Archives: Articles

By Jon Queally

With reporting from the New York Times revealing new consideration by the Obama administration to send $3 billion worth of weaponry and military equipment to Ukraine, concerns over a deepening civil war between the Ukraine Army and the eastern rebel factions who reject the authority of the government in Kiev are rising rapidly.

On Monday, Alexander Zakharchenko, president of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic in the east, has reportedly announced plans to recruit 100,00 men to fuel the eastern region’s ongoing battle with the Ukraine Army, which receives backing from both the U.S. and the NATO alliance.

As fighting intensifed in Donetsk, Vuhlehirsk, Debaltseve and other eastern cities on Sunday and into Monday, the Times reported how NATO’s high commander as well as top members of Obama’s national security team are again discussing plans to send more weapons to the war-torn and divided nation.

Reuters reports on Monday:

 

Municipal authorities in Donetsk said 15 civilians were killed over the weekend by shells, mortars or other missiles that hit residential areas of the city which is controlled by the separatists.

To the northeast of Donetsk, the Russian-backed rebels kept up attacks to dislodge government forces from the small town of Debaltseve, a strategic rail hub, in fighting which has grown more intense since peace talks collapsed on Saturday.

Kiev military authorities said separatist forces launched more than a 100 attacks by artillery, rocket systems and tank fire on Ukrainian positions and residential areas in the past 24 hours.

Despite indications that the shelling of Donetsk and other rebel strongholds by the Ukraine Army is resulting in devastating civilian casualties, the reporting indicates White House and Pentagon support for more advanced arms is increasing:
Secretary of State John Kerry, who plans to visit Kiev on Thursday, is open to new discussions about providing lethal assistance, as is Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who is leaving his post soon, backs sending defensive weapons to the Ukrainian forces.

In recent months, Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, has resisted proposals to provide lethal assistance, several officials said. But one official who is familiar with her views insisted that Ms. Rice was now prepared to reconsider the issue.

The $3 billion figure and the specific style of weapons mentioned by the Times—including anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees and radars—are drawn from a report expected Monday authored by several high-ranking former U.S. officials.

According to the Times:
Michèle A. Flournoy, a former senior Pentagon official who is a leading candidate to serve as defense secretary if Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected president, joined in preparing the report. Others include James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as the top NATO military commander, and Ivo Daalder, the ambassador to NATO during Mr. Obama’s first term.

“The West needs to bolster deterrence in Ukraine by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive,” the report says. “That requires providing direct military assistance — in far larger amounts than provided to date and including lethal defensive arms.”

This mindset, however, which calls for military escalation over renewed efforts to settle the crisis in Ukraine diplomatically is generating cautions of warning from experts on U.S./Russian relations. As the increased fighting has led many to say the peace agreement reached in Minsk last year has collapsed, the threat of wider war—with the U.S. and Russia governing their respective proxies within Ukraine—various dangers are rapidly converging.

Last week, former Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev accused the U.S. of pulling Russia into a new Cold War that faces the risk of further escalation.

“I can no longer say that this Cold War will not lead to a ‘Hot War.’ I fear [the U.S.] could risk it,” Gorbachev said. “All you hear is about sanctions towards Russia from America and the European Union. Have they totally lost their heads? The U.S. has been totally ‘lost in the jungle’ and is dragging us there as well.”

As far as veteran reporter Eric Margolis is concerned, the stakes in Ukraine could not be higher. For one thing, as he reminded readers in his latest column over the weekend, rule number one of geopolitics should be this: “nuclear-armed powers must never, ever fight.” Secondly, he argues, what is happening with U.S. and NATO involvement in Ukraine is classic “mission creep” of the most dangerous kind. He writes:
The war-craving neocons in Washington and their allies in Congress and the Pentagon have long wanted to pick a fight with Russia and put it in its place for daring to oppose US policies against Iran, Syria and Palestine. What neocons really care about is the Mideast.

Some neocon fantasies call for breaking up the Russian Federation into small, impotent parts. Many Russians believe this is indeed Washington’s grand strategy, mixing military pressure on one hand and social media subversion on the other, aided by Ukrainian oligarchs and rightists. A massive propaganda campaign is underway, vilifying Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin as “the new Hitler.”

The concerns of Margolis are shared by another veteran journalist, reporter and editor Robert Parry, who argues the uncritical backing of the Kiev government by the U.S. government and the march towards increased military intervention has all the hallmarks of the infamous clamor of war that led to the unprovoked U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Taking aim at the important role of the nation’s most prominent media outlets when it comes to Ukraine policy, Parry writes:
From the start of the Ukraine crisis in fall 2013, the New York Times, the Washington Post and virtually every mainstream U.S. news outlet have behaved as dishonestly as they did during the run-up to war with Iraq. Objectivity and other principles of journalism have been thrown out the window. The larger context of both Ukrainian politics and Russia’s role has been ignored.

