Archives: Articles

By Ramona Wadi

The international community has played a role in maintaining colonialism and preventing decolonization from emerging as a just solution. This is the second installment of a two-part article. The first part ran on October 1, 2020.

In his introduction to “The Palestine Nakba” (Zed Books, 2012), Nur Masalha writes, “The deletion of historic Palestine was designed not only to strengthen the newly created state, but also to consolidate the myth of the ‘unbroken link’ between the days of Joshua and the Israeli state.” Furthermore, in his book “Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of Expansion” (Pluto Press, 2000), Nur Masalha asserts, “‘Greater Israel’ is both a territorial concept and an ideology aimed at achieving maximum territorial expansion and imperial domination in the region.” This succinct description of Zionism’s ultimate aims is absent from international reckonings of what the UN calls “the Palestinian question.”

According to Zionist narratives, the Palestinian people were either present or absent, depending on whether the myth of the barren land was evoked, or the need to cleanse the land of its indigenous inhabitants. Yet Ze’ev Jabotinsky clearly acknowledged the Palestinian people’s presence and connection to their land, in his rationale which justified the Zionist aims of colonizing the land: “Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.” To crush Palestinian resistance, Jabotinsky advocated primarily for the use of force to achieve indigenous subjugation, after which negotiations with the Palestinians would happen.

“Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.”

The Palestinian people find themselves in a quandary designated by the UN. While the UN is purportedly dedicated to “eradicating colonialism” through a plan of action which is now in its third decade, the institution is also influenced by the colonial past. Hence the discrepancy between the UN reaffirming “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle,” and the refusal to allow Palestinians to achieve such liberation. The latter is influenced by the UN’s acquiescence to the Zionist narrative and the later insistence upon the two-state compromise as the only solution, which contradicts the earlier UN resolutions.

Looking at the earlier Zionist narrative as traced in Natasha Gill’s analysis, it is clear that the UN contributed to the “peace” discourse by upholding the erasure of the earlier Palestinian anti-colonial struggle against colonization. UN discourse, even resolutions which claim to support Palestinian rights, are first and foremost concerned with colonial preservation. The Palestinian Right of Return is one such example – the text assumes Palestinian responsibility for making amends and “peace” with the colonizers that ethnically cleansed their towns and villages.

The understanding of the Palestinian narrative and the Zionist narrative, therefore, cannot be exploited to bring about an understanding that preserves the colonial project in Palestine. In other words, an understanding of colonization in Palestine should bring about the realization that the solution to Israel’s security narrative can happen with the decolonization of land stolen in the name of Zionist ideology and the Zionist colonial enterprise.

Palestine’s pre-1948 history has two facets. One is the gradual appropriation of land, which later gained international political support. The other is the Palestinian anti-colonial struggle itself, legitimate even in accordance with international dictates, and refuted by Israel and the international community as a threat to Israel’s security.

Israeli academic, writer, and activist Haim Bresheeth Žabner’s latest book, “An Army Like No Other: How The Israeli Defense Forces Made A Nation” (Verso Books, 2020) holds an important observation that refutes the simplistic anti-Semitic claims woven into the Zionist narrative. The lack of security Israel complains about is a direct result of “political and military praxis, not their racial origin.”

The lack of security Israel complains about is a direct result of “political and military praxis, not their racial origin.”

Bresheeth’s observation ties into Jabotinsky’s play on power and subjugation. Drawing upon its political and military power, Israel has used its advantage to spin a fabricated narrative regarding the Palestinian anti-colonial struggle, and one that shapes the current discourse on Palestinian resistance and political blame.

Anti-colonial struggle “by all means” as the UN defines such resistance, includes violent resistance. However, the alleged gratuitous Palestinian violence is part of the Zionist narrative which thrives upon recognition and non-recognition of the existence of Palestinian people in their land, depending on what Israel is seeking to achieve militarily and diplomatically. Palestinian armed resistance in the early colonization period was borne out of political isolation and a recurring failure of the international community to see early settler-colonization for what it was – a plan in motion that would eventually expand over Palestinian land.

As the two-state compromise and the more recent US “Deal of the Century” have shown, “peace” is just a euphemism for the condoning of Israeli colonization. It is the concept of “peace” which empowers the Zionist narrative; after all, the international community has failed to hold the political ideology and its implementation accountable after having incorporated the Zionist narrative into its diplomatic agenda. The two-state paradigm – staunchly described by the current UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres as “the only solution” – is concerned with Israel’s security at the expense of the Palestinians’ ongoing oppression. The US “Deal of the Century” clarifies the extent of this expense.

By eliminating all Palestinian claims to their land, including a plan to alter the definition of who qualifies as a Palestinian refugee, the US has taken Israel closer to its myths.

By eliminating all Palestinian claims to their land, including a plan to alter the definition of who qualifies as a Palestinian refugee, the US has taken Israel closer to its myths. On the flip side of this coin, the US-Israeli scheming to hasten the colonization process requires an even deeper evaluation of the option remaining for Palestinians – decolonization – and how this can bring the Palestinian narrative to the fore. Not as an equal to the Zionist narrative, for that would diminish the severity of colonialism and the erasure of Palestinian memory, but as a departure point for a solution that would include restoration of rights and land for Palestinians.

Resolving “the conflict,” as the international community defines Zionist colonization in Palestine, does not incorporate the settler-colonial and the colonized paradigms. It is a detached, simplistic alternative that chooses power imbalance to force a solution, in a similar manner to how colonialism used force to extricate a semblance of acquiescence from the indigenous, colonized population.

“The conflict” has prioritized Israeli demands over Palestinian rights. Peace negotiations, after all, are about appeasement and profit. With the international community heavily complicit and invested in the Zionist colonial project, a proper reckoning through decolonization would likely be a long process. On the ground, the settler-colonial population is fulfilling the function of ethnic cleansing through a gradual replacement of the indigenous population.

Internationally, the UN’s failure to even acknowledge Israel’s settler-colonial character is manufacturing cycles of impunity which are incorporated into the two-state paradigm. The latter completely eliminates the root of the problem, which is the Zionist colonial project and which, in itself, is the main obstacle to decolonization that few wish to talk about. By eliminating the Zionist colonial project from the “solution,” as mainstream narratives do, the exclusionary nature of the Israeli settler-colonial state is maintained and entrenched.

Historically, Palestinians have resisted such exclusion from their own narrative. At first, through attempts at diplomacy and later, through anti-colonial resistance, only to repeat the cycle until the present day, where diplomacy has failed Palestinians not only by neglecting to recognize their political demands, but also by refusing the Palestinian population the right to resist the colonizers with all disposable means.

Reversing the hegemonic narrative that restructured colonization into the “Israeli-Palestinian” or “Israeli-Arab” conflict is an important step in decolonization.

Reversing the hegemonic narrative that restructured colonization into the “Israeli-Palestinian” or “Israeli-Arab” conflict – the latter more damaging than the other in terms of misrepresentation – is an important step in decolonization. European Zionist colonialism has created victims and indigeneity out of its fabricated narratives, while denying the ties which Palestinians have to their land. Furthermore, the construction of indigeneity as pertaining to the settler-colonial population has also aided two main narratives central to Israel’s existence – the “Jewish state” and “security.”

