Archives: Articles

By Rania Khalek

Israel has supplied 60.7 percent of the world’s drones since 1985, according to new data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

As a result, Israel is the single greatest source of drone proliferation in the world.

In second place is the United States, which accounts for 23.9 percent of global drone exports, followed by Canada at 6.4 percent, France at 1.6 percent, Austria at 1.4 percent, Italy at 1.1 percent, Germany at 1 percent and China at 0.9 percent.

Conversely, the United Kingdom is the world’s number one importer of drones. Between 2010 and 2014, the UK bought 55 drones from Israel and six armed drones from the US, which accounted for one third of global drone deliveries in that time period.

The vast majority of the drone market is comprised of surveillance drones,

The US, UK and Israel are the only countries in the world known to have used armed drones, deployed exclusively against nonwhite predominantly Muslim populations in nations and territories that have been pillaged and destroyed by Western conquest.

The besieged Gaza Strip has served as the leading testing ground for both armed and surveillance drones.

Tested on Palestinians

Over the last decade, Israel’s use of robotic warfare against Palestinians has escalated dramatically, with each new military assault on Gaza relying more heavily on drones than the last.

Last summer, Israel’s 51-day bombing campaign against Gaza killed more than 2,200 Palestinians, the majority of them civilians, including more than 500 children.

Based on data collected by the Al Mezan Center for Human rights, a Corporate Watch investigation found that at least 37 percent of those killed, or 840 people, died in drone strikes alone.

Lost in the numbers is the psychological terror inflicted on the people of the Gaza ghetto, especially children, by the constant presence of drones buzzing overhead with the capacity to rain death on those below at any moment.

This has been wildly lucrative for Israeli arms companies, which exploit Israel’s frequent military assaults as opportunities to expedite the testing of their products on human subjects.

Easy access to a captive Palestinian population to experiment on allows Israeli arms producers to market their products as “combat proven,” a coveted seal of approval that gives Israel a competitive edge in the international arms trade. Israel’s repression technology is then exported to regimes that are similarly invested in subjugating the poor and marginalized.

This dystopian arrangement has paved the way for Israel, a country the size of New Jersey, to rank among the globe’s top arms exporters.

A case in point is Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest military technology firm, which produces 85 percent of the drones that make up the Israeli army’s vast arsenal.

The Hermes 900, a drone manufactured by Elbit, was deployed operationally for the first time against Palestinians in Gaza last summer, even though it was still undergoing testing. Nicknamed the Kochav — which is Hebrew for “star” — the Hermes 900’s blood-soaked performance garnered widespread praise at Israel’s annual drone conference, held less than a month after the Gaza slaughter.

The Hermes 900 is a more advanced version of the Hermes 450, an aerial attack and surveillance drone that was used by the Israeli army to deliberately target civilians in Gaza during Israel’s previous onslaught in late 2008 and early 2009, according to Human Rights Watch.

The Hermes drone was also used to kill civilians in Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 2006, including Red Cross workers, ambulance drivers and dozens of people fleeing their homes in a desperate search for safety from Israeli bombardment.

Marketed in the company brochure as “combat-proven” and “Fighting terror for over a decade,” the Hermes 450 boasts “a class-leading safety and reliability record.”

Apparently impressed by the aircraft’s capacity for bloodshed, the Brazilian government purchased a fleet of Hermes drones to help crush the massive protests that erupted across Brazil against the 2014 World Cup.

Thales UK — a subsidiary of the French company, Thales, which is ranked as the eleventh largest arms producer in the world — signed a $1.6 billion joint venture with Elbit Systems in 2011 to develop a new drone fleet called Watchkeeper for the British military.

The Watchkeeper is being modeled on the Hermes 450, which has been deployed by the British army in Afghanistan.

Elbit might be Israel’s largest drone producer, but it’s hardly the only Israeli company selling equipment tested on Palestinians to regimes around the world.

According to an investigation by Drones UK, Israel has exported drone technology to at least fifty different countries, enabling atrocities and fueling war.

With America’s blessing, Israel sold drones and fighter jets to Sri Lanka, which were used to commit atrocities against Sri Lanka’s ethnic Tamil minority.

South Korea recently purchased the Heron drone, which is produced by Israel Aerospace Industries and has been deployed for surveillance and target acquisition in Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza.

In addition to helping crush World Cup protests, Israeli drones have been used by Brazilian police to invade the nation’s favelas.

In certain instances, Israel has sold drones to both sides in a given conflict. Both Russia and Georgia — between whom a conflict took place in 2008 — were armed with Israeli drones. Turkey and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) have reportedly both used Israeli drones.

Meanwhile, Israel’s drone exports to India have provoked a drone “arms race” with neighboring Pakistan, according to the organization Drones UK.

Israel invented drones

Israel was instrumental in pioneering the modern drone due largely to the ideology at its core.

Israel’s creation as a majority Jewish state was precipitated by the pre-meditated ethnic cleansing of 750,000 indigenous Palestinians by Zionist militias in 1948 — which Palestinians refer to as the Nakba, or catastrophe. Israel has spent every day since then consolidating and expanding its Jewish majority in historic Palestine, which has required tremendous levels of violence, including the ongoing containment and exclusion of the native Palestinian inhabitants still under its control.

The Israeli economy has been built around advancing this goal, giving rise to a booming “homeland security” industry that caters to the designs of Zionism and then repackages occupation-style repression for export and profit.

Drone technology has been crucial to this endeavor.

After suffering heavy losses in its 1973 war with Egypt, the Israeli regime, for the first time in its existence, was met with backlash from an Israeli Jewish public unaccustomed to high soldier casualties.

It was in the aftermath of the 1973 war that the Israeli government began investing heavily in drone technology, minimizing the risk to its soldiers, effectively pacifying future opposition to endless war, expansion and conquest.

Israel Aerospace Industries, known as Israel Aircraft Industries at the time, and the Israeli company Tadiran were tasked with designing drones for real-time intelligence collection in the occupied Sinai.

Soon enough, IAI invented the Scout drone, which was deployed in 1982 to coordinate targeting during Israel’s deadly invasion of Lebanon. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Israel tested and refined a variety of drones on the people of southern Lebanon in an attempt to crush armed resistance to its occupation. With each operation came another wave of advancements in drone technology.

With the start of the second intifada and Israel’s forced withdraw from southern Lebanon in 2000, the occupied West Bank and Gaza became Israel’s primary testing grounds for drone warfare.

Israeli drones provided hidden attack helicopters with coordinates to fire on during Israel’s ruthless 2002 attack on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. As early as 2004, Israeli drones were raining down missiles on the Gaza Strip in targeted assassinations of Palestinians fighters.

Though the US started utilizing and investing in drone technology before Israel, Israel was always one step ahead.

It’s no coincidence that Abraham Karem, an Israeli citizen, designed the Predator drone, which has been deployed by the US military and the CIA to carry out targeted assassinations that have left hundreds of innocent people dead. The Iraqi-born Karem received a degree in aeronautical engineering at the Haifa-based Israel Institute of Technology — better known as the Technion — and got his start at IAI before immigrating to the US after he was blackballed by the Israeli government for starting his own drone company.

Today, Gaza is surrounded with Israeli drones by air, land and sea.

In addition to the surveillance drones that hover overhead, the walls of the Gaza cage will soon be reinforced by Border Patroller, an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), or land drone, armed with remote-controlled weapons. Designed by the Israeli company G-NIUS, a joint venture between Elbit Systems and IAI, the Border Patroller, like the walls it fortifies, will prevent the Palestinian refugees of Gaza from escaping their cage.