Again, it’s all been about demonized “bad guys” – in this case, Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych and Russia’s elected President Vladimir Putin – versus the “pro-Western good guys” who are deemed model democrats even as they collaborated with neo-Nazis to overthrow a constitutional order.

Again, the political is made personal: Yanukovych had a pricy sauna in his mansion; Putin rides a horse shirtless and doesn’t favor gay rights. So, if you raise questions about U.S. support for last year’s coup in Ukraine, you somehow must favor pricy saunas, riding shirtless and holding bigoted opinions about gays.

Anyone who dares protest the unrelentingly one-sided coverage is deemed a “Putin apologist” or a “stooge of Moscow.” So, most Americans – in a position to influence public knowledge but who want to stay employable – stay silent, just as they did during the Iraq War stampede.

In that context, those trying to supplant the recent violence and that dominant media narrative which surrounds it, are themselves fighting an uphill battle.

Last week, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman told the Security Council that a political solution to the conflict in Ukraine was urgent.

“Over 5,000 lives have already been lost in this conflict,” Feltman said. “We must find a way to stop it and must do so now.”

So far, however, it appears those urgings have found little traction.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

02 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Ram Puniyani

Words are not mere words; they do indicate our values and the basis of our association when it comes to the books like Constitution of India. Recently the controversy was created by dropping the words Secular and Socialist from Indian Constitution’s preamble in the advertisement released by the Modi Government on the eve of Republic day. When it was questioned how come these words are missing, which are part of the preamble, BJP leaders jumped to say that this is the ‘original’ Constitutions’ preface. Ravi Shanker Prasad, the union minister retorted that Nehru and Ambedkar, were no less secular, still these words were not put in the Constitution in 1950. At that time Nehru was Prime Minister and Ambedkar was the Chief of the drafting committee. BJP’s political ally Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut stated that these words should be deleted for good as we are neither socialist nor secular. His mentor, late Bal Thackeray had time and again said that this is a Hindu nation. There was good opposition to this retrograde move all around. In the face of strong resistance to this step of the Government, finally Arun Jaitly went on to say that from now on the prevalent Constitution’s preamble, with words secularism and socialism, alone will be used.

It is true that the words Socialist and Secular were not there in the original Constitution which was implemented in 1950. The values of Socialism, equitable distribution of wealth, social control on resources were the spirit of the policies for a long time. When the word Socialism was introduced it was felt that it was the right approach to our economic policies, and that’s how the current ruling party, BJP also used the word Gandhian Socialism as its ideology in 1980.

With Modi Government coming to power, its policies are a signal that Corporate will have unabashed control over social resources. Also the signals are that policies which were meant to act as protective clauses for the weak and marginalized will be done away with. So with the new dispensation the word Socialism is a big embarrassment. Whatever little control state tended to exercise in economic domain is now over after this Government has come to power. Just to recall that the industrial giants were the major funders of Modi campaign.

As for as secularism is concerned it had been the inherent spirit of Indian Constriction, as the articles 25 and 26 elaborate the secular nature of the state. The whole Constitution is seeped with secular values. The addition of these words in the preamble during the dreaded emergency regime was mostly due to the fact that the authoritarian regime wanted to get some legitimacy for itself, so these two words might have been added. These words did not negate the spirit of our Constitution but as such are a value addition to what we had.

So why this subtle move to delete these words from the advertisement? Shiv Sena spokesperson said even if this might have happened by mistake, let’s make it permanent. The core point is that BJP and its ally Shiv Sena are uncomfortable with the secularism as a guiding principle of our nation, our state, as their political agenda is totally opposed to upholding pluralism, diversity and protection of minority rights in our country. Right from the beginning they have upheld Hindutva i.e. Hindu nationalism as their ideology in contrast to secularism-Indian nationalism. Times and again as the opportunity comes they articulate it and depending on their electoral political strength they try to implement a course towards Hindu nation. Due to their recent electoral success they feel more emboldened to express this openly.

True that these words were included during emergency, it’s also true that the Janata Party which came to power had sworn that they will undo the ‘emergency amendments’, once they come to power, still they did not touch these words as it was clear that any such attempt will be opposed by the large section of Indians. One should note that the stalwarts of BJP, Vajpayee and Advani, were part of that Government. After demolition of Babri Mosque, the word Hindu Rashtra came more in to bigger prominence. Later once NDA coalition came to power in 1998 they expressed this subtly by forming ‘Constitution Review’ committee. Again, seeing the massive opposition from the people, the NDA government withheld the implementation of the committee report.