Both need to be overturned, and achieving this necessitates the incorporation of Palestinian narratives into political diplomacy; the latter with an understanding of how international law provides for legitimate anti-colonial struggle. For justice to be achieved, it is not incumbent upon the colonized Palestinian population to make concessions. Such expectations only confirm the international community’s intention to prolong the colonization process until it becomes irreparable for the Palestinian people.

In terms of power and land, both Israel and the international community have expressed opposition to decolonization. Talk of a one-state “solution” has been voiced by some Palestinians, in which both peoples live in a secular, democratic state. The question is not whether Palestinians are open to solutions, but if Israel is willing to accept a solution which, in colonial narratives, is equivalent to a just loss and therefore, reflects the political justice which must be delivered to the colonized.

Hence, if decolonization is not possible, and apartheid is the norm that characterizes a Jewish state, with a forever resistant Palestinian people, how can true justice be achieved for a lasting peace?

All notions of equity between “both sides” must be discarded. The Palestinian concessions to Israel throughout the decades have wrought an irreparable loss that even the international community would not be able to justify were it not so heavily invested in guarding Israel’s interests. To require further concessions from Palestinians is to elevate the Zionist settler-colonial enterprise in Palestine.

A rejection of Zionism from the Palestinian people is a form of resistance; such rejection from the pro-Israel camp is a must, in order to start altering the prevailing narrative, which is based on myths and exploitation, as opposed to international law.

The one-state possibility must also not be jeopardized by Israel’s concept of exclusivity. If Palestinians are willing to consider the one-state as a solution, Israel and its supporters need to acknowledge the illegalities – even the crime – of colonialism in Palestine. A rejection of Zionism from the Palestinian people is a form of resistance; such rejection from the pro-Israel camp is a must, in order to start altering the prevailing narrative, which is based on myths and exploitation, as opposed to international law.

For, as Gill concludes: “while many Palestinians have (in various agreements and public commitments) been saying ‘yes’ to Israel’s de facto existence since 1988, they will continue to say ‘no’ to Zionism itself. Condoning it would require Palestinians swallow whole the major tenets of the Jewish ‘narrative’ and sign on the dotted line affirming that the creation of a Jewish state on land they considered as their own was a legitimate enterprise; that their own rejection of that enterprise was irrational or morally wrong; and that the Arab’s 1400-year history in Palestine should be seen as a brief and inconsequential interregnum between two more important eras of Jewish sovereignty.”

“This will never happen. The sooner the pro-Israel camp accepts this and stops trying to change the unchangeable, the sooner they can determine what steps might be taken in the interests of their own peace and security.”

Ramona Wadi is a freelance journalist, book reviewer and blogger.

4 October 2020

Source: palestineupdates.com

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

Overwhelmed by uncontrollable circumstances, the Greek government is bracing for another financial crisis that promises to be as terrible as the last one in 2015.

Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, announced, on September 12, that Athens has made a “robust” arms deal that will “reinforce the armed forces” and create a “national shield”.

However, beyond Mitsotakis’ mask of confidence, there is a nightmare brewing that is likely to haunt Greece for years to come. Five years ago, when Athens defaulted on its debt, largely to European countries and institutions, France and Germany rushed to further strangle the humbled country by selling it yet more military hardware.

History is repeating itself; this time, the crisis involves the country’s enduring dispute with Turkey over territorial waters. Invoking European solidarity, the French are, once again, pushing their military hardware on embattled and economically weak Greece. Consequently, the latter is set to purchase 18 French-made Rafale warplanes, four navy helicopters, new anti-tank weapons, navy torpedoes and air force missiles.

While the Greek government is presenting the move as a show of force in case of a future military conflict with neighboring Turkey, the French arms will intensify Greece’s vulnerability to French political diktats, now and in the future.

This is part of a larger pattern for France. French President, Emmanuel Macron, is, again, assuming the role of savior. Lately, he has taken on the role of rebuilding devastated Beirut following the massive explosion in August. In return, he expects – in fact, demands – political acquiescence from all of Lebanon’s political forces.

The crisis in Greece, however, is different. The Turkish-Greek East Mediterranean conflict is multifaceted as it involves many regional players, all vying for the same prize: some dividends in the massive deposits of newly discovered natural gas. While the conflict is presented as a continuation of the protracted hostilities between Turkey and Greece, in actuality, the latter is but a small facet of a new great game, the outcome of which could change the dynamics in the Mediterranean altogether.

While NATO is falling apart at the seams, due partly to the current US administration’s isolationist policies, European countries, like France and Italy, are acting independently from the once-unified Western military alliance.

Europe is losing its once strategically dominant position in the Mediterranean region. After years of investing in the decade-long Libyan conflict, European countries are likely to go home empty-handed.

For years, France has backed the Eastern-based forces of Libyan General, Khalifa Haftar, while Italy supported the Government of National Accord (GNA) in the West. The two NATO members, openly clashing politically, had hoped that the outcome of the Libyan war would provide them with much military, political and economic leverage.

Nevertheless, the news emerging from the region is clearly contrary, in that Turkey and Russia, which staked their claims over Libya only recently, are the ones who are now controlling the fate of this country. Not only are Ankara and Moscow the main power brokers in Libya – Russia supporting Haftar, while Istanbul backing the GNA – it is likely that they will shape Libya’s future, as well. In their second rounds of negotiations in Ankara on September 16, the two countries have endorsed a ceasefire in Libya as part of a political process that should eventually stabilize the warring country.

The irony is that, until fairly recent, there was discord between Turkey and Russia. The conflict in Syria had reached a point where war in 2015 seemed imminent. This has changed as both countries saw an unprecedented opportunity arising from the relative absence of Washington as a direct player in the region’s conflicts, coupled with European/NATO disunity and internal conflict.

With time, more opportunities arose in Libya and, eventually, in the Eastern Mediterranean. When France and Italy showed enthusiasm in an emerging alliance between Israel, Greece and Cyprus around the EastMed gas pipeline project, Turkey swooped in to counter-balance this with an alliance of its own. In November 2019, Turkey and Libya’s GNA signed a Memorandum of Understanding that expanded Turkey’s areas of influence in the Mediterranean and forced France to contend with yet another challenge to its leadership in the region.

Moreover, emboldened Turkey widened its search for natural gas in the Mediterranean to cover a massive area that extends from the Turkish southern coast to Libya’s north-east coast. With NATO being unable to present a unified front, France advanced alone, hoping to sustain a geopolitical status quo that has governed the Mediterranean for decades.

That status quo is no longer sustainable as a new political contract is sure to be written, especially as the nature of the Turkish-Russian alliance is becoming clearer and promises to be a lasting one.

The mutual interests between Turkey and Russia are likely to culminate into an actual alliance should their ongoing negotiations pay lasting dividends. On the other side of that possible coalition, there are reluctant and fractious European powers, led by self-serving France, whose strategic vision has suffered a major blow in Libya as it did in Syria, years earlier.

Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, is now leading Russian diplomacy to find a non-military resolution to the Turkish-Greek conflict. This, in itself, is an indication of Russia’s growing prowess in a region that, until very recently, was dominated solely by NATO.

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

30 September 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Adil Malik

Often in life, when one has kids, they plant a thousand wishes, dreams and aspirations for them- the kind of life they’d want them to have, the kind of clothes they’d like to see them in, the kind of the person they envision them to be and numerous other colours of an ideal life. I was blessed too with the opportunity to be a father few years back, but sitting back in silence, I question sometimes if it was really that fortunate?… In a land of unending uncertainties and suffering, do I stand as someone blessed or as a condemned sinner for having dragged someone to this world, regardless of his will.