The Protector, produced by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, is an unmanned sea vehicle (USV), or boat drone, that roams Gaza’s coast to obstruct Palestinian fishermen from making a living.

If the proliferation of Israel’s aerial drones is any indication, it won’t be long before land and sea drones spread to all corners of the globe.

As long as Israel’s economy is shaped by the subjugation and elimination of Palestinians, it will continue to function as a factory for cutting-edge repression technology that sustains racism and inequality around the globe.

Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized.

24 March, 2015
Electronicintifada.net

By Colin Todhunter

Some £600 million in UK aid money courtesy of the taxpayer is helping big business increase its profits in Africa via the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. In return for receiving aid money and corporate investment, African countries have to change their laws, making it easier for corporations to acquire farmland, control seed supplies and export produce.

Last year, Director of the Global Justice Now Nick Dearden said:

“It’s scandalous that UK aid money is being used to carve up Africa in the interests of big business. This is the exact opposite of what is needed, which is support to small-scale farmers and fairer distribution of land and resources to give African countries more control over their food systems. Africa can produce enough food to feed its people. The problem is that our food system is geared to the luxury tastes of the richest, not the needs of ordinary people. Here the British government is using aid money to make the problem even worse.”

Ethiopia, Ghana, Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique, Nigeria, Benin, Malawi and Senegal are all involved in the New Alliance.

In a January 2015 piece in The Guardian, Dearden continued by saying that development was once regarded as a process of breaking with colonial exploitation and transferring power over resources from the ‘first’ to the ‘third world’, involving a revolutionary struggle over the world’s resources. However, the current paradigm is based on the assumption that developing countries need to adopt neo-liberal policies and that public money in the guise of aid should facilitate this. The notion of ‘development’ has become hijacked by rich corporations and the concept of poverty depoliticised and separated from structurally embedded power relations.

To see this in action, we need look no further to a conference held on Monday 23 March in London, organised by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). This secretive, invitation-only meeting with aid donors and big seed companies discussed a strategy to make it easier for these companies to sell patented seeds in Africa and thus increase corporate control of seeds.

Farmers have for generations been saving and exchanging seeds among themselves. This has allowed them a certain degree of independence and has enabled them to innovate, maintain biodiversity, adapt seeds to climatic conditions and fend off plant disease. Big seed companies with help from the Gates Foundation, the US government and other aid donors are now discussing ways to increase their market penetration of commercial seeds by displacing farmers own seed systems.

Corporate sold hybrid seeds often produce higher yields when first planted, but the second generation seeds produce low yields and unpredictable crop traits, making them unsuitable for saving and storing. As Heidi Chow from Global Justice Now rightly says, instead of saving seeds from their own crops, farmers who use hybrid seeds become completely dependent on the seed, fertiliser and pesticide companies, which can (and has) in turn result in an agrarian crisis centred on debt, environmental damage and health problems.

The London conference aimed to share findings of a report by Monitor Deloitte on developing the commercial seed sector in sub-Saharan Africa. The report recommends that in countries where farmers are using their own seed saving networks NGOs and aid donors should encourage governments to introduce intellectual property rights for seed breeders and help to persuade farmers to buy commercial, patented seeds rather than relying on their own traditional varieties. The report also suggests that governments should remove regulations so that the seed sector is opened up to the global market.

The guest list comprised corporations, development agencies and aid donors, including Syngenta, the World Bank and the Gates Foundation. It speaks volumes that not one farmer organisation was invited. Farmers have been imbued with the spirit of entrepreneurship for thousands of years. They have been “scientists, innovators, natural resource stewards, seed savers and hybridisation experts” who have increasingly been reduced to becoming recipients of technical fixes and consumers of poisonous products of a growing agricultural inputs industry. So who better than to discuss issues concerning agriculture?

But the whole point of such a conference is that the West regards African agriculture as a ‘business opportunity’, albeit wrapped up in warm-sounding notions of ‘feeding Africa’ or ‘lifting millions out of poverty’. The West’s legacy in Africa (and elsewhere) has been to plunge millions into poverty. Enforcing structural reforms to benefit big agribusiness and its unsustainable toxic GMO/petrochemical inputs represents a continuation of the neo-colonialist plundering of Africa. The US has for many decades been using agriculture as a key part of foreign policy to secure global hegemony.

Phil Bereano, food sovereignty campaigner with AGRA Watch and an Emeritus Professor at the University of Washington says:

“This is an extension of what the Gates Foundation has been doing for several years – working with the US government and agribusiness giants like Monsanto to corporatize Africa’s genetic riches for the benefit of outsiders. Don’t Bill and Melinda realize that such colonialism is no longer in fashion? It’s time to support African farmers’ self-determination.”

Bereano also shows how Western corporations only intend to cherry-pick the most profitable aspects of the food production chain, while leaving the public sector in Africa to pick up the tab for the non-profitable aspects that allow profitability further along the chain.

Giant agritech corporations with their patented seeds and associated chemical inputs are ensuring a shift away from diversified agriculture that guarantees balanced local food production, the protection of people’s livelihoods and agricultural sustainability. African agriculture is being placed in the hands of big agritech for private profit under the pretext of helping the poor. The Gates Foundation has substantial shares in Monsanto. With Monsanto’s active backing from the US State Department and the Gates Foundation’s links with USAID, African farmers face a formidable force.

Report after report suggests that support for conventional agriculture, agroecology and local economies is required, especially in the Global South. Instead, Western governments are supporting powerful corporations with taxpayers money whose thrust via the WTO, World Bank and IMF has been to encourage strings-attached loans, monocrop cultivation for export using corporate seeds, the restructuring of economies, the opening of economies to the vagaries of land and commodity speculation and a system of globalised trade rigged in favour of the West.

In this vision for Africa, those farmers who are regarded as having any role to play in all of this are viewed only as passive consumers of corporate seeds and agendas. The future of Africa is once again being decided by rich men in London

Colin Todhunter : Originally from the northwest of England, Colin Todhunter has spent many years in India.

24 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Thalif Deen

The growing economic inequalities between rich and poor – and the lopsided concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the world’s one percent – are undermining international efforts to fight global poverty, environmental degradation and social injustice, according to a civil society alliance.

Comprising ActionAid, Greenpeace, Oxfam and Civicus, the group of widely-known non-governmental organizations (NGO) and global charities warn about the widening gap and imbalance of power between the world’s richest and the rest of the population, which they say, is “warping the rules and policies that affect society, creating a vicious circle of ever growing and harmful undue influence.”

The group identifies a list of key concerns – including tax avoidance, wealth inequality and lack of access to healthcare – as being unduly influenced by the world’s wealthiest one percent.

In a statement released Thursday, on the eve of the World Social Forum (WSF) scheduled to take place in Tunis Mar. 24-28, the group argues the concentration of wealth and power is now a critical and binding factor that must be challenged “if we are to create lasting solutions to poverty and climate change.”

The statement – signed by the chief executives of the four organizations – says: “We cannot rely on technological fixes. We cannot rely on the market. And we cannot rely on the global elites. We need to help strengthen the power of the people to challenge the people with power.”

“Securing a just and sustainable world means challenging the power of the one percent,” the group says.

The signatories include Adriano Campolina of ActionAid, Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah of Civicus, Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace and Winnie Byanyima of Oxfam.

Asked about the impact of economic inequalities on the implementation of the U.N.’s highly touted Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Ben Phillips, campaigns and policy director at ActionAid International, told IPS economic inequalities have meant that in many countries progress on poverty reduction has been much slower than it would have been if growth had been more equal.

