Flynt Leverett is the director of the Iran project at the New America Foundation and a professor of international affairs at Pennsylvania State University. Hillary Mann Leverett is the president of a political risk consultancy. Both are former National Security Council staff members.
Writing an op-ed piece "How to Press the Advantage With Iran" in The NY Times they urge the US to truly engage with Iran about its development of a nuclear capacity - and those rockets just tested. Yes, the world is jittery, and rightly so, but sanctions don't really seem to be the approach to take. Experience has shown that excluding or not talking with, say the Burmese or Hamas, doesn't achieve a thing!
"Tehran's disclosure that it is building a second uranium enrichment plant near the holy city of Qum has derailed the Obama administration’s already faltering efforts to engage with Iran. The United States will now cling even more tightly to the futile hope that international pressure and domestic instability will induce major changes in Iranian decision-making.
Indeed, the meeting on Thursday in Geneva of the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany with Iran (the “five plus one” talks) will not be an occasion for strategic discussion but for delivering an ultimatum: Iran will have to agree to pre-emptive limitations on its nuclear program or face what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “crippling” sanctions.
However, based on conversations we’ve had in recent days with senior Iranian officials — including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — we believe it is highly unlikely Iran will accept this ultimatum. It is also unlikely that Russia and China will support sanctions that come anywhere near crippling Iran. After this all-too-predictable scenario has played out, the Obama administration will be left, as a consequence of its own weakness and vacillation, with extremely poor choices for dealing with Iran."
Continue reading here.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Ignoring realities
Whilst the debate about a proper health insurance scheme and coverage in the US continues, this piece on CommonDreams. org provides no more than compelling hard evidence that America, the so-called richest country in the world, badly needs to do something about the lack of health care for a goodly number of its citizens:
"An estimated 2,000 people without insurance turned up this weekend for a free health clinic in Houston, Texas - home to the highest rate of uninsured people in the country - thus breaking a sorry record for a free clinic. Many of those who started lining up at 5 a.m. have jobs, but can't afford insurance. They came to see more than 700 doctors, nurses and volunteers who came to help, the largest health mobilization since Katrina. This picture, this reality, in this country - it's a travesty."
Dr. Mehmet Oz: "The part that you have to understand about Saturday is that it wasn't in response to a disaster - it was just another day in Houston."
"An estimated 2,000 people without insurance turned up this weekend for a free health clinic in Houston, Texas - home to the highest rate of uninsured people in the country - thus breaking a sorry record for a free clinic. Many of those who started lining up at 5 a.m. have jobs, but can't afford insurance. They came to see more than 700 doctors, nurses and volunteers who came to help, the largest health mobilization since Katrina. This picture, this reality, in this country - it's a travesty."
Dr. Mehmet Oz: "The part that you have to understand about Saturday is that it wasn't in response to a disaster - it was just another day in Houston."
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Crushing Iranian "freedom" and spirit
That the Iranian President can be describing as somewhat loony is not all that difficult. More troublesome is how the Iranian authorities have dealt with those protesting what is generally agreed - at least outside Iran - as a rigged presidential election some months ago. It will be recalled that there was much protesting in the streets by large numbers of Iranians.
The NY Times reports in "Iranian Protester Flees After Telling of Torture" on the experience [horrendous is a word which immediately comes to mind] of one vocal protester:
"When he eagerly joined the mass street protests that followed Iran’s tainted June 12 presidential elections, Ibrahim Sharifi, 24, hoped only to add his voice to the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators demanding that the government nullify the results. He never imagined that he would eventually have a far greater impact, as the only person willing to speak publicly about the brutal treatment he was subjected to in prison, including rape and torture.
Ibrahim Sharifi, 24, said he was beaten and raped during his detention in a Tehran prison. He is now living in Turkey.
Mr. Sharifi, who recounted his ordeal to the opposition leader and former presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, and then released a video account last month on opposition Web sites, is now in Turkey. He said he fled Iran after a stranger stopped him on the street to tell him his family would be killed if he testified before a parliamentary committee that was investigating the torture and rape accusations."
The NY Times reports in "Iranian Protester Flees After Telling of Torture" on the experience [horrendous is a word which immediately comes to mind] of one vocal protester:
"When he eagerly joined the mass street protests that followed Iran’s tainted June 12 presidential elections, Ibrahim Sharifi, 24, hoped only to add his voice to the hundreds of thousands of demonstrators demanding that the government nullify the results. He never imagined that he would eventually have a far greater impact, as the only person willing to speak publicly about the brutal treatment he was subjected to in prison, including rape and torture.
Ibrahim Sharifi, 24, said he was beaten and raped during his detention in a Tehran prison. He is now living in Turkey.
Mr. Sharifi, who recounted his ordeal to the opposition leader and former presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, and then released a video account last month on opposition Web sites, is now in Turkey. He said he fled Iran after a stranger stopped him on the street to tell him his family would be killed if he testified before a parliamentary committee that was investigating the torture and rape accusations."
The real "cost" of democracy
One of the values propounded in support of democracy is the ability of anyone to stand for parliament - or Congress or the Senate in the case of the USA. True!....but only to limited extent.
TomDispatch.com puts into context the real cost - a heavy financial commitment - if someone in the US wants to stand for Congress, the Senate and even the presidency. Would you believe?...the cost to the Obama camp for him to become president last year was a staggering US$730 million.
"So you, as a citizen, want to run for a seat in the House of Representatives? Well, you may be too late. Back in 1990, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website of the Center for Responsive Politics, the average cost of a winning campaign for the House was $407,556. Pocket change for your average citizen. But that was so twentieth century. The average cost for winning a House seat in 2008: almost $1.4 million. Keep in mind, as well, that most of those House seats don't change hands, because in the American democratic system of the twenty-first century, incumbents basically don't lose, they retire or die.
In 2008, 403 incumbents ran for seats in the House and 380 of them won. Just to run a losing race last year would have cost you, on average, $492,928, almost $100,000 more than it cost to win in 1990. As for becoming a Senator? Not in your wildest dreams, unless you have some really good pals in pharmaceuticals and health care ($236,022,031 in lobbying paid out in 2008), insurance ($153,694,224), or oil and gas ($131,978,521). A winning senatorial seat came in at a nifty $8,531,267 and a losing seat at $4,130,078 in 2008. In other words, you don't have a hope in hell of being a loser in the American Congressional system, and what does that make you?
Of course, if you're a young, red-blooded American, you may have set your sights a little higher. So you want to be president? In that case, just to be safe for 2012, you probably should consider raising somewhere in the range of one billion dollars. After all, the 2008 campaign cost Barack Obama's team approximately $730 million and the price of a place at the table just keeps going up. Of course, it helps to know the right people. Last year, the total lobbying bill, including money that went out for electoral campaigns and for lobbying Congress and federal agencies, came to $3.3 billion and almost 9 months into 2009, another $1.63 billion has already gone out without an election in sight."
TomDispatch.com puts into context the real cost - a heavy financial commitment - if someone in the US wants to stand for Congress, the Senate and even the presidency. Would you believe?...the cost to the Obama camp for him to become president last year was a staggering US$730 million.
"So you, as a citizen, want to run for a seat in the House of Representatives? Well, you may be too late. Back in 1990, according to OpenSecrets.org, a website of the Center for Responsive Politics, the average cost of a winning campaign for the House was $407,556. Pocket change for your average citizen. But that was so twentieth century. The average cost for winning a House seat in 2008: almost $1.4 million. Keep in mind, as well, that most of those House seats don't change hands, because in the American democratic system of the twenty-first century, incumbents basically don't lose, they retire or die.
In 2008, 403 incumbents ran for seats in the House and 380 of them won. Just to run a losing race last year would have cost you, on average, $492,928, almost $100,000 more than it cost to win in 1990. As for becoming a Senator? Not in your wildest dreams, unless you have some really good pals in pharmaceuticals and health care ($236,022,031 in lobbying paid out in 2008), insurance ($153,694,224), or oil and gas ($131,978,521). A winning senatorial seat came in at a nifty $8,531,267 and a losing seat at $4,130,078 in 2008. In other words, you don't have a hope in hell of being a loser in the American Congressional system, and what does that make you?
Of course, if you're a young, red-blooded American, you may have set your sights a little higher. So you want to be president? In that case, just to be safe for 2012, you probably should consider raising somewhere in the range of one billion dollars. After all, the 2008 campaign cost Barack Obama's team approximately $730 million and the price of a place at the table just keeps going up. Of course, it helps to know the right people. Last year, the total lobbying bill, including money that went out for electoral campaigns and for lobbying Congress and federal agencies, came to $3.3 billion and almost 9 months into 2009, another $1.63 billion has already gone out without an election in sight."
Cheapening the Holocaust
Yes, there is no denying that the Iranian President has been more than offensive by claiming the Holocaust to be "a lie". However, should the Holocaust be invoked so readily as the Israeli PM is wont to do? Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz in "Netanyahu's speech / Cheapening the Holocaust" says not....
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cheapened the memory of the Holocaust in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday. He did so twice. Once, when he brandished proof of the very existence of the Holocaust, as if it needed any, and again when he compared Hamas to the Nazis.
If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, Netanyahu cheapens it. Is there a need of proof, 60 years later? Or, the world might think, is the denier right?
And it is doubtful that any historian of stature would buy the comparison the prime minister made between Hamas and the Nazis, or between the London Blitz and the Qassam rockets on Sderot. In the Blitz, 400 German bombers and 600 fighter planes killed 43,000 people and destroyed more than one million homes. Hamas' Qassams, perhaps the most primitive weapon in the world, have killed 18 people in eight years. Yes, they sowed great terror - but a Blitz? "
"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cheapened the memory of the Holocaust in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday. He did so twice. Once, when he brandished proof of the very existence of the Holocaust, as if it needed any, and again when he compared Hamas to the Nazis.
If Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, Netanyahu cheapens it. Is there a need of proof, 60 years later? Or, the world might think, is the denier right?
And it is doubtful that any historian of stature would buy the comparison the prime minister made between Hamas and the Nazis, or between the London Blitz and the Qassam rockets on Sderot. In the Blitz, 400 German bombers and 600 fighter planes killed 43,000 people and destroyed more than one million homes. Hamas' Qassams, perhaps the most primitive weapon in the world, have killed 18 people in eight years. Yes, they sowed great terror - but a Blitz? "
Monday, September 28, 2009
Winners and losers: special global back-to-school edition…
David J. Rothkopf, writing on FP, assesses the winners and losers of the last week - what with the UN meeting and leaders giving their addresses there, the G20 meeting, etc. etc.
"The United Nations General Assembly meeting is like back-to-school week for the international community. Heads of state gather in New York, disrupt traffic and battle for air time. The feeling has only been enhanced by the satellite meetings that have cropped up in the vicinity of the U.N. (and I don't just mean the festive "Death to the Dictator" brunch that is held daily across First Avenue from the United Nations campus.) The Clinton Global Initiative comes to mind. And then this year, the all that was given an added dollop of bilateral and multilateral schlag thanks to the addition of the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh.
And just like any first week back at school, some people emerged as obvious winners and others were clearly losers who would probably all have to sit together in the geopolitical cafeteria, ostracized and abused by all "the mean girls" of the international community. In order to help you know who was helped by the past week and who was not, I've prepared a little list."
Here is Rothkopf's list....with at least one surprise.
"The United Nations General Assembly meeting is like back-to-school week for the international community. Heads of state gather in New York, disrupt traffic and battle for air time. The feeling has only been enhanced by the satellite meetings that have cropped up in the vicinity of the U.N. (and I don't just mean the festive "Death to the Dictator" brunch that is held daily across First Avenue from the United Nations campus.) The Clinton Global Initiative comes to mind. And then this year, the all that was given an added dollop of bilateral and multilateral schlag thanks to the addition of the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh.
And just like any first week back at school, some people emerged as obvious winners and others were clearly losers who would probably all have to sit together in the geopolitical cafeteria, ostracized and abused by all "the mean girls" of the international community. In order to help you know who was helped by the past week and who was not, I've prepared a little list."
Here is Rothkopf's list....with at least one surprise.
Obama: Thisaway or thataway....
The news out of Washington is that the military want to step up the number of troops in Afghanistan. Public opinion doesn't seem to want to see that and notwithstanding Obama having evidently previously been inclined to do so, the White House is apparently having possible second thoughts.
Frank Rich, writing his weekly op-ed piece "Obama at the Precipice" in The NY Times reflects on the cross-roads where Obama finds himself:
"The most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com. George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the Vietnam War.
Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein’s book, drawn from Bundy’s ruminations and deep new research, is full of fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into the fiasco. “Lessons in Disaster” caused only a modest stir when published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as “an extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.” The reviewer was, of all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis by the new Obama administration."