Born in what is called the golden era of Bollywood in Kashmir, my childhood in the 80s started as a surreal tale in the valleys of Kashmir. But as fate would have it, the roads soon turned into rivers of blood, the songs we played on our radio sets soon translated into elegies for deceased, our joyful shouts in the streets were soon drowned by the wailing of widows, Kashmir painted a grim contrast as I, including my peers, resisted growing up in those nights resounding gunshots and encounters. I now remember those dark nights and days filled with nothing but fear and tears.

Many years down the line, my heart still skips a beat whenever I see my children watching the news now. They often ask me, why and how does the torment spread in Kashmir like wildfire. This question used to often render me speechless and captivate my thoughts even as a child and it still leaves me speechless with shivers running down my spine. I still at times, keep a brave face on and tell my kids to not fear, switching channels on the screen; pretending everything is perfect in the land they live in. However, deep down, the child in me still fears losing them to reality.

For how long can I lie to myself and them? For how long can I prevent the fundamentalist or extremist ideological influences from affecting their pure souls? My children have an unbound access to news channels, internet and social networks. They are the next generation well-informed people with a rational thinking process. They have their own set of questions pertaining to the history and future of Kashmir and Kashmiris. For how long can I keep defending the sad realities of our life?

When I go out to earn a living for them, I have a persistent doubt if I would be fortunate enough to return home unharmed, if I would see my family, if I would be able to embrace them once again. Today I have no reason to hide that I still live all those traumas that I witnessed in my formative years. These are the wounds I have secretly hidden from myself and my family for very long under the garb of education, prosperity and future.

Although I have always been a man to continue believing in hope and future, there are moments like these when my hidden vulnerabilities resurface and I cannot help but recall Agha Shahid Ali’s poem, Kashmir is a country without a post office. I resonate with this every single time, when despite being born here, I am forced to feel I don’t belong here. Every single time while holding the tender hands of my children, I am forced to take sides, I invariably look into the sense of loss and bewilderment in my children’s eyes. What future do I promise them in a place where the future of their father remains sadly debatable.

I do not want them to suffer the fate, I did. I don’t want them to see dead bodies sprawling across their green meadows. I don’t want them to get locked in their secret bubbles and not have a chance to bloom in life. I don’t want them to grow up into hypocritical fathers that lie blatantly to their children.

This is a cry from a father, maybe to all those who share the same trouble as I, or maybe to thousands of those unborn children who are at the brink of slipping into a void of oblivion and uncertainty. Please do not arrive at our doorsteps, And for the parents who perhaps have eternally sinned by supplying the bodies that eventually burn, should we all sometime connect together and look for ways how to prevent those we have immensely and deeply loved?

Dr Adil Malik is a Social activist and Public Servant Serving as Govt employee in health and medical education department of J&K

27 September 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Edward Curtin

“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” – Eduardo Galeano, Upside Down, 1998

For decades, Andre Vltchek, an old-school journalist and artist (but a young man) who traveled the world in search of truth and who always stood up straight, tried to revolve the world and encourage people to revolt against injustice. In this age of arm-chair reporters, he stood out for his boldness and indefatigable courage. He told it straight. This irritated certain people and some pseudo-left publications, who sensed in him a no bullshit fierceness and nose for hypocrisy that frightened them, so they stopped publishing his writing. He went where so many others feared to tread, and he talked to people in places that were often the victims of Western imperialistic violence. He defended the defenseless and encouraged their defense.

Now he is dead. He died in the back seat of a chauffeur driven rental car on an overnight drive to Istanbul, Turkey. He was sleeping, and when his wife attempted to wake him upon arrival at their hotel, she couldn’t. He was 57-years-old.

Let him sleep in peace, but let his words ring out, his passionate cries for justice and peace in a world of violent predators.

Those who knew him and his work feel a great, great loss. His friend and colleague Peter Koenig wrote this touching goodbye.

As Koenig says, Vltchek was always defending those around the world who are considered disposable non-people, the Others, the non- whites, victims of Western wars, both military and economic, in places such as West Papua, Iraq, Syria, Africa, etc. He had a chip on his shoulder, a well justified chip, against the one-sided Western media and its elites that were always lecturing the rest of the world about their realities.

He was recently in the United States, and here is what he wrote:

But notice one thing: it is them, telling us, again, telling the world what it is and what it is not! You would never hear such statements in Africa, the Middle East, or Asia. There, people know perfectly well what it really is all about, whether it is about race or not!

I have just spent two weeks in the United States, analyzing the profound crises of U.S. society. I visited Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, New York, and Boston. I spoke to many people in all those places. What I witnessed was confusion and total ignorance about the rest of the world. The United States, a country which has been brutalizing our Planet for decades, is absolutely unable to see itself in the context of the entire world. People, including those from the media, are outrageously ignorant and provincial.

And they are selfish.

I asked many times: “Do black lives matter all over the world? Do they matter in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and do they matter in West Papua?” I swear, I received no coherent answer.

Somebody has to tell them… Somebody has to force them to open their eyes.

A few years ago, I was invited to Southern California to show my documentary work from Africa (my feature documentary film Rwanda Gambit, about West-triggered genocides in both Rwanda and later in the Democratic Republic of Congo), where millions of black people are dying, in order for the vast majority of the U.S. whites to live in piggish opulence.

But before I was allowed to present, I was warned: ‘Remember, people here are sensitive. Do not show too much of brutal reality, as it could disturb them.’

Hearing that, I almost left the event. Only my respect for the organizer made me stay.

Now I am convinced: it is time to force them to watch; to see rivers of blood, which their laziness, selfishness, and greed have triggered. It is time to force them to hear shouts of the agony of the others.

But as everyone knows, it is nearly impossible to force people to open their eyes and ears when they are dead set against doing so. Andre tried so hard to do that, and his frustration grew apace with those efforts that seemed to fall on deaf ears.

He was a relentless fighter, but he was a lover, too. His love for the people and cultures of the world was profound. Like Albert Camus, he tried to serve both beauty and suffering, the noblest of vocations. A lover of literature and culture, the best art and beauty ever produced, he was appalled at the way so many in the West had fallen into the pit of ignorance, illiteracy, and the grip of propaganda so tight that “what is missing is life. Euphoria, warmth, poetry and yes – love – are all in extremely short supply there.”

He sensed, and said it, that nihilism rules in the United States beneath the compulsive consumerism and the denial of the violence that the U.S. inflicts on people across the world. It was selfishness run amok. Me me me. It was, he felt, soul death, the opposite of all the ostensible religiousness that is a cover story for despair. He wrote:

It has to be stopped. I say it because I do love this life, the life, which still exists outside the Western realm; I’m intoxicated with it, obsessed with it. I live it to the fullest, with great delight, enjoying every moment of it.

Poetry, music, great literature, these he loved as he fought on the barricades for peace.

I urge you to read his article, Love, Western Nihilism and Revolutionary Optimism.

He was a rare and courageous man. Let us ring bells in his honor.

Here’s a Kenneth Rexroth poem for Andre, the fighter with the poet’s heart:

No Word

The trees hang silent

In the heat….

Undo your heart

Tell me your thoughts

What you were

And what you are….

Like the bells no one

Has ever rung

Edward Curtin is an independent writer.