For example, he said, Zambia has moved from being a poor country (officially) to being (officially) middle income. Yet during that time the absolute number of poor people has increased.

India’s persistently high child malnutrition rate and South Africa’s persistently high mortality rate are functions of an insufficient focus on inequality, he added.

Papua New Guinea has the highest growth in the world this year and won’t meet any MDG, because the proceeds of growth are so unequally shared, he pointed out.

Speaking on behalf of the civil society alliance, Phillips said inequality has also been the great blind spot of the MDGs – even when countries have met the MDGs they have often done so in a way that has left behind the poorest people – so goals like reducing maternal and infant mortality have been met in several countries in ways that have left those at the bottom of the pile with little or no improvement.

The four signatories say: “We will work together with others to tackle the root causes of inequality. We will press governments to tackle tax dodging, ensure progressive taxes, provide universal free public health and education services, support workers’ bargaining power, and narrow the gap between rich and poor. We will together champion international cooperation to avoid a race to the bottom.”

The statement also says that global efforts to end poverty and marginalization, advance women’s rights, defend the environment, protect human rights, and promote fair and dignified employment are all being undermined as a consequence of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.
“Decisions are being shaped in the narrow interests of the richest, at the expense of the people as a whole,” it says.

“The economic, ecological and human rights crises we face are intertwined and reinforcing. The influence of the one percent has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished,” the group warns.

“Faced with this challenge, we need to go beyond tinkering, and address the structural causes of inequality: we cannot rely on technological fixes – there is no app for this; we cannot rely on the market – unchecked it will worsen inequality and climate change; and we cannot rely on the global elites – left alone they will continue to reinforce the structures and approaches that have led to where we are”.

People’s mobilization and active citizenship are crucial to change the power inequalities that are leading to worsening rights violations and inequality, the group says.

However, in all regions of the world, the more people mobilize to defend their rights, the more the civic and political space is being curtailed by repressive action defending the privileged.

“We therefore pledge to work together locally, nationally and internationally, alongside others, to uphold and defend universal human rights and protect civil society space. A more equal society that values everyone depends on citizens holding the powerful to account.”

Phillips told IPS even the U.N.’s proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be approved at a summit meeting of world leaders in September, will not be achievable if economic inequalities continue.

As leading economist Andy Sumner of King’s College, London has demonstrated, “we find in our number-crunching that poverty can only be ended if inequality falls.” Additionally, healthy, liveable societies depend on government action to limit inequality.

It is also a question of voice, and power. In the words of Harry Belafonte, a Hollywood celebrity and political activist: “The concentration of money in the hands of a small group is the most dangerous thing that happened to civilization.”

Or as Jeff Sachs, a widely respected development expert and professor at Columbia University, has noted: “Corporations write the rules, pay the politicians, sometimes illegally and sometimes, via what is called legal, which is financing their campaigns or massive lobbying. This has got completely out of control and is leading to the breakdown of modern democracy.”

Phillips said tackling inequality is core to progress on tackling poverty – both because extreme and growing economic inequality will undermine poverty reduction and because the warping of power towards the one percent is shifting the focus of governments away from their citizens and towards corporations.

“Inequality is about more than economics and growth – it is now at such high levels that we risk a return to the oligarchy of the gilded age. We need to shift power away from the one percent and towards the rest of society, to prevent all decisions being made in the narrow interests of a privileged few,” he declared.

© Inter Press Service

24 March 2015
IPS

 

By Countercurrents.org

As U.S. military convoy pushes through countries in eastern Europe while cash contribution to Clinton Foundation gets exposed. Activists are protesting the U.S. military march.

An AP report said:
A U.S. army infantry convoy is driving through eastern Europe seeking to provide reassurance to a region concerned that the Ukraine conflict threatens its security.

The report said:
The U.S. “Dragoon Ride” convoy started its journey last week from Estonia and passed through Latvia and Lithuania before entering Poland on Monday.

The Warsaw datelined report said:
“Flying U.S. flags, dozens of Stryker and other armored vehicles from the 3rd Squadron of the 2nd Cavalry Regiment are driving down the roads on their way back to base in Vilseck, Germany. They took part in the Atlantic Resolve exercise that shows NATO’s readiness to defend its members. They will stop in some Polish towns to meet local residents.

“The move comes at a time when Poland is stepping up its own defenses by calling thousands of reservists for urgent military training and by hosting major NATO and international exercises this year. Also Monday, Canadian and Polish troops held exercises at a test range in Drawsko Pomorskie, in the northeast.”
Poland, however, has bad memories of defense alliances with Britain and France that failed when Nazi Germany invaded in 1939.
The US army convoy rolled highway during the military exercise in Riga, Latvia on March 22, 2015. The US troops’ trek began on March 21.

Don’t throw tomato

Another media report said:
The Czech people were told not to throw tomatoes and eggs at a US military convoy. Fearing that protesters could stage “provocations”, the Czech government has instructed its military to protect the U.S. military convoy during its march through the country.

The Czech TV Nova broadcast a warning: Those found throwing egg and tomato may get up to three years if convicted. In case of skirmishes, offenders can expect to spend up to 3 years of prison, and serious violence may incur 10-year sentences for the perpetrators.

The Czech Army Press warned: If someone decides to sabotage the US operation, he or she would also face charges. “Sabotage and/or attacks including attempts to undermine defense capabilities are subject to imprisonment ranging from 8-12 years or forfeiture of property.

It is expected that the US military convoy will cross the Czech Republic between March 29 and April 1 on its way to a base in the Germany.

No tanks, thanks

Czech anti-war activists have launched the ‘Tanks? No thanks!’ campaign to protest the US Army convoy march. They say the military march is a “provocative victory parade” near the Russian border.

The U.S. procession has been labeled “an unnecessary and dangerously provocative military maneuvers, which only increase international tension” on the ‘Tanks? No thanks!’ page on Facebook.

The campaigners say the relocation of vehicles has been turned into “a victory parade” as the US convoy is expected to “organize activities to impress local residents with their military power.”

Besides creating public opinion through social networks, the activists have placed fake road signs, with a tank in a red circle and a red line though it, along the announced route of the U.S. military convoy

“We don’t want such vehicles from foreign armies coming here ever again,” said Tana Bednarova from the ‘World without Wars and without Violence’ organization.

Bednarova has also slammed the expansion of NATO to the east, saying that if the U.S. and its allies really “wants to create security in the world then Russia and China and all other countries of the world should be invited to join.”

Last week, the US military convoy march was authorized by the Czech government without any debate in the parliament.

Czech communists speaking out against the ride say it will only cause traffic jams and annoy locals.

The Stryker vehicles are usually transported by rail, but it was decided that they would take a ride through Eastern Europe to demonstrate U.S. commitment in the region.

Ukraine cash contribution to Clinton

Media reports from the U.S. said:
“From 2009 up to 2013, the year the Ukrainian crisis erupted, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, which is headquartered in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, a new report claims.

“In 2008, Viktor Pinchuk, who made a fortune in the pipe-building business, pledged a five-year, $29-million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative, a program that works to train future Ukrainian leaders “to modernize Ukraine.” The Wall Street Journal revealed the donations the fund received from foreigners during 2009-2014.”

The report said:
“Several alumni of the program have already graduated into the ranks of Ukraine’s parliament, while a former Clinton pollster went to work as a lobbyist for Pinchuk at the same time Clinton was working in government.

“Between 2009 and 2013, the very period when Hillary Clinton was serving as US secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation appears to have received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation.