Frank Rich, writing his weekly op-ed piece "Obama at the Precipice" in The NY Times reflects on the cross-roads where Obama finds himself:
"The most intriguing, and possibly most fateful, news of last week could not be found in the health care horse-trading in Congress, or in the international zoo at the United Nations, or in the Iran slapdown in Pittsburgh. It was an item tucked into a blog at ABCNews.com. George Stephanopoulos reported that the new “must-read book” for President Obama’s war team is “Lessons in Disaster” by Gordon M. Goldstein, a foreign-policy scholar who had collaborated with McGeorge Bundy, the Kennedy-Johnson national security adviser, on writing a Robert McNamara-style mea culpa about his role as an architect of the Vietnam War.
Bundy left his memoir unfinished at his death in 1996. Goldstein’s book, drawn from Bundy’s ruminations and deep new research, is full of fresh information on how the best and the brightest led America into the fiasco. “Lessons in Disaster” caused only a modest stir when published in November, but The Times Book Review cheered it as “an extraordinary cautionary tale for all Americans.” The reviewer was, of all people, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, whose career began in Vietnam and who would later be charged with the Afghanistan-Pakistan crisis by the new Obama administration."
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Now you can watch climate change
From CommonDreams.org:
"In time for the Copenhagen climate conference, Google has added a series of tools and features to Google Earth to explore global effects of climate change and possible solutions to it. With an introductory video by Al Gore."
The Splendors of War?
A sobering report from The Guardian on the devastating effects of war on those who serve in the military. Not the politicians who make the fateful decisions:
"The number of former servicemen in prison or on probation or parole is now more than double the total British deployment in Afghanistan, according to a new survey. An estimated 20,000 veterans are in the criminal justice system, with 8,500 behind bars, almost one in 10 of the prison population.
The proportion of those in prison who are veterans has risen by more than 30% in the last five years.
The study by the probation officers' union Napo uncovers the hidden cost of recent conflicts. The snapshot survey of 90 probation case histories of convicted veterans shows a majority with chronic alcohol or drug problems, and nearly half suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or depression as a result of their wartime experiences on active service.
Those involved had served in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. They are most likely to have been convicted of a violent offence, particularly domestic violence.
The study provides the strongest evidence yet of a direct link between the mental health of those returning from combat zones, chronic alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence."
"The number of former servicemen in prison or on probation or parole is now more than double the total British deployment in Afghanistan, according to a new survey. An estimated 20,000 veterans are in the criminal justice system, with 8,500 behind bars, almost one in 10 of the prison population.
The proportion of those in prison who are veterans has risen by more than 30% in the last five years.
The study by the probation officers' union Napo uncovers the hidden cost of recent conflicts. The snapshot survey of 90 probation case histories of convicted veterans shows a majority with chronic alcohol or drug problems, and nearly half suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or depression as a result of their wartime experiences on active service.
Those involved had served in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. They are most likely to have been convicted of a violent offence, particularly domestic violence.
The study provides the strongest evidence yet of a direct link between the mental health of those returning from combat zones, chronic alcohol and drug abuse and domestic violence."
Saturday, September 26, 2009
I know whose figures I would rather accept
In the wake of the fury unleashed on the recently published UN Goldstone Report on the Gaza War by Israel and Jewish communities around the world, a reflection on the statistics of the War as released by B'Tselem [an Israeli Peace Group] some weeks ago might be opportune:
"Today (Wed. Sept 9th) Israeli human rights group B'Tselem published its findings on the number of Palestinians and Israelis killed in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. According to B’Tselem’s research, Israeli security forces killed 1,387 Palestinians during the course of the three-week operation. Of these, 773 did not take part in the hostilities, including 320 minors and 109 women over the age of 18. Of those killed, 330 took part in the hostilities, and 248 were Palestinian police officers, most of whom were killed in aerial bombings of police stations on the first day of the operation. For 36 people, B’Tselem could not determine whether they participated in the hostilities or not.
Palestinians killed 9 Israelis during the operation: 3 civilians and one member of the security forces by rockets fired into southern Israel, and 5 soldiers in the Gaza Strip. Another 4 soldiers were killed by friendly fire.
B'Tselem’s figures, the result of months of meticulous investigation and cross-checks with numerous sources, sharply contradict those published by the Israeli military. Israel stated that 1,166 Palestinians were killed in the operation and that 60% of them were members of Hamas and other armed groups. According to the military, a total of 295 Palestinians who were “not involved” in the fighting were killed. As the military refused to provide B'Tselem its list of fatalities, a comparison of names was not possible. However, the blatant discrepancy between the numbers is intolerable. For example, the military claims that altogether 89 minors under the age of 16 died in the operation. However, B'Tselem visited homes and gathered death certificates, photos, and testimonies relating to all 252 children under 16, and has the details of 111 women over 16 killed."
"Today (Wed. Sept 9th) Israeli human rights group B'Tselem published its findings on the number of Palestinians and Israelis killed in Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip. According to B’Tselem’s research, Israeli security forces killed 1,387 Palestinians during the course of the three-week operation. Of these, 773 did not take part in the hostilities, including 320 minors and 109 women over the age of 18. Of those killed, 330 took part in the hostilities, and 248 were Palestinian police officers, most of whom were killed in aerial bombings of police stations on the first day of the operation. For 36 people, B’Tselem could not determine whether they participated in the hostilities or not.
Palestinians killed 9 Israelis during the operation: 3 civilians and one member of the security forces by rockets fired into southern Israel, and 5 soldiers in the Gaza Strip. Another 4 soldiers were killed by friendly fire.
B'Tselem’s figures, the result of months of meticulous investigation and cross-checks with numerous sources, sharply contradict those published by the Israeli military. Israel stated that 1,166 Palestinians were killed in the operation and that 60% of them were members of Hamas and other armed groups. According to the military, a total of 295 Palestinians who were “not involved” in the fighting were killed. As the military refused to provide B'Tselem its list of fatalities, a comparison of names was not possible. However, the blatant discrepancy between the numbers is intolerable. For example, the military claims that altogether 89 minors under the age of 16 died in the operation. However, B'Tselem visited homes and gathered death certificates, photos, and testimonies relating to all 252 children under 16, and has the details of 111 women over 16 killed."
Friday, September 25, 2009
Caution! Typhoon Sarah
It's bad enough to think that Sarah Palin could have ended up a hear-beat away from the US Presidency, but she [or perhaps it's the misguided people at the GOP, who see her as some sort of hope for the 2012 presidential election, who want her to strut a wider stage] has left her safe-haven of Alaska, and the US, and was in Hong Kong the other day.
So was veteran journalist, author and commentator Robert Fisk. He reports of what he describes as Typhoon Sarah in this piece in The Independent:
"Grotesque, unprecedented, bizarre, unbelievable. Sarah Palin was all of that in Hong Kong yesterday. And more. Dressed in a cutesy virgin-white blouse and black skirt with the infamous bee-hive hairdo, she was a blessing to every predicting spectator."
Read on, here.......
So was veteran journalist, author and commentator Robert Fisk. He reports of what he describes as Typhoon Sarah in this piece in The Independent:
"Grotesque, unprecedented, bizarre, unbelievable. Sarah Palin was all of that in Hong Kong yesterday. And more. Dressed in a cutesy virgin-white blouse and black skirt with the infamous bee-hive hairdo, she was a blessing to every predicting spectator."
Read on, here.......
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Lost [literally!] without Translation
This is indeed a comforting revelation! Not! The USA's GAO [Government Accountability Office] reports on the significant deficiency of Foreign Service employees to speak another language:
"About a third of Foreign Service officers in jobs that require language skills don't have the proficiency required to do their jobs, hurting America's ability to advocate its interests around the world, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.
The report, which has not yet been released, but was obtained by The Cable, spells out the consequences of having a Foreign Service that in many cases can't communicate with local officials or populations, relies too heavily on local staff for critical functions, and can't respond to bad press when it appears in foreign languages.
Substandard skills were found in people holding 31 percent of the approximately 3,600 jobs that require a certain level of language proficiency, known as language-designated positions, up from 29 percent in 2005. In critically important regions such as the Near East and South and Central Asia, that number rises to 40 percent.
In one particularly damning instance, the report states, "An officer at a post of strategic interest said because she did not speak the language, she had transferred a sensitive telephone call from a local informant to a local employee, which could have compromised the informant's identity."
In the warzones, the problem is much more pronounced. Thirty-three of 45 officers in language-designated positions in Afghanistan, or 73 percent, didn't meet the requirement. In Iraq, 8 of 14 officers or 57 percent lacked sufficient language skills. Deficiencies in what GAO calls "supercritical" languages, such as Arabic and Chinese, were 39 percent.
Forty-three percent of officers in Arabic language-designated positions do not meet the requirements of their positions, nor do 66 percent of officers in Dari positions, 50 percent in Urdu (two languages widely spoken in South Asia), or 38 percent in Farsi (which is mostly spoken in Iran)."
"About a third of Foreign Service officers in jobs that require language skills don't have the proficiency required to do their jobs, hurting America's ability to advocate its interests around the world, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office.
The report, which has not yet been released, but was obtained by The Cable, spells out the consequences of having a Foreign Service that in many cases can't communicate with local officials or populations, relies too heavily on local staff for critical functions, and can't respond to bad press when it appears in foreign languages.
Substandard skills were found in people holding 31 percent of the approximately 3,600 jobs that require a certain level of language proficiency, known as language-designated positions, up from 29 percent in 2005. In critically important regions such as the Near East and South and Central Asia, that number rises to 40 percent.
In one particularly damning instance, the report states, "An officer at a post of strategic interest said because she did not speak the language, she had transferred a sensitive telephone call from a local informant to a local employee, which could have compromised the informant's identity."
In the warzones, the problem is much more pronounced. Thirty-three of 45 officers in language-designated positions in Afghanistan, or 73 percent, didn't meet the requirement. In Iraq, 8 of 14 officers or 57 percent lacked sufficient language skills. Deficiencies in what GAO calls "supercritical" languages, such as Arabic and Chinese, were 39 percent.
Forty-three percent of officers in Arabic language-designated positions do not meet the requirements of their positions, nor do 66 percent of officers in Dari positions, 50 percent in Urdu (two languages widely spoken in South Asia), or 38 percent in Farsi (which is mostly spoken in Iran)."
So, where is the threat?
"Forgive me for being confused, but exactly what are the clear and present dangers facing the State of Israel? According to Israel’s permanent representative to the United Nations Gabriella Shalev, her government’s main goal at this week’s UN General Assembly meeting is to show the world how dangerous Iran is.
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set to give what his aides say will be a “dramatic” speech to the UN on Thursday, Shalev said the Iranian threat would be the main focus.
“We know Iran is a dangerous country,” Shalev said on Monday. “We stress and we emphasize that Iran is not only a threat to Israel, it’s a global threat.”
Israeli diplomats, Shalev added, would meet with their Australian counterparts and officials from other countries, to make them understand “the challenges Israel is facing in a very crucial time”.
Perhaps Shalev should leave time in her schedule to make sure Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak also understands exactly what those challenges are.
Last Friday, according to Jewish New Year’s tradition, Barak gave an interview to Israel’s biggest selling newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.
Instead of the usual palaver about the threats facing Israel, Barak surprised his questioners with this frank admission.
“Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel,” said Barak."
This piece by the SMHs' National Time's correspondent in Jerusalem is direct and honest. Forget all the Israeli hyperbole, propaganda and PR! Israel could not be more secure - as its own Defence Minister says.
Read the full piece here.
With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set to give what his aides say will be a “dramatic” speech to the UN on Thursday, Shalev said the Iranian threat would be the main focus.
“We know Iran is a dangerous country,” Shalev said on Monday. “We stress and we emphasize that Iran is not only a threat to Israel, it’s a global threat.”
Israeli diplomats, Shalev added, would meet with their Australian counterparts and officials from other countries, to make them understand “the challenges Israel is facing in a very crucial time”.
Perhaps Shalev should leave time in her schedule to make sure Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak also understands exactly what those challenges are.
Last Friday, according to Jewish New Year’s tradition, Barak gave an interview to Israel’s biggest selling newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.
Instead of the usual palaver about the threats facing Israel, Barak surprised his questioners with this frank admission.
“Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel,” said Barak."
This piece by the SMHs' National Time's correspondent in Jerusalem is direct and honest. Forget all the Israeli hyperbole, propaganda and PR! Israel could not be more secure - as its own Defence Minister says.
Read the full piece here.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
One small step to save newspapers?
Perhaps there is still some hope in salvaging those newspapers still around!
From toledoBlade.com:
"Saying he is a "big newspaper junkie," President Obama expressed hope on Friday that newspapers can find their way through the financial crisis most are now mired in.
In an Oval Office interview with editors from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade, the President talked about the vital role journalism and newspapers play in American society.
"Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it's paid for, is really a challenge," Mr. Obama said. "But it's something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."
Across the country, newspapers are struggling to maintain readership and advertising revenue that has been lost to the Internet. Thousands of journalists have been laid off, and over the last year several newspapers have closed.