25 September 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Robert Hunziker

The World Wildlife Foundation, in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London, recently issued an eye-popping description of the forces of humanity versus life in nature, the Living Planet Report 2020, but the report should really be entitled the Dying Planet Report 2020 because that’s what’s happening in the real world. Not much remains alive.

The report, released September 10th, describes how the over-exploitation of ecological resources by humanity from 1970 to 2016 has contributed to a 68% plunge in wild vertebrate populations, inclusive of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish.

The report offers a fix-it: “Bending the Curve Initiative,” described in more detail to follow. The causes of collapse are found in human recklessness and/or neglect of ecosystems. It’s partially fixable (maybe) but don’t hold your breath.

What if stocks plunged 68%? What then? Why, of course, that is an all-hands-on-deck panic scenario with the Federal Reserve Bank repeatedly pressing “a white hot printing press button,” hopefully, avoiding destructive deflationary forces looming in the background. But, an astounding jaw-dropping 68% loss of vertebrates doesn’t seem to budge the panic needle nearly enough to count.

Of special note, according to the Report, tropical sub-regions were clobbered, hit hard with 94% loss of vertebrate life, which is essentially total extinction. For comparison purposes, the worst extinction event in history, the Permian-Triassic, aka: the Great Dying, of 252 million years ago took down 96% of marine life and has been classified as “global annihilation.”

According to the Report, on a worldwide basis, two-thirds (2/3rds) of wild vertebrate life has vanished in only 46 years or within one-half a human lifetime. That is mind-boggling, and it is indicative of misguided mindlessness, prompting a query of what the next 46 years will bring. What remains is an operative question?

According to the report: “Until 1970, humanity’s Ecological Footprint was smaller than the Earth’s rate of regeneration. To feed and fuel our 21st century, we are overusing the Earth’s biocapacity by at least 56%.” (Report, page 6) Meaning, we’ve gone from equilibrium to a huge deficit of 50% in less than 50 years. Putting it mildly, that’s terrifying!

As stated in the Report, we’re effectively using and abusing and trampling the equivalence of one and one-half planets. How long does that last? The experience of the past 46 years provides an answer, which is: Not much longer.

The denuding, destructing of natural biodiversity is almost beyond description, certainly beyond human comprehension, which may be a big part of the problem of recognition. Still, by and large, people read the World Wildlife Foundation report and continue on with business as usual. This lackadaisical behavior by the public has been ongoing for decades and not likely to end anytime soon. Therefore, an eureka moment of radical change in farming practices and ecosystem husbandry is almost too much to wish for after years, and years, of preaching by environmentalists about the ills associated with the anthropogenic growth machine.

In all, with ever-faster approaching finality, and worldwide failure to act to save the planet, the answer may be that people must learn to adapt to a deteriorating world.

More to the point, the Report is “an extermination report.” Consider the opening sentence: “At a time when the world is reeling from the deepest global disruption and health crisis of a lifetime, this year’s Living Planet Report provides unequivocal and alarming evidence that nature is unraveling and that our planet is flashing red warning signs of vital natural systems failure.” (Report, page 4)

Accordingly, unequivocally “nature is unraveling.” And, the planet is “flashing red warning signs of vital natural systems failure.”

Why repeat that disheartening info? Simply put, it demands repeating over and over again. Yes, “nature is unraveling.” And, by all indications, time is short as “flashing red warning signs” are crying for help. But, will it happen? Or, does biz as usual rattle onwards towards total extinction of life way ahead of anybody’s best guess, which, based upon how rapidly the forces of the anthropocene are gobbling up the countryside, could be within current lifetimes. But, honestly, who knows when?

Still, with great hope but not enough fanfare, the Report proposes a new research initiative called “Bending the Curve Initiative” to reverse biodiversity loss via (1) unprecedented conservation measures and (2) a total remake of food production techniques.

One of the upshots of the breakdown in nature is the issue of “adequate food for humanity.” Accordingly: “Where and how we produce food is one of the biggest human-caused threats to nature and to our ecosystems, making the transformation of our global food system more important than ever,” Ibid

Which implies the end of rainforests obliteration, the end of industrial farming, full stop, eliminating mono-crop farming, and “stopping dead in its tracks” the use of toxic, deadly insecticides, which kill crucial life-originating ecosystems by bucketloads, as for example, 75% loss of flying insects over 27 years in nature reserves in portions of Europe (Source: Krefeld Entomological Society, est. 1905).

What kills 75% of flying insects?

Additionally, the Report recognizes the necessity of “transformation of the prevailing economic system.” Meaning, a transformation away from the radical infinite growth hormones that are attached to the world’s lowest offshore wages and lowest offshore regulations as an outgrowth of neoliberalism, which is rapidly destroying the world. It’s a terminal illness that’s fully recognized around the world as “progress.” But, its unrelenting disregard for the health of ecosystems and for workers’ rights makes it a serial killer.

The wonderful world of nature is not part of the neoliberal capitalistic formula for success. In fact, nature with its life-sourcing ecosystems is treated like an adversary or like one more prop to use and abuse on the way to infinite progress. Really?

The Report alerts to the dangers of a “business as usual world,” an epithet that is also found throughout climate change literature. These warnings of impending loss of ecosystems, and by extension survival of Homo sapiens, depict a biosphere on a hot seat never before seen throughout human history. In fact, there is no time in recorded history that compares to the dangers immediately ahead. The most common watchword used by scientists is “unprecedented.” The change happens so rapidly, so powerfully. It’s unprecedented.

Meanwhile, people are shielded from the complexities, and heartaches, of collapsing ecosystems in today’s world by the artificiality of living a life of steel, glass, wood, cement, as the surrounding world collapses in a virtual sea of untested chemicals.

In the end, humans are the last vertebrates on the planet to directly feel and experience the impact of climate change and ecosystems collapsing. All of the other vertebrates are first in line. Maybe that’s for the best.

Still, how many more 68% plunges in wild vertebrate populations can civilized society handle and remain sane and well fed?

Robert Hunziker, MA, economic history DePaul University, awarded membership in Pi Gamma Mu International Academic Honor Society in Social Sciences is a freelance writer and environmental journalist who has over 200 articles published, including several translated into foreign languages, appearing in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites worldwide.

23 September 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Peter Koenig

André, my good friend and comrade is no more.

We worked on several investigative projects together. André’s professional rigor, sharpness of understanding, vision and ability to connecting the dots is exemplary.

We shared some unforgettable moments, when we followed a refugee trail from Bodrum, Turkey, to the Greek Island of Kos in the Aegean Sea – onwards to Athens.

I’m deeply shocked and saddened beyond words by André’s sudden passing.

In the night from Monday to Tuesday 22 September, André traveled by chauffeur-driven car with his wife from Samsun on the Black Sea in Turkey to Istanbul. When they arrived in the early morning hours at the hotel and his wife wanted to wake him up, he didn’t react. He had passed away.

Turkish police said André’s death was “suspicious”. His body was immediately brought to a hospital for forensic analysis.

André traveled relentlessly from one battle field to another, from one conflict zone to a war zone. He exposed innumerable atrocities committed around the world, mostly by western powers. He never wavered from revealing the truth. From Afghanistan to Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan to Argentina, Chile, Peru to Hong Kong, to Xinjiang, the Uygur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China – André was there. He reported on environmental crimes in Borneo, or originally called Kalimantan, Indonesia, where corruption is destroying vital rainforests – the lungs of Mother Earth – for the benefit of western corporations, killing wildlife and annihilating the livelihoods of indigenous people.