“The Pinchuk foundation said its donations to the Clinton-family organization were designed to make Ukraine ‘a successful, free, modern country based on European values.’ It went on to remark that if Pinchuk was hoping to lobby the US State Department about Ukraine, ‘this cannot be seen as anything but a good thing,’ WSJ quoted it as saying.

However, critics have pointed to some disturbing aspects regarding the donations including the coincidence of the Ukrainian crisis, which began in November 2013, and the heavy amount of cash donations being made to the Clinton Foundation on behalf of wealthy Ukrainian businessmen.

“First, as already mentioned, Clinton was serving as the US secretary of state at the time that the donations to her family’s charity were being made. Although it is true that the Clinton Foundation refused donations directly from foreign governments while Clinton was serving in the Obama administration, the door remained wide open to donations from public citizens like Pinchuk, who has advocated on behalf of stronger ties between Ukraine and the European Union.”

The report added:

“Political connections in the Pinchuk family run deep. Not only did Viktor Pinchuk serve two terms as a Ukrainian parliamentarian, but his wife is the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.

“After being introduced to former US President Bill Clinton by Doug Schoen, a political analyst and pollster who has worked for both Clintons, Pinchuk and his wife began making donations to Clinton-family charities, WSJ reported.

“During Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department, Schoen began work as a congressional lobbyist for the Ukrainian oligarch. Schoen defended his lobbying activities, saying there was no connection to Pinchuk’s hefty donations.”

The report said:
“Schoen said he and Viktor Pinchuk met on several occasions with Clinton aides including Melanne Verveer, a Ukrainian-American who holds membership in the influential Council on Foreign Relations, as well as the Trilateral Commission.

“The purpose of these meetings, according to Schoen, was to encourage the U.S. government to pressure Ukraine’s former President Viktor Yanukovich to release his jailed political opponent, Yulia Tymoshenko.”

24 March 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Maryam Sakeenah

My parents chose to send me to a Christian missionary school- a decision I have always been grateful to them for. The Convent’s ‘Character Building’ programme instilled in me values which, owing to the essential kinship of the Abrahamic faiths, facilitated my appreciation and practice of my own faith as a Muslim later in life.

Incidentally, all serving staff in my household happens to be Christian. In Ramazan they prepare the Iftar, and at Christmas and Easter we give them an extra something to partake of the family festivity. Through all my extensive and longstanding interaction with Christian friends, colleagues, subordinates, there is no unpleasant or uncomfortable memory I have. And I know I am no exception.

In fact, when I condoled with my Christian domestic help about the unfortunate recent events targeting churches in Lahore, I sensed in their comments the same sentiment I have gleaned from my experience as a Pakistani Muslim. ‘We have been brothers and sister living together for decades- there was never a problem. And now some unknown enemies wanting this country’s destruction want to create hate. We have nothing against each other- Muslims too are under attack from the same people. We need to be together’, said my illiterate Christian kitchen helper- (in simple English translation).

There was an understanding even within these unlettered members of a less privileged minority community that something had gone wrong in recent years; that violent religious hate was not the ethos of this land; and that there was a common enemy out there whose triumph was in sowing discord and hate between the two communities.

And yet ironically I find a complete absence of this simple understanding in the opinions of vociferous social media commentators both from the secular-liberal and conservative perspectives. In fact, the polarity in their views is striking whenever I browse through my newsfeed. While sadness over the attack on the churches was palpable among all shades of opinion, there was a callous lack of sympathy for the innocent Muslim victims of the post-bombing mob-lynching by Christians, and a brazen attempt to paint the ensuing violence by Christian mobsters as ‘but natural.’ This selective sympathy shows our own deeply rooted prejudices. On the other extreme there are outrageous calls for indiscriminate reprisal against the Christian community of Youhannabad where the lynchings happened.

The problem with the narrative that emerges from these polarized, clashing perspectives is that it sees the recent events through the blood-stained lens of ‘Us versus Them’; as a ‘Christian versus Muslim’ issue which is both inaccurate as well as dangerous. In fact, the terrible mob violence that occurred in the wake of the church bombing was also a tragic result of dangerously viewing the attack on the church as ‘Muslim’ violence against ‘Christian’ victims. More accurately, it was violence by an extremist militant minority group for whom all who do not share their violent ideology are potential targets. This is why the anger was directed at Muslims who had been engaged in routine business in the Christian locality. The two innocents picked for the barbaric lynching were lighter skinned (a characteristic of the Pashtuns) and at least one of them bearded. The mob violence was hence fired by ethno-religious stereotyping and the blind hate born of such prejudices.

In response to the ensuing violence by the Youhannabad locals there is brewing anger amidst neighbouring Muslim communities which sets the stage for potential clashes waiting in the wing. In the climate of fear and anger many families in Youhannabad are planning to relocate or have done so already. This is the triumph of the real enemy as it fulfils the malevolent agenda perfectly. The victory of the enemy is when its victim turns into a savage perpetrator like itself, continuing the cycle of violence.

Violent incidents targeting the Christian community in Pakistan in the recent past certainly fuel the anger by creating genuine and understandable grievances. However, it has to be understood that such targeting of the Christian community has always been resented and rejected by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim population of this country; and that the extremists involved in terror attacks on Christians are a fringe element rejected by the mainstream public opinion. Terrorist outfits are all out to exact vengeance that spares none- mosque, imambargah, church- Muslim, Christian, Shiite- all are fellow sufferers in this great calamity that has gripped us as the terrible cost of owning the US’s Great War on Terror.

The Christian community of Pakistan never has been, is not and should never be an oppressed minority hated and targeted by Pakistan’s Muslim majority. Those trying to reinforce this idea- whether extreme rightwingers, conservatives or the secular liberals- are utterly wrong. This is a false picture that will fuel more rage and blind hate.

What is required in the wake of this frenzied violence is a communal introspection by both communities. The Christian community needs to examine why its young members descended into such rank savagery, and must take responsibility to curtail simmering violence that utterly betrays the Christian spirit of forbearance and compassion. The Muslim community must also engage in a serious endeavour to root out the ire and vengeful streak building up in its ranks in this charged atmosphere.

The pulpit and the minbar both must take up their vital roles to defeat this false ‘Us versus Them’ narrative. Both religions contain voluminous and powerful content on tolerance and compassion which needs to resonate to drown this madness in the name of faith. Faith must be the healing, the mending and the force inspiring peacemaking. The Quran questions the validity of a faith that justifies and inspires evil. “Say: “Worst indeed is that which your faith enjoins on you- if you indeed are believers.” (2:93) It reminds us with a vital message that has never been as relevant as it is today. “Let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety… Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do.” (5:8)

In the midst of this senseless melee of wrathful hate, the words of Islam’s blessed Prophet (PBUH) for his Christian citizenry from Najran become a beautiful encore played to a deaf audience.

“This is a message from [Prophet] Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion [in religion] is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate…
…Their Churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (of Muslims) is to disobey this covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).” (Text of the Charter of Privileges, Treaty of Najran)

Maryam Sakeenah is a Pakistan-based independent researcher and freelance writer on International politics, human rights and Islam.

21 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Paul Craig Roberts

While Washington works assiduously to undermine the Minsk agreement that German chancellor Merkel and French president Hollande achieved in order to halt the military conflict in Ukraine, Washington has sent Victoria Nuland to Armenia to organize a “color revolution” or coup there, has sent Richard Miles as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan to do the same there, and has sent Pamela Spratlen as ambassador to Uzbekistan to purchase that government’s allegiance away from Russia. The result would be to break up the Collective Security Treaty Organization and present Russia and China with destabilization where they can least afford it. For details go here: http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/03/18/4656

Thus, Russia faces the renewal of conflict in Ukraine simultaneously with three more Ukraine-type situations along its Asian border.