The Rocky Mountain News in Denver ceased operations, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now publishes only on the Internet, and several large newspaper corporations have filed for bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Obama said he noted the trend. "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," the President said.
"What I hope is that people start understanding if you're getting your newspaper over the Internet, that's not free and there's got to be a way to find a business model that supports that."
Several bills have been introduced in Congress to aid the newspaper industry, including a Senate measure that would allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. The President was noncommittal about the legislation but said: "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."
From toledoBlade.com:
"Saying he is a "big newspaper junkie," President Obama expressed hope on Friday that newspapers can find their way through the financial crisis most are now mired in.
In an Oval Office interview with editors from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Blade, the President talked about the vital role journalism and newspapers play in American society.
"Journalistic integrity, you know, fact-based reporting, serious investigative reporting, how to retain those ethics in all these different new media and how to make sure that it's paid for, is really a challenge," Mr. Obama said. "But it's something that I think is absolutely critical to the health of our democracy."
Across the country, newspapers are struggling to maintain readership and advertising revenue that has been lost to the Internet. Thousands of journalists have been laid off, and over the last year several newspapers have closed.
The Rocky Mountain News in Denver ceased operations, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer now publishes only on the Internet, and several large newspaper corporations have filed for bankruptcy, including the Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. Obama said he noted the trend. "I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," the President said.
"What I hope is that people start understanding if you're getting your newspaper over the Internet, that's not free and there's got to be a way to find a business model that supports that."
Several bills have been introduced in Congress to aid the newspaper industry, including a Senate measure that would allow newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks. The President was noncommittal about the legislation but said: "I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them."
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Afghanistan: Let's get some facts straight
Ann Jones is the author of Kabul in Winter (Metropolitan, 2006) and writes often about Afghanistan for TomDispatch and the Nation. War Is Not Over When It's Over, her new book about the impact of war on women, will be published next year.
As those countries - notably the US - with troops in Afghanistan debate what is to be done as things go from bad to worse - and a prognosis that it will get even worse - Jones has a piece and analysis on TomDispatch.com "Meet the Afghan Army - Is It a Figment of Washington's Imagination?" well worth reading:
"The big Afghanistan debate in Washington is not over whether more troops are needed, but just who they should be: Americans or Afghans -- Us or Them. Having just spent time in Afghanistan seeing how things stand, I wouldn't bet on Them.
Frankly, I wouldn't bet on Us either. In eight years, American troops have worn out their welcome. Their very presence now incites opposition, but that's another story. It's Them -- the Afghans -- I want to talk about.
Afghans are Afghans. They have their own history, their own culture, their own habitual ways of thinking and behaving, all complicated by a modern experience of decades of war, displacement, abject poverty, and incessant meddling by foreign governments near and far -- of which the United States has been the most powerful and persistent. Afghans do not think or act like Americans. Yet Americans in power refuse to grasp that inconvenient point."
Continue reading here.
As those countries - notably the US - with troops in Afghanistan debate what is to be done as things go from bad to worse - and a prognosis that it will get even worse - Jones has a piece and analysis on TomDispatch.com "Meet the Afghan Army - Is It a Figment of Washington's Imagination?" well worth reading:
"The big Afghanistan debate in Washington is not over whether more troops are needed, but just who they should be: Americans or Afghans -- Us or Them. Having just spent time in Afghanistan seeing how things stand, I wouldn't bet on Them.
Frankly, I wouldn't bet on Us either. In eight years, American troops have worn out their welcome. Their very presence now incites opposition, but that's another story. It's Them -- the Afghans -- I want to talk about.
Afghans are Afghans. They have their own history, their own culture, their own habitual ways of thinking and behaving, all complicated by a modern experience of decades of war, displacement, abject poverty, and incessant meddling by foreign governments near and far -- of which the United States has been the most powerful and persistent. Afghans do not think or act like Americans. Yet Americans in power refuse to grasp that inconvenient point."
Continue reading here.
Middle East: Reality check time!
Obama and the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers are to meet in New York today - where they are all attending a UN meeting. From the pronouncements being made, the meeting will be no more than a photo-op.
Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard and co-author of the best-selling book The Israel Lobby, writing in The Washington Post, has some sobering observations in an op-ed piece "Settling for Failure in the Middle East" about where things are at in the Middle East:
"Like so many of his predecessors, President Obama is quickly discovering that persuading Israel to change course is nearly impossible.
Obama came to office determined to achieve a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. His opening move was to insist that Israel stop building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem -- a tough line aimed at bolstering Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and persuading key Arab states to make conciliatory gestures toward Israel. These steps would pave the way for the creation of a viable Palestinian state and the normalization of Israel's relations with its Arab neighbors, and also help rebuild America's image in the Arab and Muslim world.
Unfortunately, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has no interest in a two-state solution, much less ending settlement expansion. He and his government want a "greater Israel," which means maintaining effective control of the West Bank and Gaza. His response to Obama's initiative has ranged from foot-dragging to outright defiance, with little pushback from Washington.
This situation is a tragedy in the making between peoples who have known more than their share. Unless Obama summons the will and skill to break the logjam, a two-state solution will become impossible and those who yearn for peace will be even worse off than before."
And:
"Obama said in Cairo that a two-state solution is "in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest and the world's interest." He's right, but it's not the rest of the world that needs to get behind this vision. It is the Israelis who have to be convinced, and that will take sustained U.S. pressure. To succeed, Obama must use his bully pulpit to explain to the American people that the two-state solution is by far the best outcome for Israel and that time is running out. If he does not get that message across, he will become the latest in a long line of U.S. presidents who tried to end this conflict -- and failed".
One might have thought that the op-ed piece is moderate and more than sensible in what it articulates. Not according to Zionist zealot Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in The Atlantic:
"J Street would be better off with Osama Bin Laden's endorsement than it would with Stephen Walt's. As best as I can tell, the bulk of J Street's backers are people who ardently support the creation of a Palestinian state and don't very much like Benjamin Netanyahu, but they are also people who don't like grubby Jew-baiters like Stephen Walt. I'm curious to see what Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, has to say about this."
Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard and co-author of the best-selling book The Israel Lobby, writing in The Washington Post, has some sobering observations in an op-ed piece "Settling for Failure in the Middle East" about where things are at in the Middle East:
"Like so many of his predecessors, President Obama is quickly discovering that persuading Israel to change course is nearly impossible.
Obama came to office determined to achieve a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians. His opening move was to insist that Israel stop building settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem -- a tough line aimed at bolstering Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and persuading key Arab states to make conciliatory gestures toward Israel. These steps would pave the way for the creation of a viable Palestinian state and the normalization of Israel's relations with its Arab neighbors, and also help rebuild America's image in the Arab and Muslim world.
Unfortunately, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has no interest in a two-state solution, much less ending settlement expansion. He and his government want a "greater Israel," which means maintaining effective control of the West Bank and Gaza. His response to Obama's initiative has ranged from foot-dragging to outright defiance, with little pushback from Washington.
This situation is a tragedy in the making between peoples who have known more than their share. Unless Obama summons the will and skill to break the logjam, a two-state solution will become impossible and those who yearn for peace will be even worse off than before."
And:
"Obama said in Cairo that a two-state solution is "in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest and the world's interest." He's right, but it's not the rest of the world that needs to get behind this vision. It is the Israelis who have to be convinced, and that will take sustained U.S. pressure. To succeed, Obama must use his bully pulpit to explain to the American people that the two-state solution is by far the best outcome for Israel and that time is running out. If he does not get that message across, he will become the latest in a long line of U.S. presidents who tried to end this conflict -- and failed".
One might have thought that the op-ed piece is moderate and more than sensible in what it articulates. Not according to Zionist zealot Jeffrey Goldberg, writing in The Atlantic:
"J Street would be better off with Osama Bin Laden's endorsement than it would with Stephen Walt's. As best as I can tell, the bulk of J Street's backers are people who ardently support the creation of a Palestinian state and don't very much like Benjamin Netanyahu, but they are also people who don't like grubby Jew-baiters like Stephen Walt. I'm curious to see what Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, has to say about this."
Monday, September 21, 2009
No other word for it!..... It's a scourge
The fact that racism and bigotry has reared its ugly head in the US - principally directed toward Obama - is more than troubling. Some of the language has been so bigoted and intemperate that it is hard to reconcile it with a civil society, let alone that we are in 2009 after all.
Bob Herbert, writing his weekly op-ed column "The Scourge Persists" in The NY Times takes up the issue:
"I have no patience with those who want to pretend that racism is not an out-and-out big deal in the United States, as it always has been. We may have made progress, and we may have a black president, but the scourge is still with us. And if you needed Jimmy Carter to remind you of that, then you’ve been wandering around with your eyes closed."
And:
"But the fact that a black man is now in the White House has so unsettled much of white America that the lid is coming off the racism that had been simmering at dangerously high temperatures all along. Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with Media Matters, said, “If someone had told me in February that there would be mainstream allegations that Obama was a racist and a fascist and a communist and a Nazi, I wouldn’t have believed it.”
Bob Herbert, writing his weekly op-ed column "The Scourge Persists" in The NY Times takes up the issue:
"I have no patience with those who want to pretend that racism is not an out-and-out big deal in the United States, as it always has been. We may have made progress, and we may have a black president, but the scourge is still with us. And if you needed Jimmy Carter to remind you of that, then you’ve been wandering around with your eyes closed."
And:
"But the fact that a black man is now in the White House has so unsettled much of white America that the lid is coming off the racism that had been simmering at dangerously high temperatures all along. Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow with Media Matters, said, “If someone had told me in February that there would be mainstream allegations that Obama was a racist and a fascist and a communist and a Nazi, I wouldn’t have believed it.”
Robert Fisk: Everyone seems to be agreeing with Bin Laden these days
Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent, goes out on a limb by drawing some parallels between what Obama and Osama are saying, although the message isn't quite the same. That said, there is a sober analysis of what is "happening" in Afghanistan and the dire state of things there.
"Obama and Osama are at last participating in the same narrative. For the US president's critics – indeed, for many critics of the West's military occupation of Afghanistan – are beginning to speak in the same language as Obama's (and their) greatest enemy.
There is a growing suspicion in America that Obama has been socked into the heart of the Afghan darkness by ex-Bushie Robert Gates – once more the Secretary of Defence – and by journalist-adored General David Petraeus whose military "surges" appear to be as successful as the Battle of the Bulge in stemming the insurgent tide in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq.
No wonder Osama bin Laden decided to address "the American people" this week. "You are waging a hopeless and losing war," he said in his 9/11 eighth anniversary audiotape. "The time has come to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby." There was no more talk of Obama as a "house Negro" although it was his "weakness", bin Laden contended, that prevented him from closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event, Muslim fighters wold wear down the US-led coalition in Afghanistan "like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed". Funny, that. It's exactly what bin Laden told me personally in Afghanistan – four years before 9/11 and the start of America's 2001 adventure south of the Amu Darya river.
Almost on cue this week came those in North America who agree with Obama – albeit they would never associate themselves with the Evil One, let alone dare question Israel's cheerleading for the Iraqi war. "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," announces Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the senate intelligence committee. "I believe it will remain a tribal entity." And Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, does not believe "there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan".
Colin Kenny, chair of Canada's senate committee on national security and defence, said this week that "what we hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan has proved to be impossible. We are hurtling towards a Vietnam ending".
"Obama and Osama are at last participating in the same narrative. For the US president's critics – indeed, for many critics of the West's military occupation of Afghanistan – are beginning to speak in the same language as Obama's (and their) greatest enemy.
There is a growing suspicion in America that Obama has been socked into the heart of the Afghan darkness by ex-Bushie Robert Gates – once more the Secretary of Defence – and by journalist-adored General David Petraeus whose military "surges" appear to be as successful as the Battle of the Bulge in stemming the insurgent tide in Afghanistan as well as in Iraq.
No wonder Osama bin Laden decided to address "the American people" this week. "You are waging a hopeless and losing war," he said in his 9/11 eighth anniversary audiotape. "The time has come to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby." There was no more talk of Obama as a "house Negro" although it was his "weakness", bin Laden contended, that prevented him from closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event, Muslim fighters wold wear down the US-led coalition in Afghanistan "like we exhausted the Soviet Union for 10 years until it collapsed". Funny, that. It's exactly what bin Laden told me personally in Afghanistan – four years before 9/11 and the start of America's 2001 adventure south of the Amu Darya river.
Almost on cue this week came those in North America who agree with Obama – albeit they would never associate themselves with the Evil One, let alone dare question Israel's cheerleading for the Iraqi war. "I do not believe we can build a democratic state in Afghanistan," announces Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the senate intelligence committee. "I believe it will remain a tribal entity." And Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, does not believe "there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan".
Colin Kenny, chair of Canada's senate committee on national security and defence, said this week that "what we hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan has proved to be impossible. We are hurtling towards a Vietnam ending".