André stood always up for justice, in defense of the poor, for the persecuted, the oppressed – for those that by and large are considered non-people by the elitist Global North; the destitute, the refugees, political prisoners, those that disappear and wither away in the shadows. As an investigative journalist and geopolitical analyst, he fought Supremacist Might for Human Rights. André was a true Internationalist. He will be deeply missed.

May his soul rest in peace and his spirit live on.
—
Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst.

23 September 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr James M Dorsey

A close read of the agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel suggests that the Jewish state has won far more than diplomatic recognition. It won acknowledgement of its claim to historic Jewish rights. By the same token, the UAE has received a significant boost to project itself as a leader in inter-faith dialogue.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and United Arab Emirates Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed walked away from this month’s White House signing ceremony with more than just an agreement to establish diplomatic relations.

Included in the agreement are references that are key to foundational Israeli arguments asserting the right of the Jewish people to a state on what was once predominantly Arab land rather than simple recognition of the fact that the Jewish state exists.

Recognition of Jewish rights has long been a demand put forward by Mr. Netanyahu.

In talks with the Palestinians as well as the building of relations with Arab states over the years, the Israeli leader asserted that mere diplomatic acceptance of Israel’s existence was not good enough. And yet, that was the basis of earlier peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan as well as Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Yasser Arafat’s 1988 recognition of Israel and the subsequent 1993 Oslo accords.

From the outset, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been as much a dispute about control of land as one of perceived rights.

Recognition of Jewish rights in Palestine bolsters Israeli assertions that its claims to territory occupied during the 1967 Middle East are legitimate rather than a land grab resulting from military conquest.

To be clear, it does not by definition endorse annexation, but it constitutes Arab acceptance of Israel’s position that any compromise between Israelis and Palestinians, a sine qua non for a resolution of their dispute, would involve mediation of claims that are historically and morally on par.

Arabs in the past have projected solutions as the need to address Palestinian rights while accepting Israel’s existence.

The agreement did not explicitly recognize Jewish rights, but enabled Israel to interpret the deal as doing so by stating that “Arab and Jewish peoples are descendants of a common ancestor, Abraham.”

The text of the agreement suggests that the reference was primarily related to allow the UAE to boost its efforts to project itself as a leader of inter-faith dialogue and a moderate interpretation of Islam – a pillar of the country’s well-funded soft power campaign that paints the Emirates as a militarily capable, forward-looking, religiously tolerant and technologically savvy, cutting edge state.

The interpretation of the phrasing as recognition of Jewish rights may have been an unintended consequence or icing on Israel’s cake.

It was a bonus that David Makovsky of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy — widely viewed as leaning towards Israel — was quick to point out. Mr. Makovsky noted that the reference implied that “both (Arabs and Jews are) indigenous to the Middle East.”

Mr. Makovsky suggested that the phrasing “is important because it clearly refutes longstanding allegations in the Arab world that Zionism is alien to the region.”

It puts past to Arab and Palestinian arguments that the long-touted two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one of dividing up land claimed by two parties driven by facts on the ground rather than consideration of legal and moral claims.

This is not just of esoteric significance. It bolsters Israel’s long-standing rejection of Palestinian insistence on the right of refugees, including those who left during the 1948 war, to return to their homes and lands in what is now Israel.

Israel’s reading of the agreement as endorsement of its assertion that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about equally valid rights is likely to be interpreted differently on both sides of Israel’s right-left divide.

The country’s weakened left will see it as highlighting the need for territorial compromise. Significant segments of the Israeli right will view it as validation of its belief dating back to the period prior to the 1948 creation of Israel that the clash of Jewish and Palestinian rights is irreconcilable. That is a view that has historically also resonated among elements of the labor movement.

That may be what makes the UAE-Israel deal truly historic.

The icing on the UAE’s cake, beyond the significant geopolitical, military, security, technological and economic benefits of the agreement, is the stress on inter-faith dialogue.

Under the agreement, the UAE and Israel “undertake to foster mutual understanding, respect, co-existence, and a culture of peace between their societies in the spirit of their common ancestor, Abraham, and the new era of peace and friendly relations ushered in by this Treaty, including by cultivating people-to-people programs, (and) interfaith dialogue…”

The UAE, like Saudi Arabia, one of its multiple autocratic religious soft power rivals, has gone in recent years to great lengths to cultivate ties to Jewish and Evangelist communities and to position itself as a sponsor of an inter-faith dialogue in which Islam is represented by Muslim scholars who preach absolute obedience to the ruler and reject endorsement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its an interpretation of the faith intended to ensure regime survival and counter allegations of violations of human rights in the UAE.

The signing of a Document on Human Fraternity by the imam of the Al-Azhar Grand Mosque in Cairo, Ahmed El-Tayeb, and Pope Francis I during his 2019 visit to the UAE, the first by a head of the Vatican to the Gulf, served to offer an alternative to the Universal Declaration that allows the Emirates to pick and choose which rights it accepts.

The emphasis on inter-faith dialogue is bolstered and conditioned by the agreement’s implicit condemnation of political Islam, a key driver of UAE policy that is shared by Israel.

The agreement rejects “political manipulation of religions and…interpretations made by religious groups who, in the course of history, have taken advantage of the power of religious sentiment…in a way that has nothing to do with the truth of religion.”

Omar Ghobash, UAE Assistant Minister for Culture and Public Diplomacy, speaking in a US-UAE Council webinar, noted that one driver for the conclusion of the agreement was “what happened around the so-called Arab Spring and then the rise of vicious groups like ISIS, let alone Al Qaeda.”

Mr. Ghobash was referring to the 2011 popular Arab revolts that toppled the autocratic leaders of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen as well as the rise of the Islamic State in the aftermath of the uprisings, which was a product of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq rather than the rebellions.

He projected the agreement as part of the UAE’s institutionalization of its values.

“There is a distortion that has taken place over the last few decades…represented by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS … There is a recurring theme in conversations with my leaders and that is that Islam has been hijacked by these groups. The reality is that in taking Islam back, you need to free it from those constraints. You free it by presenting a different expression of Islam,” Mr. Ghobash said.

Critics suggest that the agreement’s formalization of Israeli support for the UAE’s propagation of a state-controlled Islam fails to tackle a core issue: the need to address religious concepts that are either outdated or outmoded or require reconceptualization and reinterpretation.

Those concepts legitimized decades of Muslim demonization of Israel as well as Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims.

The UAE took a first major step to address the issue by distributing to schools barely two weeks after the announcement of the establishment of diplomatic relations textbooks that cite the agreement with Israel as an expression of fundamental Islamic and Emirati values.

However, the ultimate litmus test of the UAE’s effort to shape moderate Islam will be if and when it loosens the state’s grip on religion and allows for free-flowing, credible theological debate in which scholars tackle problematic religious concepts that have served their purpose but are out of place in a modern, forward-looking society.