Now with majority in the parliament for BJP, this move can be seen as an attempt to test the waters to see as to how far the BJP government can go ahead with their agenda of Hindu nationalism. As the matters stand, seeing the protests and campaigns against BJP’s move, they have finally decided to use only the preamble with words Secular and Socialist. This attempt of removal of this word secular cannot be seen in isolation. This was running in parallel with all-round enfoldment of agenda of RSS combine. There is an assertive talk by RSS that, we are all Hindus, this is a Hindu nation. At the same time other voices operate at different level and ask for bringing in Gita as the national book. Within BJP itself there are supplementary forces that denigrated religious minorities by calling them Haram jade, and glorify the killer of Mahatma Gandhi as a patriot. At yet another level, the communal combine is out to intensify the polarization of society along religious lines, so burning of a Church here, the incident or throwing corpse of a pig in a holy place, the campaigns of Ghar Vapasi, and targeting of youth in the name of love jihad are painfully present on the plate of communal politics.

The fathers of Indian Constitution brought in the core values of India’s freedom movement. The ones, who are currently demanding a deletion or debate to on these words are the ones’ who are opposed to Indian Nationalism and want to march towards Hindu nationalism. They also don’t identify with India’s freedom movement. The battle is not merely around this or that word, its battle between upholding the spirit of Indian freedom movement versus nationalism in the name of religion.

Ram Puniyani was a professor in biomedical engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, and took voluntary retirement in December 2004 to work full time for communal harmony in India.

31 January, 2015
Indiaresists.com

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

The ‘Movement of Movements’ against Fast Tracking the TPP has the power to win

Since the President’s State of the Union message where he announced his plan to push corporate trade agreements and seek Fast Track trade promotion authority, the movement against Fast Track, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and globalized trade has grown. Instead of the bump in support that Obama expected after the State of the Union, opposition has increased inside Congress and in the grass roots.

Indications are that we are winning, and if we continue to mobilize over the next two months, we will win.

Mobilization

Before the President’s speech there was already a large movement organized from across the political spectrum to oppose Fast Track and stop corporate trade agreements.

When we took action on Capitol Hill this week, we did so as part of a larger campaign to stop Fast Track. The US Trade Rep Michael Froman testified before the House and Senate. It was essential for him to be confronted at these hearings because he has consistently misled the Congress and the people. There are multiple false statements to dissect, but his latest is the claim that Fast Track will give Congress the power to shape the negotiations. This is a laughable lie since the negotiations have been carried on in secret for most of Obama’s Presidency. How can Congress shape negotiations that Froman claims are near completion?

The truth is that Fast Track removes Congress from the equation. It allows the President to sign trade agreements before sending them to Congress for a brief review of thousands of pages of documents; without committee hearings and only brief debate on the floor. Then Congress has an up or down vote with no amendments. Under Fast Track, Congress would be unable to fulfill its responsibilities under the Commerce Clause to regulate trade. It is also a tremendous grant of power to President Obama.

After the President’s speech there was a protest at a town hall of Oregon Senator Ron Wyden. Wyden is a key player as the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. He has played both sides of the debate and the movement needs to monitor him closely and hold him accountable. If he cannot reach agreement with Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, then Fast Track is unlikely to pass the Senate. This week Senator Grassley said that currently they don’t have 60 votes in support of Fast Track and therefore it could not pass a filibuster. If Wyden demands that Congress sees the text of the TPP and has true involvement in the negotiations before they are finalized, then he and Hatch will not reach agreement and the Republicans will have to go it alone.

In the House there are even more challenges for Fast Track. Chuck Porcari of the Communication Workers (CWA) writes:

“House Speaker John Boehner has said that the White House needs to deliver at least 50 House Democrats if Fast Track has any hopes of passing, especially now that the White House is trying to whip together 80 Democrats in the House and New Democrat Coalition is trying to cobble together at most 40 votes. . . . According to a story by Inside U.S. Trade, ‘one informed source questioned whether the New Democrats actually have an idea of which lawmakers will provide the 40 ‘yes’ votes they are seeking.’”

When the TPP negotiators met in New York City this week, people showed up to protest the negotiations despite a winter blizzard. The protests were organized by Trade Justice New York and included the Teamsters, 350.org NY, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Fight for the Future, Food and Water Watch, Veterans for Peace, Citizens for Safe Energy, Popular Resistance and a host of other organizations. Despite snow, the crowd was too large to stay in front of the Sheraton and police forced them across the street. After the protest, they marched to protest Senator Chuck Schumer, a member of the Finance Committee and the Democratic Party leadership in the Senate.

In the first week after the President’s speech there were 10,000 phone calls opposing Fast Track made to Congress, according to Arthur Stamoulis of Citizens Trade Campaign. These phone calls will continue to escalate. We urge people to call; go to StopFastTrack.com which will contact your legislator for you and provide you with talking points. Phone calls make a difference when tied to a campaign that includes on-the-ground protests, meetings with congressional representatives and media work. We know that this movement can generate tens of thousands of calls and are confident it will do so again.