And this is only the beginning of the pressure that Washington is mounting on Russia.

On March 18 the Secretary General of NATO denounced the peace settlement between Russia and Georgia that ended Georgia’s military assault on South Ossetia. The NATO Secretary General said that NATO rejects the settlement because it “hampers ongoing efforts by the international community to strengthen security and stability in the region.” Look closely at this statement. It defines the “international community” as Washington’s NATO puppet states, and it defines strengthening security and stability as removing buffers between Russia and Georgia so that Washington can position military bases in Georgia directly on Russia’s border.

In Poland and the Baltic states Washington and NATO lies about a pending Russian invasion are being used to justify provocative war games on Russia’s borders and to build up US forces in NATO military bases on Russia’s borders.

We have crazed US generals on national television calling for “killing Russians.”

The EU leadership has agreed to launch a propaganda war against Russia, broadcasting Washington’s lies inside Russia in an effort to undermine the Russian people’s support of their government.

All of this is being done in order to coerce Russia into handing over Crimea and its Black Sea naval base to Washington and accepting vassalage under Washington’s suzerainty.

If Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, and the Taliban would not fold to Washington’s threats, why do the fools in Washington think Putin, who holds in his hands the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, will fold?

European governments, apparently, are incapable of any thought. Washington has set London and the capitals of every European country, as well as every American city, for destruction by Russian nuclear weapons. The stupid Europeans rush to destroy themselves in service to their Washington master.

Human intelligence has gone missing if after 14 years of US military aggression against eight countries the world does not understand that Washington is lost in arrogance and hubris and imagines itself the ruler of the universe who will tolerate no dissent from its will.

We know that the American, British, and European media are whores well paid to lie for their master. We know that the NATO commander and secretary general, if not the member countries, are lusting for war. We know that the American Dr. Strangeloves in the Pentagon and armaments industry cannot wait to test their ABMs and new weapons systems in which they always place excessive confidence. We know that the prime minister of Britain is a total cipher. But are the chancellor of Germany and the president of France ready for the destruction of their countries and of Europe? If the EU is of such value, why is the very existence of its populations put at risk in order to bow down and accept leadership from an insane Washington whose megalomania will destroy life on earth?

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.

21 March, 2015
Paulcraigroberts.org

 

By Ilan Pappe

Those of us who know the nature of the beast could not have been surprised by the results of the Israeli election.

Like many of my friends, I was also relieved that a liberal Zionist government was not elected. It would have allowed the charade of the “peace process” and the illusion of the two-state solution to linger on while the suffering of the Palestinians continues.

As always, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself provided the inevitable conclusion when he declared the end of the two-state solution — inviting us all to the long overdue funeral of an ill-conceived idea that provided Israel with international immunity for its colonialist project in Palestine.

The power of the charade was on show when the world and local pundits unrealistically predicted a victory for liberal Zionism, an Israeli ideological trend that is near extinction — embodied by the Zionist Union list headed by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.

The exit polls compiled by Israel’s finest statisticians reinforced the wishful thinking, leading to a huge media fiasco as expectations of the “liberal” camp’s victory turned into shock and dismay over Netanyahu’s triumph.

Debacle

It is worthwhile to begin an initial analysis of the Israeli elections with closer attention to this debacle.

An important segment of those who vote for Netanyahu’s Likud Party belong to the second generation of Jews who came from Arab and Muslim countries.

They were joined this time by settler communities in the occupied West Bank who voted as a bloc for Netanyahu. The Arab Jews voted for Likud much more then they voted for Netanyahu. The settlers did so at the expense of their new political base — Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party that promises outright annexation of the West Bank — so as to ensure that Likud would be the largest party in the next parliament.

Neither group was entirely happy with their choice and were not so proud to wear on their sleeves their decision to vote yet again for Netanyahu. That is perhaps why many of them did not admit to the exit polls who they really voted for.

The result was quite catastrophic for all the renowned pollsters. They missed the headline that should have been announced when the exit polls were done — a smashing victory for the Likud in 2015 and a disappointing result for the liberal Zionist camp. The more exciting news was the success of the Palestinian citizens of Israel who united to form the Joint List and won the third largest bloc of seats after the Likud and the Zionist Union.

Likud’s victory

The three outcomes — an invigorated Likud, a defeated Labor Party (the Zionist Union is a partnership of Labor and Livni’s “Initiative” list) and a united Palestinian representation — can either be ignored by the international community or serve as a catalyst for new thinking on the evergreen question of Palestine.

The victory of Likud, despite the social unrest in Israel over growing economic hardships, and the unprecedented low standing of the Jewish state in the international community, indicate clearly that there will be no change from within Israel in the near future.

Labor, meanwhile, has maximized its potential: it is not likely to do better and hence it does not offer an alternative. The main reason for this is that it is not an alternative. Israel in 2015 is still a settler-colonialist state and a liberal version of this ideology cannot offer a genuine reconciliation to the indigenous people of Palestine.

Ever since Likud took power for the first time after its historic 1977 victory, Jewish voters have preferred the real thing, so to speak, steadily turning away from the paler, liberal version of Zionism.

Labor was in power long enough for us to know that it could not offer even the most moderate Palestinian leaders any deal that would have granted them genuine sovereignty — not even in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which form only a fifth of historic Palestine.

The reason is very simple: the raison d’etre of a settler-colonialist society is displacement of the natives and their replacement by settlers. At best natives can be confined in gated enclaves, at worst they are doomed to be expelled or destroyed.

Decolonization

The conclusion for the international community should be clear now. Only decolonization of the settler state can lead to reconciliation. And the only way to kick off this decolonization is by employing the same means exercised against the other long-standing settler state of the twentieth century: apartheid South Africa.

The option of BDS — boycott, divestment and sanctions — has never looked more valid than it does today. Hopefully this, together with popular resistance on the ground, will entice at least some of the second and third generation of the Jewish settler-colonial society to help stop the Zionist colonization project.

Pressure from outside and from the resistance movement within are the only way to force Israelis to reframe their relationship with all the Palestinians, including the refugees, on the basis of democratic and egalitarian values. Otherwise, we can expect Likud to win forty seats in the next elections, perhaps on the back of the next outraged Palestinian uprising.

There are two reasons why this approach is still feasible. One is the Joint List. It will have no impact whatsoever on the Israeli political system. In fact, like the Palestinian Authority, the days of Palestinian representation in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, are numbered. If a united list can have no impact, and if a disempowered PA does not satisfy even liberal Zionists, then the time has come to look for new forms of representation and action.

The Joint List’s importance lies elsewhere. It can ignite the imagination of other Palestinian communities about the possibilities of unity of purpose. That Islamists and secular leftists can work together for a better future is an example that can have far-reaching implications not only for Palestinians and Israelis, but for an increasingly polarized Europe. The Joint List represents a group of native Palestinians who know the Israelis well, are deeply committed to democratic values and have risen in importance among the rest of the Palestinians after years of being marginalized and almost forgotten.

The second reason for hoping that new alternatives will emerge is that despite all its nastiness and callousness, the Zionist settler-colonial project was not the worst in history.

With all the horrendous suffering it has caused, most recently during the summer massacre in Gaza, it did not exterminate the local population and its dispossession project remains incomplete. This does not mean that it will not get worse or that one should underestimate the suffering of the Palestinians.