A podcast version of this story is available on Soundcloud, Itunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, Spreaker, Pocket Casts, Tumblr, Podbean, Audecibel, Patreon and Castbox.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and a senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

23 September 2020

Source: countercurrents.org

By Richard Falk

18 Sep 2020 – This is based on two interviews with a Brazilian journalist, Rodrigo Craveiro, who publishes in Correio Braziliense. The questions posed seek commentary on the normalization agreements reached between Israel and two Arab countries, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain. My responses have been modified and enlarged since the interviews on 17-18 September 2020. These normalization agreements are being perceived from a variety of angles depending on the agendas of the various political actors. In the present context it seems a win for Israel and Trump, and a loss for the Palestinians and Iran, but will these assessments hold up when again Israel moves to foreclose Palestine’s future by proceeding to fulfill Netanyahu’s most solemn and oft-repeated pledge?

Interview #1

1– Trump signed with Israel, UAE and Bahrein a deal today and told this represents a change in the course of history. “After decades of division and conflict, we mark a dawn of a new Middle East. We take a major stride towards a future in which people of all faiths and backgrounds live together in peace and prosperity”, said Trump. How do you see the meaning of two Arab nations accepted to sign a deal with Israel?

These normalizing moves on the part of UAE and Bahrain, under pressure from the U.S., are a form of symbolic politics‘ that have weight because they are reinforced geopolitically by being so ardently promoted by the Trump presidency. By way of contrast, the 130 or so diplomatic recognitions of Palestine as a state by governments around the world have had little significance because they lack political traction to make anything concrete and substantive change.

Trump’s bravado is at best an exaggeration, and at worst a shortsighted and misguided prediction about the future. This agreement expresses the interests of these two Gulf regimes that want to concentrate their power to confront the Iranian challenge, and need Israel, with U.S. backing to do this, but the Arab people remain committed to the Palestinian struggle for basic rights. There are other motivations, including the acquisition of weapons, economic relations with Israel, and being seen as willing to please the U.S. Government, at least so long as Trump is in charge. It is largely symbolic as these governments were increasingly cooperating with Israel in any event, making the claim that this has brough the region closer to peace, indeed ‘a dawn’ seems fanciful. It is not a breakthrough but a symbolic victory for Israel, and a symbolic defeat for Palestine. Nothing substantial has changed, but the atmospherics of regional politics could make a difference either mobilizing a popular movement of opposition to suck a betrayal of the Palestinian struggle or leading to a cascade of normalizing initiatives by other countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. Whether this kind of development would lead to longer range adjustments in the region and beyond is highly conjectural at this stage, and depends on many unknowable factors.

2– Do you believe Trump is using this deal mostly for pushing votes in elections? Why?

Trump is motivated by his immediate interests in. the November election, but also by his dual strategy of being an autocrat at home and a self-promoting peacemaker internationally. I doubt that this signing ceremony attracted much attention, and is unlikely to swing many votes in Trump’s direction. The main election issues involve Trump’s controversial personal style as leader, the outlook for the economy, and the tensions between unrest in the cities, police racism, and middle class fears of disorder.

3– What would be the consequences of such deal for Middle East?

Much will depend on events that will unfold in coming months, including the degree to which there will be renewed Palestinian resistance, even something on the order of a Third Intifada. Also, important will be whether this normalization with Israel is a prelude to an escalated confrontation with Iran. If this occurs, it would change the intergovernmental alignments in the region, but also might induce renewed domestic turmoil culminating in a second Arab Spring. The behavior of Turkey, China, and Russia are highly relevant in shaping either a new regional balance in the Middle East or sparking a new conflict configuration. Also, continuing U.S, military disengagement would alter the overall situation rather fundamentally, although in unpredictable ways. It should be remembered that severe problems of prolonged internal strife currently exist is Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Lebanon, as well as potentially explosive conflicts pertaining to energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean. The overall regional situation is extremely complicated, and it seems likely that these largely symbolic developments in relations between Israel and Arab countries will not have important lasting consequences, partly because de facto normalization and strategic Arab/Israeli cooperation had preceded this process of formalization by several years.

Interview #2

1-Bahrein joined Arab United Emirates in signing deal with Israel. In what ways these deals will harm Palestinian cause?

These normalization arrangements are symbolically and possibly substantively harmful to the Palestinian struggle and correspondingly helpful to Israel’s long-term efforts to overcome its isolation and questionable legitimacy as a Middle Eastern state. Israel demonstrated the importance attached to normalization by its willingness to put off formal annexation moves on the West Bank in exchange for these formalized moves toward normalization. In doing so, Israel gained feelings of greater security enlarging the scope of peaceful relations with neighbors. Israel also received certain substantive benefits: air navigation overflight rights, touristic and diplomatic interaction, export gains, and enhanced reputation of diplomatic flexibility, especially appreciated by the Trump presidency. Bahrain and the UAE also added to regime security by taking these normalizing steps with Israel through obtaining greater assurances of support from Washington should internal challenges arise.

This diplomatic sequence was harmful to the Palestinians from a psycho-political standpoint as the Arab countries had pledged in 2002 to refrain from any normalization moves until a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine was negotiated, a Palestinian state established, and East Jerusalem was declared as the its capital, enabling Islamic access to al-Aqsa, the third holiest Muslim sacred site. The Arab shift can be understood from three perspectives: to please Trump, to solidify security cooperation with Israel against Iran, and to obtain access to American advanced drones and fighter jet aircraft, and whatever weaponry and training it sought to control internal opposition. Of course, the Arab denial of such motivations, rests on the Israeli suspension of annexation moves toward extending its sovereignty to the West Bank, but this is a temporary concession and draws attention away from the widespread perception, not least by the Palestinians, that de facto annexation had been continually encroaching on Palestinian territorial expectations ever since the occupation began after the 1967 War. An open question is whether a renewed push by Israel for de jure annexation of 30+% of the West Bank will lead to any de-normalizing moves by Arab countries, or strong expressions of opposition in the West, including the United States. The failure of adverse consequences after the U.S. defied the UN consensus by announcing the movement of its embassy to Jerusalem at the end of 2017 suggests that there will be some strong rhetoric but little behavioral pushback, especially if a ‘decent interval’ has transpired and Arab priorities remain as at present.

2–Do you see an effort of Arab nations trying to punish Iran even they have to act as treason (betrayal) Palestinian fight? Why?

I do not see this diplomatic maneuver in that way, but rather as a way to clear the path to more robust regional cooperation with Israel in confronting Iran, and gaining more leverage in Washington for the pursuit of an anti-Iranian policy. I think it may be more reasonably interpreted as a further indication that Arab priorities and threat perceptions have shifted. This means that Israel no longer needs to be treated as adversary and enemy as a show of Arab solidarity in the face of a European incursion in the form of a Jewish state. Instead Iran is feared as a regional rival, and has become the primary threat to Arab political arrangements, especially dynastic governance. In this regard, Palestinians are feared, as well, potentially inducing democratizing challenges to these oppressive monarchies that are sustained by sustained by weaponry and support from the West, especially the U.S.. It is important to appreciate that despite decades of rhetorical solidarity with the Palestinian struggle, Arab elites were ambivalent, believing that a Palestinian victory would have negative repercussions for their own stability.

3–What would be consequences of such deals between Bahrein and UAE with Israel for Middle East geopolitics and for perspective of peace process in future?

