘undesirable’ online information,” Reporters Without Borders said.
“All these countries distinguish themselves not only by their ability to censor online news and information but also by their virtually systematic persecution of troublesome Internet users,” the press freedom organisation said. Reporters Without Borders has placed 10 other governments “under surveillance” for adopting worrying measures that could open the way to abuses. The organisation draws particular attention to Australia and South Korea, where recent measures may endanger online free expression.
“Not only is the Internet more and more controlled, but new forms of censorship are emerging based on the manipulation of information,” Reporters Without Borders said. “Orchestrating the posting of comments on popular websites or organising hacker attacks is also used by repressive regimes to scramble or jam online content.”
A total of 70 cyber-dissidents are currently detained because of what they posted online. China is the world’s biggest prison for cyber-dissidents, followed by Vietnam and Iran."
The [Israel] Lobby Falters
It is hard to forget the opprobrium Walt and Mearsheimer attracted when their book The IsraelLobby was released last year. It became a best-seller - and rightly so - but needless to say the usual suspects, a la the ever-more offensive Alan Dershowitz and the like, couldn't contain their vitriol about the book and, more particularly, the authors personally. Of course, it is now accepted that to criticise Israel means not to debate or challenge whatever is being said or written, but rather to attack, personally, the author of the so-called anti-Israel missive - usually characterised as anti-semitic or anti-Zionist by the personal "assassin" .
The Chas Freeman affair in the US has shown up the Israel Lobby in its worst light - bearing in mind that Freeman has, himself, said that it was the Israel Lobby which was at its worst in the lies and distortions about him.
Writing in the London Review of Books, Mearsheimer reflects on the Freeman affair:
"An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.
When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’
Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel."
Read the full piece here.
The Chas Freeman affair in the US has shown up the Israel Lobby in its worst light - bearing in mind that Freeman has, himself, said that it was the Israel Lobby which was at its worst in the lies and distortions about him.
Writing in the London Review of Books, Mearsheimer reflects on the Freeman affair:
"An even more important reason for the lobby to drive Freeman out of his job is the weakness of the case for America’s present policy towards Israel, which makes it imperative to silence or marginalise anyone who criticises the special relationship. If Freeman hadn’t been punished, others would see that one could talk critically about Israel and still have a successful career in Washington. And once you get an open and free-wheeling discussion about Israel, the special relationship will be in serious trouble.
One of the most remarkable aspects of the Freeman affair was that the mainstream media paid it little attention – the New York Times, for example, did not run a single story dealing with Freeman until the day after he stepped down – while a fierce battle over the appointment took place in the blogosphere. Freeman’s opponents used the internet to their advantage; that is where Rosen launched the campaign. But something happened there that would never have happened in the mainstream media: the lobby faced real opposition. Indeed, a vigorous, well-informed and highly regarded array of bloggers defended Freeman at every turn and would probably have carried the day had Congress not tipped the scales against them. In short, the internet enabled a serious debate in the United States about an issue involving Israel. The lobby has never had much trouble keeping the New York Times and the Washington Post in line, but it has few ways to silence critics on the internet.
When pro-Israel forces clashed with a major political figure in the past, that person usually backed off. Jimmy Carter, who was smeared by the lobby after he published Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, was the first prominent American to stand his ground and fight back. The lobby has been unable to silence him, and it is not for lack of trying. Freeman is following in Carter’s footsteps, but with sharper elbows. After stepping down, he issued a blistering denunciation of ‘unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country’ whose aim is ‘to prevent any view other than its own from being aired’. ‘There is,’ he continued, ‘a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government.’
Freeman’s remarkable statement has shot all around the world and been read by countless individuals. This isn’t good for the lobby, which would have preferred to kill Freeman’s appointment without leaving any fingerprints. But Freeman will continue to speak out about Israel and the lobby, and maybe some of his natural allies inside the Beltway will eventually join him. Slowly but steadily, space is being opened up in the United States to talk honestly about Israel."
Read the full piece here.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Did anyone ask Afghan women?
President Obama has drawn some praise for his suggestion that the US might be prepared to talk to the moderate Taliban in war-torn Afghanistan. It might be a good idea although it has to be said that the country is almost certainly a narco-State and a failed one at that. No less importantly, Patricia Lalonde [the chairwoman of Mobilization for Elected Women in Afghanistan (MEWA)] in a piece "Did anyone ask Afghan women?" in the IHT asks whether the women in Afghanistan would be prepared to have any Taliban-influence in their country.
"I have just returned from Afghanistan and I am struck by the news: There’s talk about negotiations with the moderate Taliban. President Barack Obama announced it this week, and the message has been relayed by European leaders.
Let us first be clear: Either we’re talking about those Taliban whose moderation means 10 lashes instead of 100 for women who show their ankles, and maybe we can negotiate them down to five, or we’re talking about rebels who are victims of current misery in their country and find themselves loosely affiliated with the Taliban. If the latter is the case, let’s not call them Taliban.
The Afghan women I know cannot conceive of a ‘‘moderate’’ Taliban, not to mention negotiations with them. The Taliban are the Taliban, Islamists who advocate a fundamentalist and extremist ideology in which the role of the woman is to be muzzled and illiterate.
Many of these women already fought a battle against that role when the Taliban were in power. They won that battle.
Democracy is working for them. Girls go to school. Women comprise 25 percent of the Afghan Parliament and they are doing a remarkable job. They are learning “politics’’: a recent budget vote on funds earmarked for women in various ministries met with opposition from the male deputies, whereby the women rose and left the chamber. The women got the budget they wanted."
Read the complete piece here.
"I have just returned from Afghanistan and I am struck by the news: There’s talk about negotiations with the moderate Taliban. President Barack Obama announced it this week, and the message has been relayed by European leaders.
Let us first be clear: Either we’re talking about those Taliban whose moderation means 10 lashes instead of 100 for women who show their ankles, and maybe we can negotiate them down to five, or we’re talking about rebels who are victims of current misery in their country and find themselves loosely affiliated with the Taliban. If the latter is the case, let’s not call them Taliban.
The Afghan women I know cannot conceive of a ‘‘moderate’’ Taliban, not to mention negotiations with them. The Taliban are the Taliban, Islamists who advocate a fundamentalist and extremist ideology in which the role of the woman is to be muzzled and illiterate.
Many of these women already fought a battle against that role when the Taliban were in power. They won that battle.
Democracy is working for them. Girls go to school. Women comprise 25 percent of the Afghan Parliament and they are doing a remarkable job. They are learning “politics’’: a recent budget vote on funds earmarked for women in various ministries met with opposition from the male deputies, whereby the women rose and left the chamber. The women got the budget they wanted."
Read the complete piece here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)