Vision

What it means is that the main impulse among Palestinians is not for retribution but for restitution. Their wish is to live normal lives — something Zionism denied all the Palestinians ever since the ideology’s arrival in Palestine in the late nineteenth century.

Normal life means an end to the discriminatory apartheid policies against the Palestinians in Israel, the end of the military occupation and siege of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.

The quid pro quo is accepting the Jewish ethnic group that emerged in Palestine as part of a new, decolonized and fully democratic political dispensation based on principles that would be agreed on by all concerned.

The international community can play a positive role in bringing this vision about if it adopts three basic assumptions. The first is that Zionism is still colonialism and hence anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism but anti-colonialism.

The second is that if it leaves behind the exceptionalism it granted Israel over the years, mainly in the realm of human rights, it has a better chance of playing a constructive role towards safeguarding these rights in the Middle East as a whole.

And finally, we should all be aware that the window of opportunity for saving innocent lives in historic Palestine is rapidly closing — if Israel’s power remains unchecked a repeat of the massacres of recent years is all but certain. It is urgent to forsake old formulas for “peace” that did not work and start looking for just and viable alternatives.

The author of numerous books, Ilan Pappe is professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

21 March, 2015

Electronic Intifada

 

By Andrew Korybko

Recent decisions by South Korea raise the question of whether its leadership is becoming more pragmatic in its dealings with Beijing at the expense of Washington.

South Korea is a long-time US ally, but its support for the US is no longer as blind as it once was. Growing economic ties with China through the forthcoming free trade agreement are making the country’s foreign policy more balanced, as well as its strategic ambivalence about the US’ THAAD missile defense system. While South Korea may not fully switch sides, it looks to be on a trajectory of neutrality and pragmatism, which in and of itself is a relative loss for the US in its Pivot to Asia policy.

Who Wants What?

Let’s take a cursory look at what each of the three main players in this game want to achieve, as this can help give a clearer picture as to why South Korea made the recent economic and military choices that it did:

US:

Ideally, the US wants to integrate the 28,000 troops it has in South Korea into the ‘Chinese Containment Coalition’ (CCC) it’s building in East and Southeast Asia. It would like to prolong its military presence in the country indefinitely, and hopefully bring South Korea on board its containment plans through a formalized three-way military relationship between Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo. The US doesn’t have a real interest in seeing the two Koreas reunified, since this could likely lead to the removal of its half-century-long occupation forces.

China:

Beijing’s dream is to see the US completely leave the Korean peninsula, and for the CCC to be broken down or neutralized. It doesn’t want to see any destabilization on the Korean peninsula, since this would inevitably carry over into China itself. If the two Koreas reunify, China would cautiously monitor developments to ensure that united Korea doesn’t pose an economic or military threat that can be turned against it one day. Still, Beijing would rather have the US leave the peninsula today and deal with any challenges surrounding a united Korea tomorrow than have the Pentagon continue to provoke North Korea in China’s backyard.

South Korea:

The most important thing for Seoul is to see a resolution of the two North Korean issues, that is to say, Pyongyang’s denuclearization and reunification between both parties. Ideally, it would also like to pursue its historical ‘third way’ in balancing between its colossal Chinese and Japanese neighbors, which would entail a policy of neutrality and stability. While South Korea has obviously been under intense American influence since the end of World War II, it appears to be wising up to the fact that a more multipolar policy is the most efficient way to pursue its objectives.

Deciphering Seoul’s Decisions

Now it’s time to look at the four latest decisions that South Korea made which have led to talk of a potential pivot (and against it):

Indefinite OpCon Delay:

The US and South Korea agreed last October to delay America’s transfer of war-time operational control (‘OpCon’) to Seoul until an undetermined time in the future, with the idea being that South Korea is currently incapable of commanding its own forces in the event of a war. The effect has been to prolong direct American control over South Korea’s military affairs, meaning that it would literally control its forces in the event of a war with North Korea or China. Even if peace prevails in the long-term, US forces will not be leaving the country for quite some time until then, in what is a clear victory for Washington.

The China-South Korea Free Trade Agreement:

It was only natural that the two sides would reach such an agreement, set to enter into force later this year, since China is South Korea’s largest trading partner and South Korea is China’s third largest. According to the South China Morning Post, “Chinese investment in Korea jumped 374 per cent to US$631 million last year from US$133 million in 2013” in anticipation of the deal, in a clear demonstration of China’s eagerness to expand its business dealings in the country. If economic relations further intensity, then South Korea could potentially enter into China’s Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (its counter to the US-led TPP) and even the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (China’s response to the Western-led World Bank that it’s invited South Korea to join if it drops THAAD), which would be an enormous setback for Washington’s influence over the peninsular state.

Turning Down THAAD…:

South Korea has been strategically ambivalent about allowing the US’ THAAD missile defense system to be deployed on its territory. Seoul acutely understands that the US simply wants to build an East Asia version of its missile defense shield, and by hosting the infrastructure, it would become a complicit member of the CCC. South Korea seems to have misgivings about this, understanding that its relations with China would deteriorate as rapidly as Poland’s did with Russia after the former accepted the US’ analogous Eastern European counterpart. Should South Korea decide not to become the ‘Asian Poland’, then it would be a big blow against the US Pivot to Asia.

…To Be Tricked Into It Later?:

But the US has a trick up its sleeve, in that it’s talked South Korea into allowing THAAD to be deployed in the country in the event of vaguely described ‘emergency situations’, which could realistically be manipulated North Korean responses to staged American-South Korean war game provocations (as is the norm). Once THAAD is deployed in the country, it’s not likely it’ll leave after tensions de-escalate, thereby providing the backdoor method for the US to sneakily deploy its missile defense shield inside the country.

Remixing The Region

Other than South Korea’s move towards multipolarity, two other largely unreported trends are also transforming the region. These are South Korea’s worsening relations with Japan and North Korea’s move towards Russia. The former is the result of renewed Japanese nationalism and militarism, while the latter is due to behind-the-scenes spates between Pyongyang and Beijing. If they continue along their trajectories and are taken to their logical conclusions, these three regional trends will redefine Northeast Asia’s geopolitical arrangement in the future, which would lead to three possible developments:

America At Arm’s Length:

Although the American military presence will likely remain in the foreseeable future, Washington will be less able to influence South Korea to the same extent as it previously did, meaning that its relative power there will decline.

Japanese Redirection:

The failure of Japan to restore favorable ties with South Korea would render the CCC ineffective in Northeast Asia, and Tokyo would thus redirect all of its CCC energy southward to Vietnam and the Philippines. Tokyo’s already planned these moves, but with South Korea no longer a viable ally, it can focus more efforts southwards.

Peace Talks Part II:

With South Korea moving closer to China and North Korea doing the same to Russia, the entire dynamic of peninsular politics could be entering a watershed moment. Whereas in the past, the North Korea-China and South Korea-US duality didn’t achieve peace after over 50 years, the new arrangement might be more suitable for making progress.

Andrew Korybko is a political analyst, journalist and a regular contributor to several online journals.

20 March 2015

 

By Neve Gordon

Benjamin Netanyahu is truly a magician. Just this past Friday, most polls indicated that his Likud party would likely receive around 21 seats in the Israeli Knesset, four seats less than Yitzhak (Bougie) Herzog’s Zionist Camp (Labor Party’s new name). Revelations of corruption at the Prime Minister’s residence followed by a damning comptroller report about the real estate crisis, alongside industrial downsizing, union strikes, predictions of a weakening economy, a diplomatic stalemate, and increasing international isolation all seemed to indicate that Netanyahu was on his way out. But just when it seemed that the Zionist camp would replace the nationalist camp, the crafty campaigner began pulling rabbits out of his hat.