At present, the US/Israeli governments do not favor a diplomatic solution to the Israel/Palestine confrontation. Israel is not interested in seeking a genuine political compromise involving territory and refugees, and is under no U.S. pressure to pretend otherwise. Israel’s territorial objectives continue to be expansionist, encompassing ‘the promised land,’ which presupposes an eventual de jure annexation of large parts of the West Bank, retention of an undivided Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and the denial to Palestinian refugees and exiles of any right of return to pre-1967 Israel. If this is an accurate depiction of the underlying situation, there is nothing for the Palestinians to achieve, beyond some easing of material conditions (‘an economic peace’) by accepting the sort of one-sided ‘deals’ put on the table months ago by the Kushner/Trump. Although the Palestinians have been deliberately squeezed economically, especially in Gaza, the gains in Palestinian living standards that might follow from accepting what is being offered come with an the unacceptably price tag–the surrender of basic rights. It seems highly unlikely after a century of struggle, bloodshed, and displacement that the Palestinian would renounce their quest for basic rights, including the right of self-determination.

4–Trump is stimulating such deals to isolate Iran but also to gain votes among Israel lobby in US. How do you see such strategy?

I do not see any major gains for this latest Trump effort in the Middle East. Objectively, considered, the main American diplomatic gain from these normalization moves seem clearly intended to distract attention from the failure of the much heralded ‘deal of the century,’ which was released under with the more sober title of ‘From Peace to Prosperity.’ It received scant support in the Arab world or among allies in Western Europe. It was widely regarded as so one-sided in Israel’s favor as to be more in the nature of a diktat than a genuine attempt to find common ground between the parties on which to work toward a diplomatic settlement. I see little evidence that Trump will any significant additional support from the Israeli lobby or Jewish voters. It gives Trump cheerleaders something to boast about, including managing to

achieve the explicit acceptance of a Jewish state as a permanent and legitimate presence in the Middle East without having to obtain the agreement of properly constituted representatives of the Palestinian people. Iran was already isolated in the region, although with respect to Palestine it retains an approach that is supported by Turkey, and increases the plausibility of its claim to be leading the struggle against the remnants of European colonialism in the region. Such a claim resonates with public opinion throughout the entire Arab world, and is not so evident because harshly suppressed by the ruling elites.

More concretely, Trump’s foreign policy always welcomes arrangements that include new opportunities to increase the exports of arms merchants, and these agreements, especially with the UAE, include a commitment to provide expensive weapons, while ensuring Israel that its qualitative edge in military capabilities will be retained, thereby creating the possible basis for a regional arms race in the years ahead.

Finally, just as Trump seems to gain votes by helping Israel, the Arab monarchies would gain by Trump’s reelection. One ulterior motive for normalization at this time, that is just prior to the November election, is to bolster Trump’s tenuous claim to be a peacemaker in the Middle East.

Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, an international relations scholar, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, Distinguished Research Fellow, Orfalea Center of Global Studies, UCSB, author, co-author or editor of 60 books, and a speaker and activist on world affairs.

21 September 2020

Source: www.transcend.org

By Gary G. Kohls

17 Sep 2020 – This morning I heard courageous patriot and Vietnam War-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg interviewed on Democracy Now!.

Referring to the Afghani refugee tragedies on the Greek Island of Lesbos and elsewhere, Ellsberg said:

“Our government is responsible for the flight of 37, 000,000 refugees worldwide because of United States-initiated wars.”

And he could have added,

“The US is also responsible for the sale of the lethal weapons that militaries and mercenary soldiers use to kill, maim and terrify innocent refugees-to-be all around the world. These weapons and militaries have destroyed families, freedoms, safety, shelter, jobs, food and water supplies, which naturally means that these innocents have to leave their destroyed homelands in search of safety, food, water and a future for them and their children.”

Just by coincidence, last night I also came across a 5-year old Duty to Warn column that contained photos of a small handful of the multitude of censored-out, “unpatriotic” war photos that documented some of what Ellsberg was talking about. Here is the slightly upgraded column.

*************************************

Below are a few disturbing examples of the “collateral damage” that accompanies America’s wars which usually have been endorsed or at least not significantly opposed by Christian clergypersons and their followers.

Stalking buzzard and a dying child in a war-ravaged African country that had been destabllized by the CIA – 1993

Carbonized Japanese child – US atomic bomb victim – Hiroshima 1945

Japanese child dying of radiation sickness from the Nagasaki bomb 1945

Terrified Vietnamese children, victims of American napalm bombs – Vietnam 1968

(Note: In 1965, Dow Chemical, a Michigan-based chemicals manufacturer, was awarded a $5 million Pentagon contract to produce napalm, a highly incendiary chemical used by American troops during the Vietnam War.)

Young Vietnamese casualty of war with his American GI captor – Vietnam 1968

Young Vietnamese being interrogated by an American GI – Vietnam 1968

Deformed, stillborn Vietnamese fetuses whose mothers had been exposed to American chemical manufacturers Monsanto, Dow Chemical and Diamond-Shamrock’s Agent Orange – Post-Vietnam War

(Note: Agent Orange has a very long-half-life and continues to contaminate the soil and water supplies in Vietnam. In addition, it has also sickened a multitude of US Vietnam-era soldiers – and even their family members back home.)

Iraqi fetus exposed in utero to America’s Lockheed Martin “depleted” uranium-tipped bombs – Iraq War

(Note: Highly radioactive “Depleted Uranium” has a half-life of many millions of years and will continue to contaminate the Afghanistan and Iraq soil and water that was exposed to it. Also, American soldiers were also contaminated.)

Iraqi children killed in an USAF air strike – Fallujah – 2009

Drowned Syrian toddler, most of whose refugee family also drowned fleeing the war begun by the US’s “Shock and Awe” wars – 2015

Two Malnourished Victims of US-led Corporate Capitalism

Each of the hard-to-look-at images above are of children – not to mention their parents – who suffered and died before their time. But the guilty American weapons-manufacturing corporations that profited from the wars prefer to not acknowledge that are at the root of the refugee problem.

So, I am obligated to end with a short list of some of the boycott-worthy, profiteering corporations (and their happy share-holders) that are at least partly responsible for the plight of the war—ravaged children pictured above:

Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, McDonalds, Burger King, Walmart, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Dow Chemical, Monsanto, Syngenta, Lockheed-Martin, Northrup-Grumman, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Lilly, Exxon-Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Halliburton, Deepwater Horizons, Rio Tinto, Antofagasta, Glencore.

And thousands others inherently exploitive, greedy, conscienceless, extractive corporations that are knowingly polluting the planet, always eager to profit from the militarization of our society while simultaneously harming children and other living things.

This sample list of corporations are the paymasters that also own, operate and/or control (and profit from) the Mainstream Media, Big Pharma’s vaccine and drug manufacturers, Big Medicine’s price-gouging, unaffordable but highly profitable healthcare corporations, Big Government’s private corporation-infiltrated and bribed HHS/NIH/CDC/NIAID/FDA, and many of the multi-millionaire US political candidates that are sanctioned by both political parties.

Identifying the billionaire culprits that are providing the economic support for the pro-business, pro-war, anti-environment, anti-worker, union-busting, pro-pollution, so-called “Christian” political agendas that keep unemployment high, wages low and corporate profits at an obscene level may somehow stimulate resistance efforts, prolong the survival of the planet, sustain the future of our democracy and the future of suffering humanity, especially the children.

Dr Gary G. Kohls is a retired rural family physician from Duluth, MN, USA and a member of the TRANSCEND Network.