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Iran: A mad president with a restless populace
It is not difficult to conclude that the Iranian President has "lost the plot" or perhaps is even mad to a certain degree. Leaving aside any corruption which tainted the recent elections which saw his return to office, his oft-repeated statements about the Holocaust have been a litany of falsehoods.
The president has even exceeded his previously made wild statements by yesterday declaring the Holocaust a "myth". That is not revisionism! That is plain dumb - or ought one say "mad?".
Whether these outlandish pronouncements are intended to garner popular support is hard to say - for yesterday has again seen demonstrations on a wide scale in Iran against the regime.
Global Voices has a direct on-the-ground up-to-date report on the protests in Iran, yesterday, with photos and video clips - bearing in mind that foreign reporters are not permitted to go out on the streets to cover any protests.
"On September 18, Iranian protesters wearing green in support of the opposition, once more defied the Iranian government in the streets of Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, and several other cities as they protested against dictatorship."
The president has even exceeded his previously made wild statements by yesterday declaring the Holocaust a "myth". That is not revisionism! That is plain dumb - or ought one say "mad?".
Whether these outlandish pronouncements are intended to garner popular support is hard to say - for yesterday has again seen demonstrations on a wide scale in Iran against the regime.
Global Voices has a direct on-the-ground up-to-date report on the protests in Iran, yesterday, with photos and video clips - bearing in mind that foreign reporters are not permitted to go out on the streets to cover any protests.
"On September 18, Iranian protesters wearing green in support of the opposition, once more defied the Iranian government in the streets of Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, and several other cities as they protested against dictatorship."
The shoe-thrower with a message
The almost now notorious shoe-thrower - remember? that George Bush news conference in Baghdad and him ducking as a shoe was hurled at him - has been released from jail and provided his reasons for doing what he did.
Muntazer al-Zaidi, the reporter cum shoe-thrower writes in Comment is Free "Why I Threw the Shoe" in the The Guardian :
"I am not a hero. But I have a point of view. I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated; and to see my Baghdad burned, my people killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, pushing me towards the path of confrontation. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Falluja, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. I travelled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and heard with my own ears the screams of the orphans and the bereaved. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless."
Muntazer al-Zaidi, the reporter cum shoe-thrower writes in Comment is Free "Why I Threw the Shoe" in the The Guardian :
"I am not a hero. But I have a point of view. I have a stance. It humiliated me to see my country humiliated; and to see my Baghdad burned, my people killed. Thousands of tragic pictures remained in my head, pushing me towards the path of confrontation. The scandal of Abu Ghraib. The massacre of Falluja, Najaf, Haditha, Sadr City, Basra, Diyala, Mosul, Tal Afar, and every inch of our wounded land. I travelled through my burning land and saw with my own eyes the pain of the victims, and heard with my own ears the screams of the orphans and the bereaved. And a feeling of shame haunted me like an ugly name because I was powerless."
Is the WWW melting our brains?
Salon has a piece on a topic which has been exercising many minds for quite some time now. Is the internet melting our brains? Many would say yes......but there is another compelling argument against that too.
"By now the arguments are familiar: Facebook is ruining our social relationships; Google is making us dumber; texting is destroying the English language as we know it. We're facing a crisis, one that could very well corrode the way humans have communicated since we first evolved from apes. What we need, so say these proud Luddites, is to turn our backs on technology and embrace not the keyboard, but the pencil.
Such sentiments, in the opinion of Dennis Baron, are nostalgic, uninformed hogwash. A professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Baron seeks to provide the historical context that is often missing from debates about the way technology is transforming our lives in his new book, "A Better Pencil." His thesis is clear: Every communication advancement throughout human history, from the pencil to the typewriter to writing itself, has been met with fear, skepticism and a longing for the medium that's been displaced. Far from heralding in a "2001: Space Odyssey" dystopia, Baron believes that social networking sites, blogs and the Internet are actually making us better writers and improving our ability to reach out to our fellow man. "A Better Pencil" is both a defense of the digital revolution and a keen examination of how technology both improves and complicates our lives."
Salon has an interview with author Baron here.
"By now the arguments are familiar: Facebook is ruining our social relationships; Google is making us dumber; texting is destroying the English language as we know it. We're facing a crisis, one that could very well corrode the way humans have communicated since we first evolved from apes. What we need, so say these proud Luddites, is to turn our backs on technology and embrace not the keyboard, but the pencil.
Such sentiments, in the opinion of Dennis Baron, are nostalgic, uninformed hogwash. A professor of English and linguistics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Baron seeks to provide the historical context that is often missing from debates about the way technology is transforming our lives in his new book, "A Better Pencil." His thesis is clear: Every communication advancement throughout human history, from the pencil to the typewriter to writing itself, has been met with fear, skepticism and a longing for the medium that's been displaced. Far from heralding in a "2001: Space Odyssey" dystopia, Baron believes that social networking sites, blogs and the Internet are actually making us better writers and improving our ability to reach out to our fellow man. "A Better Pencil" is both a defense of the digital revolution and a keen examination of how technology both improves and complicates our lives."
Salon has an interview with author Baron here.
A professor in a parallel universe
MPS has never been a fan of rabid Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. His credibility on a whole range of levels, especially in relation to anything referable to Israel, is more than questionable - and certainly racist insofar as it relates to Palestinians, or Arabs generally.
Evidence of Dershowitzs' strident responses to things Israel-connected, is clearly demonstrated in this startling [nay, astounding!] comment on the recently released Goldstone UN Report on the Gaza War:
"Richard Goldstone—the primary author of a one-sided United Nation’s attack on Israeli actions during the Gaza war—has now become a full fledged member of the international bash-Israel chorus. His name will forever be linked in infamy with such distorters of history and truth as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Jimmy Carter. The so-called report commissioned by the notorious United Nations Human Rights Council and issued under his name is so filled with lies, distortions and blood libels that it could have been drafted by Hamas extremists. Wait, in effect, it actually was!"
Case against Dershowitz closed!
Perhaps Dershowitz might better direct his attention to the sort of material disclosed in this piece from The Guardian:
"A leaked UN report has warned that Israel's continued economic blockade of Gaza and lengthy delays in delivering humanitarian aid are "devastating livelihoods" and causing gradual "de-development".
For more than two years, Gaza has been under severe Israeli restrictions, preventing all exports and confining imports to a limited supply of humanitarian goods.
Now, eight months after the end of the Gaza war, much reconstruction work is still to be done because materials are either delayed or banned from entering the strip.
The UN report, obtained by the Guardian, reveals the delays facing the delivery of even the most basic aid. On average, it takes 85 days to get shelter kits into Gaza, 68 days to deliver health and paediatric hygiene kits, and 39 days for household items such as bedding and kitchen utensils.
Among the many items delayed are notebooks and textbooks for children returning to school. As many as 120 truckloads of stationery were "stranded" in the West Bank and Israel due to "ongoing delays in approval".
There were "continued difficulties" in importing English textbooks for grades four to nine – affecting 130,000 children – and material used to print textbooks for several subjects in grades one to nine.
Government schools were reported to lack paper and chalk, while the UN Relief and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugees and runs many schools in Gaza, was still waiting to import 4,000 desks and 5,000 chairs.
The UN says the current situation "contravenes" a UN security council resolution passed during the war in January, which called for "unimpeded provision and distribution" of humanitarian aid for Gaza."
Evidence of Dershowitzs' strident responses to things Israel-connected, is clearly demonstrated in this startling [nay, astounding!] comment on the recently released Goldstone UN Report on the Gaza War:
"Richard Goldstone—the primary author of a one-sided United Nation’s attack on Israeli actions during the Gaza war—has now become a full fledged member of the international bash-Israel chorus. His name will forever be linked in infamy with such distorters of history and truth as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Jimmy Carter. The so-called report commissioned by the notorious United Nations Human Rights Council and issued under his name is so filled with lies, distortions and blood libels that it could have been drafted by Hamas extremists. Wait, in effect, it actually was!"
Case against Dershowitz closed!
Perhaps Dershowitz might better direct his attention to the sort of material disclosed in this piece from The Guardian:
"A leaked UN report has warned that Israel's continued economic blockade of Gaza and lengthy delays in delivering humanitarian aid are "devastating livelihoods" and causing gradual "de-development".
For more than two years, Gaza has been under severe Israeli restrictions, preventing all exports and confining imports to a limited supply of humanitarian goods.
Now, eight months after the end of the Gaza war, much reconstruction work is still to be done because materials are either delayed or banned from entering the strip.
The UN report, obtained by the Guardian, reveals the delays facing the delivery of even the most basic aid. On average, it takes 85 days to get shelter kits into Gaza, 68 days to deliver health and paediatric hygiene kits, and 39 days for household items such as bedding and kitchen utensils.
Among the many items delayed are notebooks and textbooks for children returning to school. As many as 120 truckloads of stationery were "stranded" in the West Bank and Israel due to "ongoing delays in approval".
There were "continued difficulties" in importing English textbooks for grades four to nine – affecting 130,000 children – and material used to print textbooks for several subjects in grades one to nine.
Government schools were reported to lack paper and chalk, while the UN Relief and Works Agency, which supports Palestinian refugees and runs many schools in Gaza, was still waiting to import 4,000 desks and 5,000 chairs.
The UN says the current situation "contravenes" a UN security council resolution passed during the war in January, which called for "unimpeded provision and distribution" of humanitarian aid for Gaza."
Saturday, September 19, 2009
A New Year......with a powerful message!
This past week has seen the release of the UN report on the Gaza War. Both Hamas and the Israelis are the subject of criticism - although, for perhaps rather obvious reasons, Israel attracts the greater condemnation for a variety of breaches of humanitarian and international law.
Predictably, the Israelis have gone into over-drive to attack the Report and its authors and counter the serious allegations levelled against it.
As Israelis and Jews around the world celebrate their New Year - followed by the Day of Atonement in 10 days time - they may do well to reflect on this more than timely and powerful piece by Gideon Levy in Haaretz:
"There's a name on every bullet, and there's someone responsible for every crime. The Teflon cloak Israel has wrapped around itself since Operation Cast Lead has been ripped off, once and for all, and now the difficult questions must be faced. It has become superfluous to ask whether war crimes were committed in Gaza, because authoritative and clear-cut answers have already been given. So the follow-up question has to be addressed: Who's to blame? If war crimes were committed in Gaza, it follows that there are war criminals at large among us. They must be held accountable and punished. This is the harsh conclusion to be drawn from the detailed United Nations report.
For almost a year, Israel has been trying to argue that the blood spilled in Gaza was merely water. One report followed the other, with horrifyingly identical results: siege, white phosphorous, harm of innocent civilians, infrastructure destroyed - war crimes in each and every report. Now, after the publication of the most important and damning report of all, compiled by the commission led by Judge Richard Goldstone, Israel's attempts to discredit them look ludicrous, and the empty bluster of its spokespersons sound pathetic."
Continue reading here. Israelis, as indeed those one-eyed supporters of Israel who neither see nor hear any negatives on the part of Israel, might take careful heed of Levy's concluding words:
"On the eve of the Jewish New Year, Israel, deservedly, is becoming an outcast and detested country. We must not forget it for a minute."
Predictably, the Israelis have gone into over-drive to attack the Report and its authors and counter the serious allegations levelled against it.
As Israelis and Jews around the world celebrate their New Year - followed by the Day of Atonement in 10 days time - they may do well to reflect on this more than timely and powerful piece by Gideon Levy in Haaretz:
"There's a name on every bullet, and there's someone responsible for every crime. The Teflon cloak Israel has wrapped around itself since Operation Cast Lead has been ripped off, once and for all, and now the difficult questions must be faced. It has become superfluous to ask whether war crimes were committed in Gaza, because authoritative and clear-cut answers have already been given. So the follow-up question has to be addressed: Who's to blame? If war crimes were committed in Gaza, it follows that there are war criminals at large among us. They must be held accountable and punished. This is the harsh conclusion to be drawn from the detailed United Nations report.
For almost a year, Israel has been trying to argue that the blood spilled in Gaza was merely water. One report followed the other, with horrifyingly identical results: siege, white phosphorous, harm of innocent civilians, infrastructure destroyed - war crimes in each and every report. Now, after the publication of the most important and damning report of all, compiled by the commission led by Judge Richard Goldstone, Israel's attempts to discredit them look ludicrous, and the empty bluster of its spokespersons sound pathetic."
Continue reading here. Israelis, as indeed those one-eyed supporters of Israel who neither see nor hear any negatives on the part of Israel, might take careful heed of Levy's concluding words:
"On the eve of the Jewish New Year, Israel, deservedly, is becoming an outcast and detested country. We must not forget it for a minute."
A remarkable woman
Sophie McNeill is a freelance video journalist whose work airs on SBS TV's Dateline program. Her report on the plight of Afghan women, Afghanistan's shame, aired on 16 August [ and can be viewed here].