NAFTA has changed the Politics of Trade

There are many differences between the debate over trade today and the 1990s era debate over NAFTA. The major difference now is people know that corporate trade agreements favor transnational corporations but undermine people and the environment. At the same time, politicians know they are risking their political careers by supporting corporate trade agreements.

In Trade and Consequences: Dems Forget Political Impact of NAFTA, the author reminds us that:

“From the get-go, the pursuit of NAFTA was damaging to Democrats . . .With pro-labor and pro-environment congressional Democrats lined up against business oriented New Democrats in their own caucus and the White House . . . when the elections came around, Clinton’s advocacy of NAFTA seriously hurt the Democrats.”

The political fall-out from NAFTA was severe. In 1994 there was a tremendous backlash to the policies of Bill Clinton. The result was a 54-seat swing in membership from Democrats to Republicans. For the first time since 1952, Republicans gained a majority of the House. Democrats have still not recovered from this electoral slaughter. But, Republicans should realize that if they go it alone on Fast Track, the Democrats will reap the political benefit from these trade agreements which always lose jobs, expand the wealth divide and increase trade deficits.

The political winds on corporate trade have been blowing strongly negative in recent years. In a 2008 Gallup Poll, 53% of Americans said that NAFTA had a primarily negative effect on the economy; only 37% said the effect had been positive. As a result President Obama took an anti-NAFTA campaign stance saying “NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people” and promised to “fix” the agreement so it “works for American workers.” Obama claimed he would seek renegotiation of NAFTA to include more rigorous labor and environmental stipulations. Now, he is negotiating even worse deals in the Trans-Atlantic and Pacific partnerships.
By December 2012 polling indicated “U.S. public opinion has intensified from broad opposition to overwhelming opposition to NAFTA-style trade deals,” citing

“U.S. respondents who believe that the United States should ‘renegotiate’ or “leave” NAFTA outnumbered by nearly 4-to-1 those that say the country should ‘continue to be a member’ (53 vs.15 percent). Support for the ‘leave’ or ‘renegotiate’ positions dominated among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats alike.”

The 2012 presidential campaign played on these views; spending “an unprecedented $68 million—about $34 million each—in ads attacking more-of-the-same trade policies. Trade-themed presidential ads aired an estimated 83,000 times in 2012, more than twice the number of trade-related airings in 2008.”

Perhaps more importantly for the current debate in Congress, in the 2012 congressional elections, 57% of candidates in competitive races campaigned against trade deals:

“Out of more than 125 paid ads used by congressional candidates across 30 U.S. states, only one indicated support for any trade deals modeled on NAFTA. (It was from GOP candidate Linda Lingle, who lost her bid for Hawaii’s Senate seat.) The same was seen in the Senate where ‘candidates who employed ads against status quo trade won seats in Connecticut, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.’”

And, these views continue through current times as Dave Johnson writes: “The public gets it that our NAFTA-style trade agreements have sucked jobs out of the country. They get it that we need a national plan to restore our manufacturing ecosystem. They get it that we need to invest in maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure.”

Even politicians who have supported trade in the past are expressing doubts. The Teamsters reported on Froman’s testimony writing “Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said to Froman, ‘If trade agreements can’t show they’re going to help the middle class…I’ve got some real problems with them.’” And in a theme heard throughout the day: “Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, criticized the TPP talks because members of Congress are severely constrained from reviewing the text. He also grilled Froman on the failure of the S. Korea trade deal to create the jobs promised.”

Huffington Post reports another area of bi-partisan opposition came from “Senator Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Rob Portman (D-Ohio), who pressed Froman on the issue of currency manipulation — an economic strategy in which a nation devalues its own currency in order to attract jobs from abroad without reducing its workers’ standard of living. Grassley asked Froman twice if currency manipulation had been raised in the TPP talks, without getting an answer.” Even though almost 250 members of this Congress signed letters in the previous Congress saying this issue is critical for their support.

The Movement against Corporate Trade has Grown Deeper, Broader and Stronger

The movement has broadened because the current trade agreements cover much more than trade, impacting every aspect of our lives. Leo Gerard of the US Steelworkers writes:

“Supersized trade agreements now intrude on every area of life, from food safety to generic drugs to national sovereignty. They can extend patents that make life-saving drugs unaffordable. They can forbid country-of-origin labeling on food. They can outlaw requirements that American taxpayer-financed road and bridge projects use materials made in America. They can allow multinational corporations to sue governments for damages if a law to protect the public reduces profits. They can commit the United States to pay fines or revise laws if an international tribunal orders it.”