21 September 2020

Source: www.transcend.org

By Rick Sterling

15 Sep 2020 – While President Trump lashes out at rioting and looting in Portland and Kenosha, half way around the world, the USA and Turkey are plundering and looting Syria on a vastly greater scale with impunity and little publicity.

Turkey Loots Syria, then Disrupts Safe Water Supply

Turkey has been plundering the Syrian infrastructure for years. Beginning in late 2012 and continuing through 2013 some 300 industrial factories were dismantled and taken to Turkey from Aleppo, the industrial capital of Syria. “Machinery and goods were loaded on trucks and carried off to Turkey through the Cilvegozu and Ceylanpinar crossings. Unfortunately, ‘plundering’ and ‘terror’ have become permanent parts of the Syrian lexicon when explaining their saga.”

In October 2019 Turkish forces invaded Syria and now occupy a strip of land in north east Syria. The area is controlled by the Turkish military and pro Turkish militia forces misnamed the “Syrian National Army”. Turkish President Erdogan dubbed the invasion “Peace Spring” and said the goal was to create a “safe zone”. The reality was that 200 thousand Syrians fled the invasion and over 100 thousand have been permanently displaced from their homes, farms, workplaces and livelihoods.

The industrial scale looting continues. As reported recently in the story headlined Turkish-backed factions take apart power pylons in rural Ras Al-Ain:

“Reliable sources have informed SOHR that Turkish-backed factions steal electricity power towers and pylons in ‘Peace Spring’ areas in Ras Al-Ain countryside.”

Turkey now controls the border city of Ras al-Ain and the nearby Allouk water treatment and pumping station. This is the water station supplying safe water to the city Hasaka and entire region. The Turkish forces are using water as a weapon of war, shutting down the station to pressure the population to be compliant. For over two weeks in August, with daily temperatures of 100 F, there was no running water for nearly one million people.

With no tap water, civilians were forced to queue up for hours to receive small amounts from water trucks. Unable to buy the water, other civilians took their chances by drinking water from unsafe wells. According to Judy Jacoub, a Syrian journalist originally from Hasaka,

“The residents of Hasaka and its countryside have been pushed to rely on unsafe water sources ….Many residents have been suffering from the spread of fungi, germs and dirt in their hair and bodies as a result of using well water that is not suitable for drinking and personal hygiene. The people of Hasaka remain vulnerable to diseases and epidemics because of the high temperatures and spread of infectious diseases. If the situation is not controlled as soon as possible, the spread of Corona virus will undoubtedly be devastating.“

A hospital medical director says many people are getting sick from the contaminated water.

Judy Jacoub explains what has happened most recently:

“After Syrian and international efforts exerted pressure on the Turkish regime, 17 wells and three pumps were started . The main reservoirs were filled and pumping was started toward the city neighborhoods. However, despite the Turkish militia’s resumption of pumping water again, there is great fear among the citizens.”

USA Loots Syrian Oil and Plunders the Economy

The USA also has occupying troops and proxy / puppet military force in north east Syria. The proxy army is misnamed the “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF). How they got that name is revealing. They took on this name as they came under the funding and control of the US military. As documented here, US Army General Ray Thomas told their leadership,

“You have got to change your brand. What do you want to call yourselves besides the YPG?’

Then, he explained what happened:

“With about a day’s notice they declared that they are the Syrian Democratic Forces. I thought it was a stroke of brilliance to put democracy in there somewhere.”

There are numerous parties and trends within the Syrian Kurdish community. The US has been funding and promoting the secessionist element, pushing them to ally with Turkish backed jihadists against the Damascus government. The violation of Syrian sovereignty is extreme and grotesque.

Prior to the war, Syria was self-sufficient in oil and had enough to export and earn some foreign revenues. The primary oil sources are in eastern Syria, where the US troops and proxy forces have established bases. It is desert terrain with little population.

To finance their proxy army, the US has seized control of the major Syrian oil pumping wells. It is likely that President Trump thinks this is brilliant bold move – financing the invasion of Syria with Syrian oil.

In November 2019 President Trump said,

“We’re keeping the oil… The oil is secure. We left troops behind only for the oil.”

Recently, it was revealed that a “Little known US firm secures deal for Syrian oil“. Delta Crescent Energy will manage and escalate the theft of Syrian oil.

What would Americans think if another country invaded the US via Mexico, set up bases in Texas, sponsored a secessionist militia, then seized Texas oil wells to finance it? That is comparable to what the US is doing in Syria.

In addition to stealing Syria’s oil, the US is trying to prevent Syria from developing alternate sources. The “Caesar sanctions” on Syria threatens to punish any individual, company or country that invests or assists Syria to rebuild their war damaged country and especially in the oil and gas sector.

The US establishment seems to be doing everything it can to undermine the Syrian economy and damage the Syrian currency. Due to pressure on Lebanese banks, plus the Caesar sanctions, the Syrian pound has plummeted in value from 650 to 2150 to the US dollar in the past 10 months.

North east Syria is the breadbasket of the country with the richest wheat and grain fields. There are reports of US pressuring farmers to not sell their wheat crops to the Syrian government. One year ago, Nicholas Heras of the influential Center for New American Security argued

“Assad needs access to cereal crops in northeast Syria to prevent a bread crisis in the areas of western Syria that he controls….Wheat is a weapon of great power in this next phase of the Syrian conflict.”

Now, it appears the US is following this strategy. Four months ago, in May 2020, Syrian journalist Stephen Sahiounie reported,

“Apache helicopters of the US occupation forces flew low Sunday morning, according to residents of the Adla village, in the Shaddadi countryside, south of Hasaka, as they dropped ‘thermal balloons’, an incendiary weapon, causing the wheat fields to explode into flames while the hot dry winds fanned the raging fire.

“After delivering their fiery pay-load, the helicopters flew close to homes in an aggressive manner, which caused residents and especially small children to fear for their lives. The military maneuver was delivering a clear message: don’t sell your wheat to the Syrian government.”

To better loot the oil and plunder the Syria economy, in the past weeks the US is sending more heavy equipment and military hardware through the Kurdish region of Iraq.

In the south of Syria, the US has another base and occupation zone at the strategic Al Tanf border crossing. This is at the intersection of the borders of Syria, Iraq and Jordan. This is also the border crossing for the highway from Baghdad to Damascus. The US controls this border area to prevent Syrian reconstruction projects from Iraq or Iran. When Syrian troops have tried to get near there, they have been attacked on their own soil.

Meanwhile, international funds donated for “Syrian relief” are disproportionally sent to support and assist the last strong-hold of Al Qaeda terrorists in Idlib on the north west border with Turkey. The US and its partners evidently want to sustain the armed opposition and prevent the Syrian government from reclaiming their territory.

Flouting International Law and the UN Charter

The USA and Turkey have shown how easy it is to violate international law. The occupation of Syrian land and attacks on its sovereignty are being done in broad daylight. But this is not just a legal issue. Stopping the supply of safe drinking water and burning wheat fields to create more hunger violate the most basic tenets of decency and morality.

With supreme hypocrisy, the US foreign policy establishment often complains about the decline in the “rule of law”. In actuality, there is no greater violator than the US itself.

In his speech to the UN Security Council, Syrian Ambassador Ja’afari decried this situation saying “international law has become like the gentle lamb whose care is entrusted to a herd of wolves.”

Rick Sterling is a member of the TRANSCEND Network and an investigative journalist who lives in the SF Bay Area, California.

21 September 2020

Source: www.transcend.org