As if his decision to alienate the Obama Administration over the Iran negotiations was not enough, Netanyahu began pandering to the right by notifying the world that Palestinians were destined to remain stateless since he no longer believed in the creation of another Arab state alongside Israel. He presented the Likud party as the victims of a leftist media conspiracy aimed at ousting the right-wing government, while conveniently ignoring that his ally Sheldon Adelson owned Yisrael Hayom, Israel’s most widely circulated paper. He entreated his voters to return “home” promising to address their economic needs. And on Election Day itself, he frightened the Jews by declaring that Israel’s Palestinian citizens were rushing to the polls in droves, thus presenting Palestinians who cast votes for their own representatives as an existential threat.

Pandering and fear mongering together with hatred for Arabs and the left are the ingredients of Netanyahu’s secret potion, and it now appears that many voters were indeed seduced. Within a matter of a few days Netanyahu garnered almost ten additional seats for his party, cannibalizing two of his extreme right allies: Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinuand Naftali Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi. Owing to his magic, the Likud did much better than expected, and together with the ultra-Orthodox parties and a new party recently formed by a former Likud minister, Kulanu (All of US), an extreme right wing bloc with 67 out of 120 seats will almost certainly be created (and this even before the soldier’s votes have been calculated, which are usually right of center).

The outcome is clear: the people of Israel have voted for Apartheid.

It is now extremely likely that a spate of anti-democratic laws that had been shelved will soon resurface. These include laws that monitor and limit the financing of human rights NGOs, restrict freedom of the expression, reduce the authority of the Supreme Court, cancel the official status of Arabic, and, of course, bring to a vote the nation-state law. This bill, which was originally drafted by a Likud member, defines Jewishness as the state’s default in any instance, legal or legislative, in which the state’s Jewishness and its democratic aspirations clash. This means that Laws that provide equal rights to all citizens can be struck down on the pretense that they violate the state’s Jewish character. Moreover, this law reserves communal rights for Jews alone, thus denying Palestinian citizens any kind of national identity.

Alongside anti-democratic legislation, we can also expect an array of discriminatory policies to be enacted. The new government will likely implement some variation of the Prawer plan, which intends to forcefully relocate thousands of Palestinian Bedouins and take over their land. It will continue pouring billions of dollars on Israel’s settlement in the West Bank and Golan Heights and expropriate more houses and land in East Jerusalem. And it will probably imprison thousands of refugees and “illegal” migrant laborers from Africa currently workers in Israeli cities.

There is, however, one clear advantage to the election results: clarity. At least now there will be no liberal Zionist façade, camouflaging Israel’s unwillingness to dismantle its colonial project. The Israeli refrain that a diplomatic solution with the Palestinians cannot be achieved because the Palestinians lack leadership will ring even more hollow. Finally, the claim that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East will exposed for what it is: a half truth. While Israel is a democracy for Jews it is a repressive regime for Palestinians.

We can also expect little resistance to the right-wing government, since Herzog’s Zionist Camp and Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid are also Arabphobes and therefore less against the substance of such a government and more against Netanyahu’s blatant right wing style. After all it was a political pac associated with Herzog’s party that in the days leading to the elections paid for large billboards with a picture of (Bibi) Netanyahu and his extreme right contender Naftali Bennett warning the viewers that “With Bibibennet we will remain stuck with the Palestinians for eternity.” The pac must have overlooked the fact that 20 percent of Israeli citizens are Palestinians.

And yet, during these elections there was one ray of light that shimmered through the darkness. The attempt by most of the Jewish parties to sideline the Palestinian citizens produced an unintended result. Creating a united front, the Palestinians garnered 14 seats, almost 25 percent more than they received in the previous elections, and they are now the third biggest faction in the Knesset. Unlike many of his counterparts, Ayman Odeh, the head of the new Joint Arab List, is a true leader. Extremely incisive, he often uses irony and wit to undermine his detractors while advancing an egalitarian vision for the future. In a moment of candor, a well-known Israeli commentator characterized his demeanor as a serious threat: “He’s really dangerous,” she said, “he projects something every Israeli can relate to.”

Will this threat be able to stop the imminent entrenchment of a tide of new Apartheid laws? I sincerely doubt it.

Neve Gordon is the author of ‘Israel’s Occupation’ as well as ‘The Human Right to Dominate’ (co-authored with Nicola Perugini, forthcoming June 2015). Prof. Neve Gordon teaches at Dept. of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer—Sheva, Israel

19 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Farooque Chowdhury

Latin America again sets example of solidarity and unity against imperialist intervention as the Empire threatens Venezuela with sanctions. In this moment of anti-imperialist struggle, Fidel Castro expresses solidarity to Venezuela, and Venezuela debunks a mainstream manufactured myth – the mismanaged country is on the brink of defaulting – as the republic recently serviced its debt with a US$1 billion payment.

Venezuela expresses its preparedness to talk to the US in a peaceful and civilized manner. At the same time, the republic has expressed unequivocally: Venezuela will never tolerate threats or impositions of sanctions.

Fidel: Last drop of blood for homeland

Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban revolution, in a message to Nicolas Maduro, the president of Venezuela, said: Venezuela is prepared to confront US “threats and impositions”. The March 16 message said: The US could no longer count on the Venezuelan military to do its bidding.

Referring to the ALBA summit scheduled to be held in Caracas Fidel’s message said: The summit will analyze the outrageous policy of the US toward Venezuela and ALBA.

Fidel’s message cites background of ALBA that tells enormous possibilities in the region:

“The idea of creating this organization came from Chavez himself, wanting to share with his Caribbean brothers and sisters the enormous economic resources with which nature had blessed his native homeland, the benefits of which had however landed in the hands of powerful US corporations, and a few Venezuelan millionaires.”

The Cuban revolutionary leader cites the old days the Venezuelan people have thrown away: “Corruption and squandering were the fundamental motivations of the first oligarchy with fascist tendencies, addicted to violence and crime. The violence and crime committed against the heroic Venezuelan people was so intolerable that it can never be forgotten, and a return will never be allowed to the shameful past of the pre-revolutionary era which led to attacks on commercial centers and the murder of thousands of people, the number of which no one can today confirm.”

He referred to Venezuela’s oil resources: “With less than 1% of the world’s surface area, Venezuela possesses the world’s greatest oil reserves. For a full century, the country was obliged to produce all the fuel which European powers and the United States needed.”

Today’s imperialist interference in Venezuela, and propaganda by the mainstream turns clear if the old days of corruption and squandering of the Venezuelan rich class, their external alliance, and Venezuela’s resources are not forgotten.

Fidel, in the message, raises a question that actually is an answer: “Why are the fabulous means of communication not used to inform and educate about these realities, instead of promoting trickery, which everyone in their right mind should recognize?”

He mentions Venezuela’s preference to peaceful approach: “Venezuela has stated in a very precise manner that it has always been disposed to talk with the United States, in a peaceful and civilized fashion, but will never tolerate threats or impositions on the part of this country.”

The position exposes the opposite propaganda being carried out by the mainstream media. Countries that face imperialist interference have the same experience.

There is always a question in countries like Venezuela: Imperialist power use armed forces against government elected by people. Countries are “rich” with this experience.

Fidel mentions the factor in his message: “Whatever the US imperialism may do, it will never be able to count on” the armed forces of Venezuela “to do what they did for so many years. … [T]hey were ready to give their last drop of blood for the homeland.”