Another reason for stronger opposition is the experience with NAFTA and other corporate trade deals. Teamster Mike Dolan writes in a report on how to fight the corporate trade agenda:

“The NAFTA and WTO and their progeny have cost the U.S. millions of jobs lost through outsourcing and cheap imports, and it is the definition of insanity to continue the same trade model and expect different outcomes. The new crop of trade talks, these alleged high-end, 21st century agreements, are so big and complex, and intrude on so much of the substantive jurisdiction of law-makers and regulators, that the old-fashioned Fast Track is a completely inappropriate delegation―an abdication even―of Congressional Authority.”

The NAFTA impact can be seen in changes in the environmental movement. During NAFTA, Mike Dolan reports seven Big Green environmental groups provided Clinton cover: World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, Conservation International and Audubon Society. Now the environmental impact is evident and the environmental crisis has worsened. Fresh Greens have taken a more aggressive stand preventing Big Greens from providing Obama cover. Their demand now, echoed by many in Congress, is enforceable environmental standards. The agreements negotiated by Obama have less environmental protection than those negotiated by George W. Bush –leaks show they have no environmental protection.

Dolan also points out that consumers have joined the anti-corporate trade movement because food and water, health care and medicines, data and privacy as well as the future of the Internet are all adversely impacted by these trade deals. He points to mainstream groups like the American Association of Retired Persons, Breast Cancer Action, AllergyKids Foundation and the Alliance for Natural Health U.S.A, the Council for Responsible Genetics, Food Democracy Now and Moms Across America.
The threat to the future of the Internet has brought groups like Fight For the Future into the battle against Fast Track along with Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and Free Press.

While NAFTA is good for agribusiness, it is not good for traditional farmers. Dolan writes “three great farmer groups, . . . the National Farmers Union (NFU), founded 1902, representing farmers and ranchers in all states; the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), founded 1986, and its 24 constituent grassroots groups in 32 states; and the Institute for Agricultural and Trade Policy (IATP), the preeminent progressive think-tank at the intersection of globalization and farming” now oppose corporate trade agreements. Similarly, the Organic Consumers Association which has an Internet following of over one million people opposes corporate trade.

Another area of large growth has been faith-based groups. The Vatican has spoken out on trade because of its adverse impact on developing countries, facilitation of corporate tax evasion and exploitation of workers and natural resources. The Sisters of Mercy oppose corporate trade because of their concerns about immigration, non-violence, anti-racism, women’s rights, and the Earth. Protestant groups opposing NAFTA-like trade include the United Methodists, Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ. The Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers have been long time opponents of corporate trade. And, conservative religious groups oppose the trade agreements because they include countries that are hostile to Christianity.

Of course, a backbone of opposition to corporate trade is labor. Teamster Mike Dolan lists other key players the “United Auto Workers, The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, United Steelworkers of America, the Communication Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, and the Union of Needletrades and Industrial Textile Employees, affiliates of Public Services International, including AFSCME and the American Federation of Teachers, Service Employees International Union.”

How We Win

The movement opposed to corporate trade is larger – representing tens of millions of Americans; broader – representing people concerned about food, water, healthcare, the Internet, workers’ rights, the environment, banking regulation and more; and more committed because they have seen degradation of the economy and environment by NAFTA and similar corporate trade agreements.

The key is for this movement to mobilize now. The next two months will decide whether corporate trade is finished for the remainder of President Obama’s term in office. If people take action (go to www.StopFastTrack.com), we will win.

There is also a week of national actions being planned in February during the congressional recess. Take the pledge at www.FlushtheTPP.org to get involved and stay informed.

This is a battle between mass people power and trans-national corporate power. It is a battle the people can win, and it is essential for every issue we care about that we win.

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers are co-directors of Popular Resistance. Both were arrested for protesting Fast Track in the US Senate.

31 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Dan Lieberman

A number of Jewish commentators have criticized a bill that could officially classify Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. Haaretz, the conscience of Israel, December 1, 2014, presented Five must-read opinion pieces about Israel ‘s nation-state bill , which can be accessed at http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.629450

These opinion pieces, as others, focus on the bill as a betrayal of a functioning democracy, contradiction to the Zionist Declaration of Independence , and confirmation of Israel’s racism and exclusivity. They fail to examine (1) why the urge to debate the bill, (2) how it relates to the sudden dissolution of parliament and the call for new elections, (3) the disastrous effects on world Jewry, (4) that the bill does not create a Jewish state but replaces the Israeli state with an association of communities who can debate what is being Jewish, and (5) the diversion of world Jewry from its accomplishments and replacing them with those of a loosely related Israelite ? an atavistic member of a community that composed a significant Bible but did not create a significant nation or civilization.

Passed by a 14-7 vote of the cabinet, and sent to the parliament where its endorsement has been delayed, the controversial bill contains 14 principles that guide the drafting of the new law, which seeks to “define the identity of the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and to anchor the values of the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state in the spirit of the principles of the Declaration of the Independence ;” that is spirit and not context.