She writes in a piece on newmatilda.com about a truly remarkable woman working in Afghanistan to assist young women:
"I came to Herat to visit the only women's shelter in Western Afghanistan.
Hidden away in an anonymous building a few blocks from the centre of town, the shelter is crammed with women and children who have fled to escape abusive husbands or family members. The afternoon I visit the shelter it is nearly full, with around 40 women and their children making use of the temporary accommodation. The exact location of the shelter is a well kept secret; many of the women are scared their husbands will track them down and harm them or their children.
Many of the women are shy and obviously traumatised. They sit cross-legged on the frayed carpet, drinking tea and making quiet conversation. Scores of babies and kids climb over them, clamoring for attention. Everybody here is under the care of Suraya Pakzad, a 37-year-old mother of six who heads the locally run NGO "Voice of Women". She wanders around the crowded room, offering a hug here, squeezing a hand there. "Most of these women are here because of domestic violence," she explains sadly."
Continue reading here.
She writes in a piece on newmatilda.com about a truly remarkable woman working in Afghanistan to assist young women:
"I came to Herat to visit the only women's shelter in Western Afghanistan.
Hidden away in an anonymous building a few blocks from the centre of town, the shelter is crammed with women and children who have fled to escape abusive husbands or family members. The afternoon I visit the shelter it is nearly full, with around 40 women and their children making use of the temporary accommodation. The exact location of the shelter is a well kept secret; many of the women are scared their husbands will track them down and harm them or their children.
Many of the women are shy and obviously traumatised. They sit cross-legged on the frayed carpet, drinking tea and making quiet conversation. Scores of babies and kids climb over them, clamoring for attention. Everybody here is under the care of Suraya Pakzad, a 37-year-old mother of six who heads the locally run NGO "Voice of Women". She wanders around the crowded room, offering a hug here, squeezing a hand there. "Most of these women are here because of domestic violence," she explains sadly."
Continue reading here.
The warning couldn't be more dire....
Multi-award winning journalist, author, commentator and film-maker John Pilger makes a grim prediction in a piece "For Britons, The Party Game Is Over" on Information Clearing House that if PM Brown of the UK doesn't address the issues all over the place in Afghanistan - not the least the growing number of deaths and injuries of British military personnel - things could get very nasty in Britain's streets a la the bombings in July 2005.
"The establishment of a permanent US/Nato presence in a resource-rich, strategic region is the principal reason for the war. The British are there because that is what Washington wants. Preventing the Taliban from storming our streets is reminiscent of President Lyndon B Johnson’s plaint: “We have to stop the communists over there [Vietnam] or we’ll soon be fighting them in California.”
There is one difference. By refusing to bring the troops home, Brown is likely to provoke an atrocity by young British Muslims who view the war as a western crusade; the recent Old Bailey trail made that clear. He has been told as much by British intelligence and security services. Brown’s own security adviser has said as much publicly. As with Tony Blair and the bombs of 7 July 2005, he will bear ultimate responsibility for bringing violence and grief to his own people."
"The establishment of a permanent US/Nato presence in a resource-rich, strategic region is the principal reason for the war. The British are there because that is what Washington wants. Preventing the Taliban from storming our streets is reminiscent of President Lyndon B Johnson’s plaint: “We have to stop the communists over there [Vietnam] or we’ll soon be fighting them in California.”
There is one difference. By refusing to bring the troops home, Brown is likely to provoke an atrocity by young British Muslims who view the war as a western crusade; the recent Old Bailey trail made that clear. He has been told as much by British intelligence and security services. Brown’s own security adviser has said as much publicly. As with Tony Blair and the bombs of 7 July 2005, he will bear ultimate responsibility for bringing violence and grief to his own people."
Friday, September 18, 2009
"The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis."
No comforting words from Joseph Stiglitz! - who, as former chief economist at the World Bank, told Bloomberg News that "in the US and many other countries, the too-big-to-fail banks have become even bigger."
In fact, as reported in The Telegraph, Stiglitz says "The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis."
Read the sobering piece, here, on where the GFC is right now, and after doing that reflect on this salient fact......since the 1990, the top 20 institutions in the US have gone from controlling 35 % of assets to 70% of assets.
In fact, as reported in The Telegraph, Stiglitz says "The problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis."
Read the sobering piece, here, on where the GFC is right now, and after doing that reflect on this salient fact......since the 1990, the top 20 institutions in the US have gone from controlling 35 % of assets to 70% of assets.
Afghanistan: The numbers are truly awesome
Tom Engelhardt, writing on TomDispatch.com tries to put the Afghanistan war into some perspective - especially the truly monumental cost of it all.
"Here may be the single strangest fact of our American world: that at least three administrations -- Ronald Reagan's, George W. Bush's, and now Barack Obama's -- drew the U.S. "defense" perimeter at the Hindu Kush; that is, in the rugged, mountainous lands of Afghanistan. Put another way, while Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind of money, if any, to put into health care, or decaying infrastructure, or other key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how, and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant part, of our own creation."
Some sample stats as collated by Engelhardt:
"Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002: $20.8 billion.
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2009: $60.2 billion.
Total funds for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002-2009: $228.2 billion.
War-fighting funds requested by the Obama administration for 2010: $68 billion (a figure which will, for the first time since 2003, exceed funds requested for Iraq).
Funds recently requested by U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry for non-military spending in Afghanistan, 2010: $2.5 billion.
Funds spent since 2001 on Afghan "reconstruction": $38 billion ("more than half of it on training and equipping Afghan security forces").
Percentage of U.S. funding in Afghanistan that has gone for military purposes: Nearly 90%.
Estimated U.S. funds needed to support and upgrade Afghan forces for the next decade: $4 billion a year ("with a like sum for development") according to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West. (According to the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon, "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget.")
Afghan gross national product: $23 billion ("the size of Boise" Idaho's, writes columnist George Will) -- about $3 billion of it from opium production.
Annual budget of the Afghan government: $600 million.
Maintenance cost for the force of 450,000 Afghan soldiers and police U.S. generals dream of creating: approximately 500% of the Afghan budget.
Amount spent on police "mentoring and training" since 2001: $10 billion.
Percentage of the more than 400 Afghan National Police units "still incapable of running their operations independently": 75% (2008 figures).
Cost of the latest upgrade of Bagram Air Base (an old Soviet base that has become the largest American base in Afghanistan): $220 million.
Cost of a single recent Pentagon contract to DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corporation "to build and support U.S. military bases throughout Afghanistan": up to $15 billion."
Continue reading the staggering stats [sobering as they are!] here.
"Here may be the single strangest fact of our American world: that at least three administrations -- Ronald Reagan's, George W. Bush's, and now Barack Obama's -- drew the U.S. "defense" perimeter at the Hindu Kush; that is, in the rugged, mountainous lands of Afghanistan. Put another way, while Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind of money, if any, to put into health care, or decaying infrastructure, or other key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how, and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant part, of our own creation."
Some sample stats as collated by Engelhardt:
"Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002: $20.8 billion.
Annual funding for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2009: $60.2 billion.
Total funds for U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan, 2002-2009: $228.2 billion.
War-fighting funds requested by the Obama administration for 2010: $68 billion (a figure which will, for the first time since 2003, exceed funds requested for Iraq).
Funds recently requested by U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry for non-military spending in Afghanistan, 2010: $2.5 billion.
Funds spent since 2001 on Afghan "reconstruction": $38 billion ("more than half of it on training and equipping Afghan security forces").
Percentage of U.S. funding in Afghanistan that has gone for military purposes: Nearly 90%.
Estimated U.S. funds needed to support and upgrade Afghan forces for the next decade: $4 billion a year ("with a like sum for development") according to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Bing West. (According to the Brookings Institution's Michael O'Hanlon, "It's a reasonable guess that for 20 years, we essentially will have to fund half the Afghan budget.")
Afghan gross national product: $23 billion ("the size of Boise" Idaho's, writes columnist George Will) -- about $3 billion of it from opium production.
Annual budget of the Afghan government: $600 million.
Maintenance cost for the force of 450,000 Afghan soldiers and police U.S. generals dream of creating: approximately 500% of the Afghan budget.
Amount spent on police "mentoring and training" since 2001: $10 billion.
Percentage of the more than 400 Afghan National Police units "still incapable of running their operations independently": 75% (2008 figures).
Cost of the latest upgrade of Bagram Air Base (an old Soviet base that has become the largest American base in Afghanistan): $220 million.
Cost of a single recent Pentagon contract to DynCorp International Inc. and Fluor Corporation "to build and support U.S. military bases throughout Afghanistan": up to $15 billion."
Continue reading the staggering stats [sobering as they are!] here.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Who says money doesn't speak?
Congressman Joe Wilson may, or may not, have intended to attract attention to himself, but when he shouted out that Obama was a liar as Obama was addressing the Congress on health-care reform, he certainly is now notorious. But, then, our friend Joe may have a vested interest in health-care and seeing it continuing as it is.
TomDispatch in "The Washington Influence Machine" backgrounds the "largesse" [that is, financial donations] Wilson garners:
"Congressman Joe ("You lie!") Wilson is undoubtedly not completely ignorant about how our health care system actually works. After all, in the course of his career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, he's received $244,196 in contributions from the health-care profession -- and that doesn't even count another $86,150 from the pharmaceutical industry or the $68,000 that came in from hospitals and nursing homes. In fact, if you go to the page at that organization's OpenSecrets.org website on Congressional contributions and start clicking around among the members of Congress, you'll be struck by how many times the health and pharmaceutical industries (and their lobbyists) pop up."
No less importantly, Andy Kroll in his piece on TomDispatch reveals the sort of money lobbyists from the health-related industry pour into Congessman and Senators:
"The sheer presence of lobbyists cannot be underestimated. Case in point: the legislative battle over health-care reform. As of mid-August, there were six lobbyists trying to influence health-care legislation for every single member of the House and Senate, Bloomberg News reported.
That's 3,300 lobbyists working on a single issue (three times the number of defense lobbyists) with nearly three new lobbyists joining the fray each day. So far this year, $263 million (or more than one million dollars a day) has been shelled out just for lobbying health-related issues, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Industry players have waged war to sway public opinion, spending $75 million on TV ads. Lawmakers up for election in 2010 have already seen $23 million flow into their nascent campaign coffers."
TomDispatch in "The Washington Influence Machine" backgrounds the "largesse" [that is, financial donations] Wilson garners:
"Congressman Joe ("You lie!") Wilson is undoubtedly not completely ignorant about how our health care system actually works. After all, in the course of his career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, he's received $244,196 in contributions from the health-care profession -- and that doesn't even count another $86,150 from the pharmaceutical industry or the $68,000 that came in from hospitals and nursing homes. In fact, if you go to the page at that organization's OpenSecrets.org website on Congressional contributions and start clicking around among the members of Congress, you'll be struck by how many times the health and pharmaceutical industries (and their lobbyists) pop up."
No less importantly, Andy Kroll in his piece on TomDispatch reveals the sort of money lobbyists from the health-related industry pour into Congessman and Senators:
"The sheer presence of lobbyists cannot be underestimated. Case in point: the legislative battle over health-care reform. As of mid-August, there were six lobbyists trying to influence health-care legislation for every single member of the House and Senate, Bloomberg News reported.
That's 3,300 lobbyists working on a single issue (three times the number of defense lobbyists) with nearly three new lobbyists joining the fray each day. So far this year, $263 million (or more than one million dollars a day) has been shelled out just for lobbying health-related issues, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Industry players have waged war to sway public opinion, spending $75 million on TV ads. Lawmakers up for election in 2010 have already seen $23 million flow into their nascent campaign coffers."
A Peaceful Struggle
"A few weeks ago, in the dead of night, dozens of Israeli soldiers with painted faces burst violently into my home. If only they had knocked, I would have opened the door. They arrested me. My wife, Lamia, was left alone with our four children. My youngest, 3-year-old Khaled, woke up to the image of Israeli soldiers with painted faces who were taking his father away. He has not stopped crying since. A few nights ago he woke up in terror, sobbing: "Daddy, why did you let the soldiers take me?" That's the way our children sleep--in a constant state of fear.
Many Americans know that the Obama administration has been pushing the Israeli government to accept a freeze on settlement construction. What is not commonly known is that even as Israel negotiates with the United States, it has been taking steps, including my arrest, to crush the growing Palestinian nonviolent movement opposing Israel's construction of settlements and the wall on Palestinian land in the West Bank."
So writes Mohammed Khatib in a piece on The Nation. He chronicles the struggle - a peaceful one at that - confronting Palestinians in what has become a watershed and now almost infamous on-going situation in the town of Bil'in.
Many Americans know that the Obama administration has been pushing the Israeli government to accept a freeze on settlement construction. What is not commonly known is that even as Israel negotiates with the United States, it has been taking steps, including my arrest, to crush the growing Palestinian nonviolent movement opposing Israel's construction of settlements and the wall on Palestinian land in the West Bank."