On March 9, 2015, in another message to Maduro, Fidel said: “I congratulate you on your brilliant and courageous speech against the brutal plans of the US government. Your words go down in history as proof that humanity can and must know the truth.”

On the same day in a statement the Cuban government told its position on the US aggressive measure against Venezuela. Earlier, an executive order by the US president against the Venezuela government declared the Bolivarian republic a threat to US national security. The order is a reprisal for the measures taken by Venezuela in defense of its sovereignty against the US interventionist actions.

The interventionist actions were exposed as the Cuban statement said: “[S]uch a statement during a year in which legislative elections will be held in Venezuela reaffirms once again the interventionist nature of US foreign policy.”

It questioned: “How does Venezuela threaten the United States? Thousands of kilometers away, without strategic weapons and without employing resources no official to plot against US constitutional order,” the US executive order “is unbelievable, and lays bare the intentions of those who have come up with it.”
Not only Venezuela, other countries have also experienced similar interventionist actions. But, unfortunately, all of those were not exposed. Even, parts of political forces claiming to be anti-imperialist have not discussed those. People have not been made aware of imperialist intervention. Rather many of the interventionist measures and announcements are considered “helpful” to democracy.

Reiterating unconditional support to the Venezuela government and the nation of Venezuela the statement said: “Nobody has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state or to declare it, without grounds, a threat to its national security.”

The statement declared: “Just as Cuba was never alone, Venezuela will not be either.”

In January 2014 at a summit in Havana, governments of Latin America and the Caribbean countries declared the region a Zone of Peace. But imperialism persists with its interventionist design.

Fidel’s messages and Cuba’s statement are reflection of the situation in the hemisphere, which has experienced imperialist interventions for years. It’s still continuing. Still there are imperialist threats, subversions and interventions.

Imperial interference rejected

But the region is different today. The stand the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) has taken is a reflection of the changed reality. The union extended strong support to Venezuela. UNASUR in an emergency summit addressing the aggressions from the US president Obama extended the support.

A statement issued after the meeting said: UNASUR rejects the US government’s executive order declaring Venezuela a threat to national security. The statement described the US executive order as “interference” and a “threat to sovereignty and to the principle of non-intervention.” It called upon the US “to evaluate and implement dialogue as an alternative” and for the “derogation of the Executive Order.”

The rejection shows the empire’s isolation in the hemisphere, and repudiation of imperialist practice.

The significant position of the union was made clear as the statement said: UNASUR believes “the internal situation in Venezuela shall be resolved through the democratic mechanisms established in the Venezuelan Constitution.”

“Democracy” defined by imperialism, and its practices to impose that “democracy” are also rejected as the union emphasized the democratic mechanism detailed in the constitution of Venezuelan.

Later, Delcy Rodriguez, foreign minister of Venezuela, said in an interview: “UNASUR has stood firm against imperialism”, and the union is “aware of the seriousness” of the threat “not only for Venezuela but for the whole region”.

Referring to the UNASUR statement Rodriguez said: “We know Venezuela is not alone”.

The important part of the situation was indicated as she said: “If there were to be an intervention on Venezuela, we wouldn’t know when it would move beyond our borders.”

It’s not only the union, Cristina Fernandez, Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Daniel Ortega, presidents of Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaraguan respectively, and other leaders in the region have also rejected the US measure.

With the position expressed in the statements a broader perspective emerges. Unity of the countries in the region is one part of the perspective. Isolation of the empire is another part.

It’s not a group of leaders’ unity. A people across the region or peoples in countries in the region have made the unity possible. It would have been impossible for the leaders to take the position without the peoples’ aspiration, urge and support. A long political work is required for such a support by people.
A long period of imperial subjugation, dictation, control, political and military intervention, plunder, and the imperial backing to murderous regimes played a part in political education of the peoples in countries. There were other parts including non-sold out and non-stupid leaders and organizations in the political education process.

$1 billion

A bold step has been taken by Venezuela while implementation of the design for intervention by its opponents is going on. The highly efficient mainstream media failed to report the Venezuelan step although scarcity of toilet paper in Caracas is repeatedly reported by it. Its reports over the last few weeks show the toilet paper-trend.

Venezuela serviced its debt with a US$1 billion payment in mid-March, 2015. The mainstream manufactured myth – Venezuela is on the verge of a default – has been busted. Maduro said: “Venezuela will continue to meet its international obligations in 2015 … one by one.” Rodolfo Marco Torres, the country’s finance minister, said: “The Bolivarian government meets all of its national and international obligations.” Torres also informed: Venezuela made an interest payment on its 2015 Euro bonds.

Violation of sovereignty

The Bolivarian republic’s position is expressed in an open letter to the US people. The March 17, 2015 letter by Maduro said: Venezuela is not a threat. It said: “[O]ur people believe in peace and respect for all nations…. [O]ur fathers founded a Republic on the basis that all persons are free and equal under the law….Our nation made the greatest sacrifices to guarantee South American people their right to choose their rulers and to enforce their own laws today.” Referring to history the letter said: “In two centuries of independence, we have never attacked another nation. Our people live in a region of peace, free of weapons of mass destruction, and in freedom to practice all religions. We uphold respect for international law and the sovereignty of all people of the world.”
Citing present condition the letter said: “We have freedom of press and we are enthusiastic users of social media.”

Indicating to historical relationship between the peoples of the US and Venezuela the letter said: “The histories of our people have been connected since the beginning of our struggles for freedom. Francisco de Miranda, a Venezuelan hero, fought with the American people during their independence fight. We share the idea that freedom and independence are fundamental elements for the development of our nations.”

It referred to business relations between the two countries: “Historically, we have shared business relations in strategic areas. Venezuela has always been a responsible and trustful energy provider for the American people. Since 2005, Venezuela has provided ‘heating oil’ through subsidies for low-income communities in the United States … This contribution has helped tens of thousands of American citizens survive in harsh conditions, giving them relief, and necessary support in times of need …”

The letter cited the executive order issued by Obama as “a disproportionate action”, “unilateral and aggressive measure … in violation of basic principles of sovereignty and self-determination under international law”.

It referred to the unanimous rejection of the US measure by all 33 nations of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the 12 member-states of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR).

It termed the US executive order issued “without any authority to interfere in our internal affairs … with potentially far-reaching implications”, and “interfering in our constitutional order and our justice system.”

It further said: “[O]ur world must be based on the rules of international law, without interference in the internal affairs of other countries.”

The letter said: “Never before in the history of our nations, has a president of the United States attempted to govern Venezuelans by decree. It is a tyrannical and imperial order and it pushes us back into the darkest days of the relationship between the United States and Latin America and the Caribbean.”

Addressing the US people it said: “We alert our American brothers and sisters, lovers of justice and freedom, of the illegal aggression committed by your government on your behalf.”

The letter made the following demands:

(1) Immediately cease hostile actions against Venezuelan people and democracy.

(2) Abolish the executive order that declares Venezuela a threat to US national security.

(3) Retract US government’s libelous and defamatory statements and actions against the Venezuelan officials who have just obeyed laws and constitution of Venezuela.

The letter said: “Our sovereignty is sacred.” It reiterated Venezuela’s position: “The defense of our freedom is a right we shall never give up …. Independence or nothing”

The Venezuelan position shows path to countries that face imperialist interference. For the “poor” world, it’s the path to follow that requires making people aware of imperialist interference, mobilizing people, creating space for people’s participation in social, economic and political life.

Farooque Chowdhury is Dhaka-based freelancer.

18 March, 2015
Countercurrents.org