The urge to debate the bill

Israel has always steered the debates. Try to talk illegal land seizures, illegal settlements, violations of United Nations regulations, oppression of Palestinians, excessive force, war crimes and Israel will steer the debate to terrorism, security needs, being unfairly singled out, combating anti-Semitism, and let’s remember the Holocaust.

The worn out clichés are becoming ineffective – charges against Israel’s practices are growing and the world is demanding changes in Israel’s oppressive and illegal policies.

What does the team do when in trouble? Punt.

In this case, change the subject. Get a new discourse for the world to hotly debate – start talking about “ the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people,’ and engage the usual army of a million plus sympathizers to start the polemic by filling the blank words in the standard template, “I love Israel with all my heart but _______________, with “I’m not sure that the State of Israel should be defined as the nation-state of the Jewish people.” This will give courage others to state opinions, pro and con, and soon a vigorous debate will follow that drowns out talk about “two-state solutions,” continued illegal settlements, dispossessing Palestinians and all the oppressive mechanisms that are making the world see the real Israel. No matter the course of debate, debating truth and accepting falsehoods endlessly to a passive result rather than listening to truth and exposing falsehoods succinctly to an active objective, permits Israel to use the sheltered time to strengthen its illegal and oppressive policies.
Sudden dissolution of parliament and call for new elections
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s announced he was disbanding his governing coalition because two of his political partners — Finance Minister Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid Party and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni of Hatnua — were colluding with ultra orthodox factions behind the scenes to replace him. Not too convincing.

If changing the discourse does not distract the growing chorus of critics, most prominent being the U.S. administration, then dissolving parliament and discussing new elections will keep the U.S. and others at a distance. Convince critics that an election provides the opportunity to replace Netanyahu and his cabinet with a progressive, peace loving and human rights oriented Knesset, and the game plan can continue for a long time.

J-Street has already set the tone with its announcement.

1. All signs point to this being a “change election.” Prime Minister Netanyahu is highly unpopular–over 60 percent of voters having an unfavorable opinion of him and only barely more than 30 percent wanting him re-elected.

2. Polls show that parties on the center and center-left could emerge with enough seats to be able to form the next government. Two polls have now come out showing that if Labor leader Isaac Herzog runs with Hatnuah leader Tzipi Livni, their combined list would emerge with the most seats.

3. The party likely to grow the most is the settler party led by the far-right Naftali Bennett, and that’s simply frightening for those of us who believe in democratic values and in two states.

4. The party likely to lose the most is Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid – more than half of whose voters will likely scatter to the right, left and center of the political map.

5. The most significant new player for you to meet this cycle? Former Likud Minister Moshe Kahlon, whose new party could hold the key to forming the next government.

Two contradictions to the usual “good-guy” and “bad-guy” approach to Israeli politics, in which the “bad-guys” are always the party in power and the “good-guys” are the newly formed opposition.

(1) Why did Netanyahu dissolve the government and call for new elections? Israel is always in crisis and this government did not have any unique crisis or was paralyzed.

(2) It has never mattered which political Party governed – all governments, Labor included, have promoted illegal settlements, war with neighbors, illegal seizures of Palestinian lands, obstruction of Palestinian movements, checkpoints, raids on Palestinians, and inability to negotiate a solution to the crises.

• Labor started the settlements after fighting the 1967 war, continued them when in power, and never dismantled those ruled illegal.

• Labor’s Ehud Barack could not negotiate a peace treaty with the Palestinians.

• All Labor governments have proclaimed Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.

• During September, 2000, when Labor gained government rule, Ariel Sharon was allowed to make his infamous walk on the Haram al-Sharif, which provoked the 2nd Intifada.

• Labor defense Minister Ehud Barack was responsible for Operation Cast Lead, the 2008-2009 war on Gaza.

Did the last Labor government coalition, back in 2000-2001, behave much differently than previous or succeeding governments?

Disastrous effects on world Jewry

Why are a relatively few legislators in one nation able to declare their nation as the nation-state of the Jewish people? Who among the world’s 15 million Jews gave them the authority?

It is strange that the mass of the world’s Jews do not rise in anger, especially because the law will have disastrous effects on them. By relating all Jews more closely to the nation-state of the Jewish people, the law will perturb citizens of the countries in which Jews are citizens. This unique phenomena – being citizen of one nation and automatically associated with another nation – will arouse resentment and doubts as to the loyalty of Jews to the state in which they reside. For whom are they working? Are they prone to subversion?

The law places Jews as members of a borderless and international tribe.