So writes Mohammed Khatib in a piece on The Nation. He chronicles the struggle - a peaceful one at that - confronting Palestinians in what has become a watershed and now almost infamous on-going situation in the town of Bil'in.
Strategic ethnocentrism
Stephen Walt, writing on FP, reflects on his own, and those of others, who continue to fail giving Africa the attention it deserves:
"Howard W. French has written a fascinating and disturbing review essay in the latest New York Review of Books. It is an assessment of three recent books on the cataclysmic war that has been taking place in Central Africa, and here's the passage that reached out and grabbed me:
'The protracted and inconclusive conflict that followed has become what Gérard Prunier, in the title of his sprawling book, calls "Africa's World War," a catastrophic decade of violence that has led to a staggering 5.4 million deaths, far more than any war anywhere since World War II. It also has resulted in one of the largest -- and least followed -- UN interventions in the world, involving nearly 20,000 UN soldiers from over forty countries.'
I was aware of this conflict, of course, but as I read French's essay, I realized that I knew very little about its origins, evolution, or the prospects for ending it. I'm a full-time professional in the field of international relations and security studies, and I teach an undergraduate course on "the origins of modern wars" here at Harvard. I go to seminars on various international relations topics almost every week. And yet I knew next-to-nothing about the greatest international bloodletting of my lifetime. Readers of this blog know that I'm usually wary about outsiders meddling in situations they don't understand and that don't involve vital interests, but that's no excuse for being ignorant about a cataclysm of this magnitude.
I could offer up various reasons for this lapse -- I've never studied African politics, the conflict hasn't been high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, Western media haven't given a lot of play, I've been working on other topics, etc. -- but frankly, none of those reasons are very convincing. Mea culpa.
I suspect I'm not alone in my ignorance either, and French's essay suggests that U.S. officials who were engaged in this conflict (including current U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice) didn't have a firm grasp of what was going on either. There's probably some "strategic ethnocentrism" going on here too: Western elites pay a lot more attention when people like them are being killed in large numbers, and look the other way when the victims are impoverished Africans.
As for me, I have some reading to do, starting with the three books discussed in French's essay (Gerard Prunier, Africa's World War; René Lemarchand, The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa, and Thomas Turner, The Congo Wars.)
And it's time to make some changes to my course syllabus, too."
"Howard W. French has written a fascinating and disturbing review essay in the latest New York Review of Books. It is an assessment of three recent books on the cataclysmic war that has been taking place in Central Africa, and here's the passage that reached out and grabbed me:
'The protracted and inconclusive conflict that followed has become what Gérard Prunier, in the title of his sprawling book, calls "Africa's World War," a catastrophic decade of violence that has led to a staggering 5.4 million deaths, far more than any war anywhere since World War II. It also has resulted in one of the largest -- and least followed -- UN interventions in the world, involving nearly 20,000 UN soldiers from over forty countries.'
I was aware of this conflict, of course, but as I read French's essay, I realized that I knew very little about its origins, evolution, or the prospects for ending it. I'm a full-time professional in the field of international relations and security studies, and I teach an undergraduate course on "the origins of modern wars" here at Harvard. I go to seminars on various international relations topics almost every week. And yet I knew next-to-nothing about the greatest international bloodletting of my lifetime. Readers of this blog know that I'm usually wary about outsiders meddling in situations they don't understand and that don't involve vital interests, but that's no excuse for being ignorant about a cataclysm of this magnitude.
I could offer up various reasons for this lapse -- I've never studied African politics, the conflict hasn't been high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, Western media haven't given a lot of play, I've been working on other topics, etc. -- but frankly, none of those reasons are very convincing. Mea culpa.
I suspect I'm not alone in my ignorance either, and French's essay suggests that U.S. officials who were engaged in this conflict (including current U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice) didn't have a firm grasp of what was going on either. There's probably some "strategic ethnocentrism" going on here too: Western elites pay a lot more attention when people like them are being killed in large numbers, and look the other way when the victims are impoverished Africans.
As for me, I have some reading to do, starting with the three books discussed in French's essay (Gerard Prunier, Africa's World War; René Lemarchand, The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa, and Thomas Turner, The Congo Wars.)
And it's time to make some changes to my course syllabus, too."
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Yes Sir.....We Do Want the Truth!
Can there be any gain-saying this editorial in the Columbia Journalism Review - about what we expect from journalists:
"General William Tecumseh Sherman, like a number of military leaders through history, despised journalists. Tom Curley, president and CEO of The Associated Press, noted in a recent speech that a reporter once appealed to Sherman in the name of truth, but didn’t get far. “We don’t want the truth told about things here,” Sherman replied. “That’s what we don’t want. Truth? No sir!”
Sorry, General, but yes we do. When a democracy goes to war, its citizens need to know how it is going and what is being done in their name. They have a right to as close an approximation of truth as journalists can deliver, given the limitations. The right to bear witness is part of what you fight for.
We have two wars on now, and not enough truth. The chief impediment is the media’s own situation—the vicious advertising recession and the economic upheaval. Going to war is costly and many newsrooms can’t do it anymore. Time magazine, for example, is the latest to shutter its office in Iraq.
But diminishing resources is not the only problem. The military has changed too. The quality of the military-journalist relationship in Iraq got better around 2006 under the command of General David Petraeus, who wanted officers talking to the press, partly as a way to explain his approach to counterinsurgency. But the window has closed."
"General William Tecumseh Sherman, like a number of military leaders through history, despised journalists. Tom Curley, president and CEO of The Associated Press, noted in a recent speech that a reporter once appealed to Sherman in the name of truth, but didn’t get far. “We don’t want the truth told about things here,” Sherman replied. “That’s what we don’t want. Truth? No sir!”
Sorry, General, but yes we do. When a democracy goes to war, its citizens need to know how it is going and what is being done in their name. They have a right to as close an approximation of truth as journalists can deliver, given the limitations. The right to bear witness is part of what you fight for.
We have two wars on now, and not enough truth. The chief impediment is the media’s own situation—the vicious advertising recession and the economic upheaval. Going to war is costly and many newsrooms can’t do it anymore. Time magazine, for example, is the latest to shutter its office in Iraq.
But diminishing resources is not the only problem. The military has changed too. The quality of the military-journalist relationship in Iraq got better around 2006 under the command of General David Petraeus, who wanted officers talking to the press, partly as a way to explain his approach to counterinsurgency. But the window has closed."
Gaza War: UN Report in
The Independent reports on the UN's Report on its investigation of the Gaza War earlier this year. Needless to say, the Israelis have already dismissed the findings. On another level, it is "interesting" how basically little coverage this important Report has garnered worldwide in the media.
"Israel targeted "the people of Gaza as a whole" in the three-week military operation which is estimated to have killed more than 1,300 Palestinians at the beginning of this year, according to a UN-commissioned report published yesterday.
A UN fact-finding mission led by the South African judge Richard Goldstone said Israel should face prosecution by the International Criminal Court unless it opened independent investigations of what the report said were repeated violations of international law, "possible war crimes and crimes against humanity" during the operation.
Using by far the strongest language of any of the numerous reports criticising Operation Cast Lead, the UN mission, which interviewed victims, witnesses and others in Gaza and Geneva this summer, says that, while Israel had portrayed the war as self-defence in response to Hamas rocket attacks, it "considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole."
And, some findings from the Report:
"* The first bombing attack on Day One of the operation, when children were going home from school, "appears to have been calculated to cause the greatest disruption and widespread panic".
* The firing of white phosphorus shells at the UN Relief and Works Agency compound was "compounded by reckless regard of the consequences", and the use of high explosive artillery at the al-Quds hospitals were violations of Articles 18 and 19 of the Geneva Convention. It says that warnings issued by Israel to the civilian population "cannot be considered as sufficiently effective" under the convention.
* On the attack in the vicinity of the al-Fakhoura school where at least 35 Palestinians were killed, Israeli forces launched an attack where a "reasonable commander" would have considered military advantage was outweighed by the risk to civilian life. Under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the civilians had their right to life forfeited. And while some of the 99 policemen killed in incidents surveyed by the team may have been members of armed groups, others who were not also had their right to life violated.
* The inquiry team also says that a number of Palestinians were used as human shields – itself a violation of the ICCPR – including Majdi Abed Rabbo, whose complaints about being so used were first aired in The Independent. The report asserts that the use of human shields constitutes a "war crime under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court"."
"Israel targeted "the people of Gaza as a whole" in the three-week military operation which is estimated to have killed more than 1,300 Palestinians at the beginning of this year, according to a UN-commissioned report published yesterday.
A UN fact-finding mission led by the South African judge Richard Goldstone said Israel should face prosecution by the International Criminal Court unless it opened independent investigations of what the report said were repeated violations of international law, "possible war crimes and crimes against humanity" during the operation.
Using by far the strongest language of any of the numerous reports criticising Operation Cast Lead, the UN mission, which interviewed victims, witnesses and others in Gaza and Geneva this summer, says that, while Israel had portrayed the war as self-defence in response to Hamas rocket attacks, it "considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole."
And, some findings from the Report:
"* The first bombing attack on Day One of the operation, when children were going home from school, "appears to have been calculated to cause the greatest disruption and widespread panic".
* The firing of white phosphorus shells at the UN Relief and Works Agency compound was "compounded by reckless regard of the consequences", and the use of high explosive artillery at the al-Quds hospitals were violations of Articles 18 and 19 of the Geneva Convention. It says that warnings issued by Israel to the civilian population "cannot be considered as sufficiently effective" under the convention.
* On the attack in the vicinity of the al-Fakhoura school where at least 35 Palestinians were killed, Israeli forces launched an attack where a "reasonable commander" would have considered military advantage was outweighed by the risk to civilian life. Under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the civilians had their right to life forfeited. And while some of the 99 policemen killed in incidents surveyed by the team may have been members of armed groups, others who were not also had their right to life violated.
* The inquiry team also says that a number of Palestinians were used as human shields – itself a violation of the ICCPR – including Majdi Abed Rabbo, whose complaints about being so used were first aired in The Independent. The report asserts that the use of human shields constitutes a "war crime under the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court"."
Point of No Return
Two facts converge to make a two-State solution almost impossible - as an op-ed piece on ynet.news.com [an Israeli web site] compellingly argues:
First, "Half a million people. Half a million Jewish Israelis are living beyond the Green Line, the Israel-Jordan border prior to1967. A total of 200,000 reside in areas defined by Israel as part of the greater Jerusalem and annexed. Another 300,000 live in the rest of Judea and Samaria (or the West Bank.)"
Second, "The evacuation of 8,000 Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and their absorption in Israel cost taxpayers NIS 10 billion. Those interested in turning back time and evacuating Israelis from the areas beyond the 1967 borders would have to invest NIS 600 billion for that end. An unreal figure." NIL 600 billion equates to a staggeringly approximate US$140 billion.
Conclusion? - according to ynet.news.com:
"Half a million Jews beyond the Green Line constitute the point of no return. The talk about a “construction freeze” or “construction suspicion” at certain settlements are a joke and an insurance policy for the leaders – in Israel, in Palestine, and in the world – who know deep in their hearts that the decision had been made.
What we have here is two peoples that cannot be divided: A mixture of Jews and Palestinians that cannot be separated. It’s too late."
First, "Half a million people. Half a million Jewish Israelis are living beyond the Green Line, the Israel-Jordan border prior to1967. A total of 200,000 reside in areas defined by Israel as part of the greater Jerusalem and annexed. Another 300,000 live in the rest of Judea and Samaria (or the West Bank.)"
Second, "The evacuation of 8,000 Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip and their absorption in Israel cost taxpayers NIS 10 billion. Those interested in turning back time and evacuating Israelis from the areas beyond the 1967 borders would have to invest NIS 600 billion for that end. An unreal figure." NIL 600 billion equates to a staggeringly approximate US$140 billion.
Conclusion? - according to ynet.news.com:
"Half a million Jews beyond the Green Line constitute the point of no return. The talk about a “construction freeze” or “construction suspicion” at certain settlements are a joke and an insurance policy for the leaders – in Israel, in Palestine, and in the world – who know deep in their hearts that the decision had been made.
What we have here is two peoples that cannot be divided: A mixture of Jews and Palestinians that cannot be separated. It’s too late."
Yee Gods......they're baaaaaaaack!
Stephen Walt, professor of International Law at Harvard, on his blog at FP, decries what he sees as the neo-con elements - or at least those ever-present militarists in the US - back with their shrill voices:
"When I started blogging back in January, one of my early posts questioned the belief that Obama's election had ended talk of military action against Iran. I though this view was "almost certainly premature," because I didn't think a rapid diplomatic breakthrough was likely and I knew that advocates of a more forceful approach would soon come out of the woodwork and start pushing the new administration to get tough with Tehran.