Principle 6 of the bill, Aid to the Jewish people in distress states: “The State shall act to give aid to members of the Jewish people who are in distress and captivity because of their Jewishness.” Being as Israel has served as a money laundering facility for Russian oligarchs and as a haven for those fleeing financial crimes (as well as other crimes), this Principle might be interpreted as a subterfuge to assist Jews in any type of trouble or enable them to gain preference, which again stimulates belief in a Jewish conspiracy to acquire economic and political control. If other nations sense they could and should do the same with a preferred ethnicity, we may have a world with ethnic realignments leading to ethnic warfare – economically, politically and then physically.

Replaces the Israeli state with an association of communities
Despite Zionist protests and previous actions, eventual proposal for the law has been apparent from the day David Ben Gurion declared the Israeli state. There has never been consideration to give all Israeli citizens a common Israeli national identity, only a national identity – Jewish, Arab, Druze, Samaritan, Circassian, Kara’ite, or foreign nationality . Israel has gathered its Jews into a common identity, giving all its selective immigrants a common language, common culture, common history – forcing them to subdue their past history, language, music and culture. The artificial creation of a new Jewish Israeli has only been partially successful, its limitations seen by the composition of the Israeli Knesset.

In western democracies, all national political parties represent economic and social interests and proceed in their objectives with an attitude intended to convince that their policies will benefit all the electorate and the national interest. Some nations, such as Spain, have political Parties that represent regional interests, but these Parties are small and do not have much influence in the National Congress. Not so in Israel. Its ever changing political Parties (nothing much to do this year, let’s form a political Party) presently include several that might cooperate in running the government but represent specific ethnic interests that do not consider a national interest. The 2014 Knesset contains:
The Jewish Home Pa r ty , with 12 of 120 Knesset seats, and an objective of creating a nation governed by Jewish law. The party primarily represents Modern Orthodox Jews
Shas, with 11 seats and advocating a state run according to Jewish religious law. Shas primarily represents the interests of Mizrahi Jews, those from Arab countries.

Yisrael Beiteinu , with 12 seats, that describes itself as “a national movement with the clear vision to follow in the brave path of Zev Jabotinsky,” the founder of Revisionist Zionism. Although Yisrael Beiteinu attempts to appeal to all the Israeli public, most of its followers are Russian-speaking.

United Torah Judaism , 7 seats, which represents the ultra-Orthodox community and opposes the separation of religion and state.

Arab oriented Parties who have tried to be mainstream but allowed events to push them into a Palestinian agenda. In total, the Arab parties have 11 members in the Knesset.

Zionist intention to give Jews an identity as a people and artificially create a new Jew, the Israeli Jew, has been contradicted by the vast number of Jews who attach themselves to a community and reject a national agenda. Israel, without a constitution, without borders, without a common identity for all its citizens is an evolving state and not yet a nation. Calling itself “ the nation-state of the Jewish people,” reverses it from evolution to devolution, to becoming a country consisting of competing communities and not one with a trajectory toward an actual nation of citizens with common national aspirations. Israel must become a nation before declaring itself “ the nation-state of the Jewish people.” Saluting itself as the latter will prevent the former, which means Israel is not now and never will be a nation if the majority of its citizens disregard themselves as Israelis and only think of themselves as Jews.

Return of the Israelite
Some of the 14 principles of the nation-state bill are controversial, promoting a debate of the existence of Israel as a valid nation.

Principle 2 — Founding principles:

A. The land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and the birthplace of the State of Israel.

B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its right to self-determination according to its cultural and historic heritage.

C. The right to the fulfillment of national self-determination within the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.

D. The State of Israel is a democratic state, established on the foundations of liberty, justice and peace in light of the vision of the prophets of Israel, and realizes the individual rights of all its citizens under law.

These are not Principles – they are spurious statements that have no proven historical foundation.

Let us lay an improper reference to rest — once and for all — Jews around the world have an association with each other; so do Parsees, Buddhists, Mennonites, Basques, Mormons, Kara’ites, and a host of small religions, sects and ethnicities, but none of these constitute a nation.

Two persons make a people, but a people don’t make a nation. A nation refers to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and history. If it were otherwise, why has Israel’s thrust been to give its Jews the scaffolding of a new nation – a common language, culture, descent and history different from what they previously lived? The Mizrahi who came to Israel were Arabs; the Ashkenazi were western; the Falasha were Ethiopians and the Yemenites were from the Arabian Peninsula. The differing languages, dialects, music, cultures and heritage of these ethnicities were initially discarded and replaced by unique and uniform characteristics. And with this destruction of each community went the destruction of centuries old Jewish history and life in Tunisia, Iraq, Libya and Egypt. All these immigrants became a new Jew, an Israeli Jew, who had no proven aspects of the biblical Hebrews

The ancient Hebrews qualified as a people but not strongly – they halted in speaking Hebrew and spoke Aramaic, a language common to others in the area, and had discontinuous and fragile central administrations. Other than religious beliefs, myths and the writing of the Old Testament, the Jews of the biblical era did not pass on their culture or historical significance to succeeding generations.