Well, I hate to say I told you so, but ... Right on cue, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an op-ed from former Senators Dan Coats and Chuck Robb and retired Air Force general Chuck Wald, recommending that Obama "begin preparations for the use of military options" against Iran's nuclear facilities. They argue that keeping the threat of force "on the table" is the only way to achieve a diplomatic solution, but they also make it clear that they favor bombing Iran if diplomacy fails. In their words, "making preparations now will enable the president, should all other measures fail to bring Tehran to the negotiating table, to use military force to retard Iran's nuclear program."
Will we ever learn? As other commentators have noted, many of the most vocal advocates of military action against Iran tend to be the same groups and individuals who saw 9/11 as a good excuse to invade Iraq and start trying to "transform" the Middle East. Plenty of people agree that Iran's nuclear ambitions are a problem, but the loudest voices calling for the threat or use of force tend to be either Israeli hardliners or American neocons. Gee, who woulda thought! It's equally unsurprising that the United Jewish Communities sponsored an "Iran Advocacy Day" in Washington yesterday, featuring appearances by key administration officials and prominent legislators. Its purpose, of course, was to highlight the danger of a nuclear Iran, put pressure on Obama to take a tough line, and to rally support for stiffer sanctions (at a minimum). M.J. Rosenberg called it just right: "it marks the start of the fall push on Iran."
"When I started blogging back in January, one of my early posts questioned the belief that Obama's election had ended talk of military action against Iran. I though this view was "almost certainly premature," because I didn't think a rapid diplomatic breakthrough was likely and I knew that advocates of a more forceful approach would soon come out of the woodwork and start pushing the new administration to get tough with Tehran.
Well, I hate to say I told you so, but ... Right on cue, Wednesday's Wall Street Journal had an op-ed from former Senators Dan Coats and Chuck Robb and retired Air Force general Chuck Wald, recommending that Obama "begin preparations for the use of military options" against Iran's nuclear facilities. They argue that keeping the threat of force "on the table" is the only way to achieve a diplomatic solution, but they also make it clear that they favor bombing Iran if diplomacy fails. In their words, "making preparations now will enable the president, should all other measures fail to bring Tehran to the negotiating table, to use military force to retard Iran's nuclear program."
Will we ever learn? As other commentators have noted, many of the most vocal advocates of military action against Iran tend to be the same groups and individuals who saw 9/11 as a good excuse to invade Iraq and start trying to "transform" the Middle East. Plenty of people agree that Iran's nuclear ambitions are a problem, but the loudest voices calling for the threat or use of force tend to be either Israeli hardliners or American neocons. Gee, who woulda thought! It's equally unsurprising that the United Jewish Communities sponsored an "Iran Advocacy Day" in Washington yesterday, featuring appearances by key administration officials and prominent legislators. Its purpose, of course, was to highlight the danger of a nuclear Iran, put pressure on Obama to take a tough line, and to rally support for stiffer sanctions (at a minimum). M.J. Rosenberg called it just right: "it marks the start of the fall push on Iran."
Vale a true [life-saving] hero
Almost certainly most people would not have heard of a true hero - Norman Borlaug, who died yesterday.
The LA Times profiles the man:
"Norman Borlaug, the father of the "Green Revolution" who is widely credited with saving millions of lives by breeding wheat, rice and other crops that brought agricultural self-sufficiency to developing countries around the world, died Saturday in Texas. He was 95.
Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 and was hailed by Time magazine in 1999 as one of the 100 most influential minds of the 20th century, died at his home in Dallas from complications of cancer, a Texas A&M University spokeswoman said."
The LA Times profiles the man:
"Norman Borlaug, the father of the "Green Revolution" who is widely credited with saving millions of lives by breeding wheat, rice and other crops that brought agricultural self-sufficiency to developing countries around the world, died Saturday in Texas. He was 95.
Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 and was hailed by Time magazine in 1999 as one of the 100 most influential minds of the 20th century, died at his home in Dallas from complications of cancer, a Texas A&M University spokeswoman said."
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
That's that then!
"The Palestinians expect a complete halt to building; it is now clear that this will not happen. Jerusalem is not a settlement and the building [there] will continue as normal."
This pronouncement by PM Netanhayu, as reported by Haaretz, seems to close [nay, slam!] the door to any meaningful talks with the Palestinians, let alone any sort of resolution.
Welcome to the "world" of the Israeli Government and its obscure view of securing peace with the Palestinians!
This pronouncement by PM Netanhayu, as reported by Haaretz, seems to close [nay, slam!] the door to any meaningful talks with the Palestinians, let alone any sort of resolution.
Welcome to the "world" of the Israeli Government and its obscure view of securing peace with the Palestinians!
A Tenth Birthday Bash for Bloggers
Hard to believe, but blogging has just celebrated it's 10th birthday. What would the world be without all those bloggers out there? Many would say, better off! That would be a harsh judgment.
The Guardian reports:
"For Blogger, the web service that enabled anyone who could type to publish online, is 10 years old this month. On 1 September, there was a party in San Francisco to mark the moment, attended by - among others - Blogger's founder, Evan Williams (who later founded Twitter), and the journalist Scott Rosenberg, who has just published "Say Everything" (sayeverything.com), an absorbing book on the phenomenon that Blogger enabled."
And:
"Blogging is thriving. In virtually every area of human interest, the diversity and quantity of fact and opinion available online dwarfs what was available in the print era. In the old days the News of the World had a ludicrous slogan: "All Human Life Is Here", a promise on which no publication could ever hope to deliver. The "blogosphere" is the first medium we've ever had which could conceivably live up to the slogan.
Blogging reverses a trend that had become increasingly worrying in an era dominated by mass media, namely the erosion of what the cultural critic Jurgen Habermas called "the public sphere" - an area where citizens gather to generate opinions and attitudes that affirm or challenge the actions of the state. Mass media offered the illusion of diversity while narrowing the range of real choices available - the "600 channels and nothing on" syndrome. Blogging has revived - and begun to expand - the public sphere, and in the process may revitalise our democracies. If it does, then we will have Evan Williams largely to thank for it."
The Guardian reports:
"For Blogger, the web service that enabled anyone who could type to publish online, is 10 years old this month. On 1 September, there was a party in San Francisco to mark the moment, attended by - among others - Blogger's founder, Evan Williams (who later founded Twitter), and the journalist Scott Rosenberg, who has just published "Say Everything" (sayeverything.com), an absorbing book on the phenomenon that Blogger enabled."
And:
"Blogging is thriving. In virtually every area of human interest, the diversity and quantity of fact and opinion available online dwarfs what was available in the print era. In the old days the News of the World had a ludicrous slogan: "All Human Life Is Here", a promise on which no publication could ever hope to deliver. The "blogosphere" is the first medium we've ever had which could conceivably live up to the slogan.
Blogging reverses a trend that had become increasingly worrying in an era dominated by mass media, namely the erosion of what the cultural critic Jurgen Habermas called "the public sphere" - an area where citizens gather to generate opinions and attitudes that affirm or challenge the actions of the state. Mass media offered the illusion of diversity while narrowing the range of real choices available - the "600 channels and nothing on" syndrome. Blogging has revived - and begun to expand - the public sphere, and in the process may revitalise our democracies. If it does, then we will have Evan Williams largely to thank for it."
The GFC isn't over by any stretch of the imagination
Stock markets might be on an upward trend, but cooler heads are counselling that the GFC, as it has come to be known, hasn't really passed yet.
"The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, 60, talks to SPIEGEL about Wall Street's unwillingness to learn lessons from the financial crisis, the future of the global economy and his ideas for a new role for the IMF as a global financial safety net."
There are many who see the bad ways of the past returning. truthdig reports in "Nothing has Changed on Wall Street":
"A year after Lehman Brothers went under—taking a big chunk of the economy with it—the deregulation and lax oversight that enabled the crisis are still a problem. According to this New York Times report, things might even be worse."
"The managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, 60, talks to SPIEGEL about Wall Street's unwillingness to learn lessons from the financial crisis, the future of the global economy and his ideas for a new role for the IMF as a global financial safety net."
There are many who see the bad ways of the past returning. truthdig reports in "Nothing has Changed on Wall Street":
"A year after Lehman Brothers went under—taking a big chunk of the economy with it—the deregulation and lax oversight that enabled the crisis are still a problem. According to this New York Times report, things might even be worse."
Sri Lanka: No let up for the Tamils
The Sri Lankan government, in both its actions and public declarations, seems to have taken a leaf out of the book of the Israelis. Harsh treatment of the Tamil community in Sri Lanka and then peddle PR to the world which doesn't remotely equate to the truth.
With what are said to be some 280,000 Tamils detained in rudimentary camps - in appalling conditions - The Guardian reports:
"The camp, say former inhabitants, is packed, with two or three families sharing a tent or tin shack. There are complaints of stinking, overflowing toilets, water shortages and inadequate healthcare. Journalists are rarely given access and those inside Manik Farm are not allowed to cross its fortified perimeter. The government says it has to use extreme measures because hiding in the civilian population are LTTE soldiers.
Speaking on a phone that had been smuggled into the camp, one civilian being held in Manik Farm, who did not want to be named, said two families had "been taken away and not seen again after saying some wrong things" to a reporter last month.
"People are scared to tell anyone of the problems we are facing. But it is a prison here. There are not enough health facilities for the problems in the camp and we don't have enough water."
With what are said to be some 280,000 Tamils detained in rudimentary camps - in appalling conditions - The Guardian reports:
"The camp, say former inhabitants, is packed, with two or three families sharing a tent or tin shack. There are complaints of stinking, overflowing toilets, water shortages and inadequate healthcare. Journalists are rarely given access and those inside Manik Farm are not allowed to cross its fortified perimeter. The government says it has to use extreme measures because hiding in the civilian population are LTTE soldiers.
Speaking on a phone that had been smuggled into the camp, one civilian being held in Manik Farm, who did not want to be named, said two families had "been taken away and not seen again after saying some wrong things" to a reporter last month.
"People are scared to tell anyone of the problems we are facing. But it is a prison here. There are not enough health facilities for the problems in the camp and we don't have enough water."
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Human Face of War - all too often forgotten
Last Friday week, a NATO airstrike on two hijacked fuel trucks killed at least 90 people in Afghanistan. The Guardian, determined not to let the story pass into the ether of forgotten wartime reporting, managed to interview the families of some of the strike’s victims in a moving exposé of the incredible pain of war.
"At first light last Friday, in the Chardarah district of Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan, the villagers gathered around the twisted wreckage of two fuel tankers that had been hit by a Nato airstrike. They picked their way through a heap of almost a hundred charred bodies and mangled limbs which were mixed with ash, mud and the melted plastic of jerry cans, looking for their brothers, sons and cousins. They called out their names but received no answers. By this time, everyone was dead."
Continue reading here.
"At first light last Friday, in the Chardarah district of Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan, the villagers gathered around the twisted wreckage of two fuel tankers that had been hit by a Nato airstrike. They picked their way through a heap of almost a hundred charred bodies and mangled limbs which were mixed with ash, mud and the melted plastic of jerry cans, looking for their brothers, sons and cousins. They called out their names but received no answers. By this time, everyone was dead."
Continue reading here.
Race rears its ugly head
Two commentators address what has till now been the elephant in the room or at least in the background - Obama and his race! It has reared its head in the most ugly of manifestations in the US over this past Summer - and as late as last week when Obama addressed the US Congress.
First, Naomi Klein writing in The Guardian:
"Americans began the summer still celebrating the dawn of a "post-racial" era. They are ending it under no such illusion. The summer of 2009 was all about race, beginning with Republican claims that Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's nominee to the US Supreme Court, was "racist" against whites. Then, just as that scandal was dying down, up popped "the Gates controversy", the furore over the president's response to the arrest of African American academic Henry Louis Gates Jr in his own home. Obama's remark that the police had acted "stupidly" was evidence, according to massively popular Fox News host Glenn Beck, that the president "has a deep-seated hatred for white people"."
Secondly, Maureen Dowd in The NY Times:
"The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
First, Naomi Klein writing in The Guardian:
"Americans began the summer still celebrating the dawn of a "post-racial" era. They are ending it under no such illusion. The summer of 2009 was all about race, beginning with Republican claims that Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's nominee to the US Supreme Court, was "racist" against whites. Then, just as that scandal was dying down, up popped "the Gates controversy", the furore over the president's response to the arrest of African American academic Henry Louis Gates Jr in his own home. Obama's remark that the police had acted "stupidly" was evidence, according to massively popular Fox News host Glenn Beck, that the president "has a deep-seated hatred for white people"."
Secondly, Maureen Dowd in The NY Times:
"The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!"
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A Question to Israel! How to explain this........
Israel has consistently maintained the blockade on Gaza in order to, it claims, prevent weapons or material getting into the occupied territory which might be then deployed in attacks on Israel.
How to explain this then? School materials not being allowed into Gaza. Has anyone ever heard of school books and supplies constituting some sort of dangerous weaponry?
IRIN [humanitarian news and analysis a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] reports in "OPT: Gaza schoolchildren lack basic equipment":
"Some 1,200 students at al-Karmel High School for boys in Gaza City returned to class on 25 August without history and English textbooks, or notebooks and pens - all unavailable on the local market.
Severe damage to the school - caused during the 23-day Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip which ended on 18 January - has yet to be repaired. Al-Karmel’s principal, Majed Yasin, has had to cover scores of broken windows with plastic sheeting.
“The entire west side of the school was damaged adjacent to Abbas police station which was targeted on 27 December,” said Yasin. “We have yet to repair the US$65,000-worth of damage, since glass and other building materials are still unavailable.”
Educational institutions across Gaza are still reeling from the effects of the Israeli offensive, compounded by the more than two-year Israeli blockade (tightened after Hamas seized power in June 2007), according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
At least 280 schools out of 641 in Gaza were damaged and 18 destroyed during the military operation. None have been rebuilt or repaired to date due to continued restrictions on the entry of construction materials, OCHA reported.
At the start of the new school year, all 387 government-run primary and secondary schools serving 240,000 students - and 33 private sector schools serving 17,000 students - lack essential education materials, according to the education ministry in Gaza."
How to explain this then? School materials not being allowed into Gaza. Has anyone ever heard of school books and supplies constituting some sort of dangerous weaponry?
IRIN [humanitarian news and analysis a project of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] reports in "OPT: Gaza schoolchildren lack basic equipment":
"Some 1,200 students at al-Karmel High School for boys in Gaza City returned to class on 25 August without history and English textbooks, or notebooks and pens - all unavailable on the local market.
Severe damage to the school - caused during the 23-day Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip which ended on 18 January - has yet to be repaired. Al-Karmel’s principal, Majed Yasin, has had to cover scores of broken windows with plastic sheeting.
“The entire west side of the school was damaged adjacent to Abbas police station which was targeted on 27 December,” said Yasin. “We have yet to repair the US$65,000-worth of damage, since glass and other building materials are still unavailable.”
Educational institutions across Gaza are still reeling from the effects of the Israeli offensive, compounded by the more than two-year Israeli blockade (tightened after Hamas seized power in June 2007), according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).
At least 280 schools out of 641 in Gaza were damaged and 18 destroyed during the military operation. None have been rebuilt or repaired to date due to continued restrictions on the entry of construction materials, OCHA reported.
At the start of the new school year, all 387 government-run primary and secondary schools serving 240,000 students - and 33 private sector schools serving 17,000 students - lack essential education materials, according to the education ministry in Gaza."
Saturday, September 12, 2009
What Did Happen to Mohamed al-Hanashi?
Naomi Wolf writes on Project Syndicate:
"Mohammed al-Hanashi was a 31-year-old Yemeni citizen who was held at Guantánamo Bay without charge for seven years. On June 3, while I was visiting Guantánamo with other journalists, the press office there issued a terse announcement that al-Hanashi had had been found dead in his cell – an “apparent suicide.”
Because my commercial flight was canceled, I got a ride back to the United States on a military transport. I happened to be seated next to a military physician who had been flown in to do the autopsy on al-Hanashi. When would there be an investigation of the death, I asked him? “That was the investigation,” he replied. The military had investigated the military.
This “apparent suicide” seemed immediately suspicious to me. I had just toured those cells: it is literally impossible to kill yourself in them. Their interiors resemble the inside of a smooth plastic jar; there are no hard edges; hooks fold down; there is no bedding that one can use to strangle oneself. Can you bang your head against the wall until you die, theoretically, I asked the doctor? “They check on prisoners every three minutes,” he said. You’d have to be fast.
The story smelled even worse after a bit of digging......"
Continue reading what is disclosed in this disturbing piece here.
"Mohammed al-Hanashi was a 31-year-old Yemeni citizen who was held at Guantánamo Bay without charge for seven years. On June 3, while I was visiting Guantánamo with other journalists, the press office there issued a terse announcement that al-Hanashi had had been found dead in his cell – an “apparent suicide.”
Because my commercial flight was canceled, I got a ride back to the United States on a military transport. I happened to be seated next to a military physician who had been flown in to do the autopsy on al-Hanashi. When would there be an investigation of the death, I asked him? “That was the investigation,” he replied. The military had investigated the military.
This “apparent suicide” seemed immediately suspicious to me. I had just toured those cells: it is literally impossible to kill yourself in them. Their interiors resemble the inside of a smooth plastic jar; there are no hard edges; hooks fold down; there is no bedding that one can use to strangle oneself. Can you bang your head against the wall until you die, theoretically, I asked the doctor? “They check on prisoners every three minutes,” he said. You’d have to be fast.
The story smelled even worse after a bit of digging......"
Continue reading what is disclosed in this disturbing piece here.
Friday, September 11, 2009
One or Two States?.......Just "do" Something
A timely piece from Crikey on the endless subject of Israelis building more settlements and whether we will ever see a Two State solution - or is it an inevitable one State? - to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
"US President Barack Obama has consistently stated that he imagines a two state solution in the Middle East, with viable Jewish and Palestinian nations alongside each other. Israel, in a clear sign of who runs the show, announced last week that it intended to continue building colonies in the West Bank, in direct violation of international law and US wishes. The White House expressed "regret". The Israelis know how to stall for time; they’ve been doing it for decades.
This is one reason why a leading global figure such as writer and activist Naomi Klein is now calling for a boycott of the Israeli state. She told an interviewer recently it was vital for the world to counter propaganda that "promotes the image of a normal, happy country, rather than an aggressive occupying power".
Australia has backed this charade for as long as the game has been played. Both the Liberal and Labor parties have been willing partners. A few weeks ago, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard told the Australian Jewish News that, "we, as a nation, have always been very strong on supporting Israel’s right to defend itself and to seek security in the region."
But now a small but noticeable shift may be occurring in the Australian political elite, away from prying journalists and Zionist lobby scrutiny. There is no doubt that the vast majority of serving parliamentarians express support for a two-state solution, openly opposing the possibility of a one-state equation, a state in which Jews and Palestinians live together.
But the impossibility of achieving two states -- I saw during my recent visit to the West Bank and Gaza the myriad ways in which the IDF has become an instrument of the Jewish settler movement -- has forced interested parties to consider alternatives. I know of at least two Labor frontbenchers that remain deeply sceptical of the Rudd government’s position. I have also spoken to senior Greens MPs who are investigating the viability of a rational and calm public debate about a one-state solution. It is a conversation that remains long overdue.
I can’t over-estimate the fear of these politicians in even raising the possibility of discussion; such will be the fury of the Zionist establishment. They will need reassurance that the Australian public is more than ready to engage on the issues; growing knowledge about Israel’s occupation, the blockade on Gaza and West Bank expansion is having a noticeable effect. Average citizens are increasingly concerned that their government is directly involved in the maintenance of the status quo, a situation that only benefits the Israeli state.
Jimmy Carter wrote in the Washington Post last weekend, after a recent visit to the region with The Elders, that the two-state solution is on life support and one-state is looking increasingly appealing:
By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they [Palestinians] would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbours and then demand equal rights within a democracy. In this non-violent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. They are aware of demographic trends. Non-Jews are already a slight majority of total citizens in this area, and within a few years Arabs will constitute a clear majority.
Last week, for the first time ever, a major Western power, Norway, announced it was divesting from an Israeli hi-tech firm for complicity in human rights abuses in the occupied territories. The upcoming Toronto International Film Festival’s spotlight on Tel Aviv is being criticised by prominent global artists for "staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of ... an apartheid regime". These are the just latest example of a growing, global momentum against Israeli intransigence.
Take the meeting of leading Sydney academics next week at Sydney University (disclosure: I’ll be speaking on the realities in Gaza.) Initiated by the head of Peace and Conflict Studies, Associate Professor Jake Lynch, the aim is to focus on cutting ties with Israeli universities, such as the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, that are directly involved in supporting the occupation of Palestine. This is a non-violent way of telling Israel that "normalised relations" will be impossible while apartheid is practised in the territories. Most major Palestinian civic groups back the campaign.
This isn’t about unfairly targeting "democratic" Israel but rather highlighting the insidious ways in which the Israeli state and its associated institutions enjoy extraordinary privilege within the West as a partner for cultural exchange and beneficial trade relationships. Very few critics of this strategy seem overly concerned with the various methods employed by Israel to destroy, interrupt and hinder Palestinian educational systems. Besides, Israel isn’t being singled-out. Sri Lanka is starting to feel the beginnings of a global boycott after its murderous rampage against the Tamils this year.
These are all important discussions. And they need to be experienced in Australia. It’s time for the major parties to get past meaningless slogans -- two states for two people and Israel is the region’s only democracy -- and actually engage with ideas. Nothing should be off the table; two states versus one and boycott or engagement."
"US President Barack Obama has consistently stated that he imagines a two state solution in the Middle East, with viable Jewish and Palestinian nations alongside each other. Israel, in a clear sign of who runs the show, announced last week that it intended to continue building colonies in the West Bank, in direct violation of international law and US wishes. The White House expressed "regret". The Israelis know how to stall for time; they’ve been doing it for decades.
This is one reason why a leading global figure such as writer and activist Naomi Klein is now calling for a boycott of the Israeli state. She told an interviewer recently it was vital for the world to counter propaganda that "promotes the image of a normal, happy country, rather than an aggressive occupying power".
Australia has backed this charade for as long as the game has been played. Both the Liberal and Labor parties have been willing partners. A few weeks ago, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard told the Australian Jewish News that, "we, as a nation, have always been very strong on supporting Israel’s right to defend itself and to seek security in the region."
But now a small but noticeable shift may be occurring in the Australian political elite, away from prying journalists and Zionist lobby scrutiny. There is no doubt that the vast majority of serving parliamentarians express support for a two-state solution, openly opposing the possibility of a one-state equation, a state in which Jews and Palestinians live together.
But the impossibility of achieving two states -- I saw during my recent visit to the West Bank and Gaza the myriad ways in which the IDF has become an instrument of the Jewish settler movement -- has forced interested parties to consider alternatives. I know of at least two Labor frontbenchers that remain deeply sceptical of the Rudd government’s position. I have also spoken to senior Greens MPs who are investigating the viability of a rational and calm public debate about a one-state solution. It is a conversation that remains long overdue.
I can’t over-estimate the fear of these politicians in even raising the possibility of discussion; such will be the fury of the Zionist establishment. They will need reassurance that the Australian public is more than ready to engage on the issues; growing knowledge about Israel’s occupation, the blockade on Gaza and West Bank expansion is having a noticeable effect. Average citizens are increasingly concerned that their government is directly involved in the maintenance of the status quo, a situation that only benefits the Israeli state.
Jimmy Carter wrote in the Washington Post last weekend, after a recent visit to the region with The Elders, that the two-state solution is on life support and one-state is looking increasingly appealing:
By renouncing the dream of an independent Palestine, they [Palestinians] would become fellow citizens with their Jewish neighbours and then demand equal rights within a democracy. In this non-violent civil rights struggle, their examples would be Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. They are aware of demographic trends. Non-Jews are already a slight majority of total citizens in this area, and within a few years Arabs will constitute a clear majority.
Last week, for the first time ever, a major Western power, Norway, announced it was divesting from an Israeli hi-tech firm for complicity in human rights abuses in the occupied territories. The upcoming Toronto International Film Festival’s spotlight on Tel Aviv is being criticised by prominent global artists for "staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of ... an apartheid regime". These are the just latest example of a growing, global momentum against Israeli intransigence.
Take the meeting of leading Sydney academics next week at Sydney University (disclosure: I’ll be speaking on the realities in Gaza.) Initiated by the head of Peace and Conflict Studies, Associate Professor Jake Lynch, the aim is to focus on cutting ties with Israeli universities, such as the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, that are directly involved in supporting the occupation of Palestine. This is a non-violent way of telling Israel that "normalised relations" will be impossible while apartheid is practised in the territories. Most major Palestinian civic groups back the campaign.
This isn’t about unfairly targeting "democratic" Israel but rather highlighting the insidious ways in which the Israeli state and its associated institutions enjoy extraordinary privilege within the West as a partner for cultural exchange and beneficial trade relationships. Very few critics of this strategy seem overly concerned with the various methods employed by Israel to destroy, interrupt and hinder Palestinian educational systems. Besides, Israel isn’t being singled-out. Sri Lanka is starting to feel the beginnings of a global boycott after its murderous rampage against the Tamils this year.
These are all important discussions. And they need to be experienced in Australia. It’s time for the major parties to get past meaningless slogans -- two states for two people and Israel is the region’s only democracy -- and actually engage with ideas. Nothing should be off the table; two states versus one and boycott or engagement."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)