The Jews that emerged from the Hebrews emigrated to different nations, eventually spoke different languages, acquired different customs, formed different institutions and no longer shared a common history. Unchained from the continual strife in a non-productive region, they spread throughout the world, loosely bound together by a common religion, shared myths and related values — a moral code that more equalized human beings and a Talmud that regulated parts of their life.

Ancient Israel was home to ancient Jews, but it is questionable that the area that is now Israel was the ancient home of modern Jews. When ethnicities speak of an ancient home, they speak, such as from the voices of Native Americans, of caring for the land or for hunting grounds, for attachment to a soil that nourished them. They may look back at a recognized civilization that gave the world new advances in either technology, culture, warfare, administration or other disciplines, of leaving identifiable physical traces that excite mankind. No such references to the ancient Hebrews.

The Jews in ancient Israel advanced laws that guided aspects of everyday life and associations by providing an incipient codification of oral traditions. Final codification of oral and written laws occurred centuries later in Mesopotamia with compilation of the Babylonian Talmud, which is now closely followed by only orthodox Jews. The Israelites also fostered the concept of humanism, an outlook that questioned divine rule and gave more importance to the worth of the human being. These became universal values, whose home was an entire world and not a restricted area.

Hebrews worked the land of Canaan but that is not the legacy they left. Attachment to the land and description of a magnificent Hebrew civilization are spiritual phenomenon, rendered by biblical writings that are not entirely supported by archaeology and history. The principal focus of attachment by modern Jews to ancient Israel is Jerusalem, and mainly due to remembrance of its Temple, one building, only one building, whose actual existence becomes more dubious each day; archaeology and history have reduced the biblical King Solomon, who has no existence in the historical record, to a minor chieftain, incapable of constructing a huge edifice, such as the first Temple. The constantly repeated, “If I forget thee O’ Jerusalem,” serves to continually remind Jews that Hebrews inhabited a specific ancient land and, by association to this one Temple, moves them to strangely claim to be heir to the entire ancient land.

Here we face the usual conundrum that disorients mankind – people will believe what favors them and react strongly against a reality that contradicts their beliefs. Nevertheless, a substantial number of independent and well qualified archaeologists, researchers and historians have capably refuted the biblical accounts that occurred before 800 B.C., the time of King Omri — the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.

All this is described by Professor Ze’ev Herzog Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho at:

http://individual.utoronto.ca/mfkolarcik/jesuit/herzog.html

A history of the ancient Hebrew people rests on the acceptance of the Old Testament as a historical narrative. Recently, the Bible has been shown to be a literature by a people and not an authentic history of a people — a saga with historical occurrences. Its tone, language and stories are mainly derived from Ugaritic literature of the 12th century B.C. Canaanite city-state of Ugarit and from previous Sumerian, Egyptian, Akkadian and other texts, stories and legends. From Ugarit and the Bible at http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

…when we listen to their voices we hear echoes of the Old Testament itself. Several of the Psalms were simply adapted from Ugaritic sources; the story of the flood has a near mirror image in Ugaritic literature; and the language of the Bible is greatly illuminated by the language of Ugarit .

Immediately before and during the Hasmoneon dynasty that controlled Israel between c.?140 BC and c.?116 BC Jews began to leave the Levant in sizeable numbers, moving to Alexandria, Mesopotamia, Cyrenacia, Cyprus, Antioch and Rome. The emigrants had opportunity to stay and those who previously left had the opportunity to return but evidently they had insufficient attachment to a Jewish nation. Soon the attachment was lost entirely as Jews spread throughout the Roman Empire and to the Fertile Crescent where they formed vital communities. By the year 1000 A.D., Mesopotamia and Persia contained 75% of world Jewry with the rest in North Africa and Western Europe.

Using the word “diaspora” to describe the displacement of world Jewry is deceptive. Similar to Basques who inhabit Spain and France, similar to Episcopalians who left Great Britain for America, similar to the Puritans and a myriad of other groups who fled persecution, similar to Chinese who stretched out to various parts of the world, the Jews sought wisdom, freedom and prosperity. Where they found those elements, they found home. If not, they found themselves in similar circumstances, except for brief periods, to the ancient Jews who inhabited Jerusalem – economically deprived, subjugated and persecuted – unable to escape their fate.

Principle 7 — Heritage:

A. The State shall act to preserve the cultural and historic heritage and tradition of the Jewish people, and to cultivate and foster them in Israel and the Diaspora.

B. In all educational institutions serving the Jewish public in Israel the annals of the Jewish people, its heritage and tradition, shall be studied.

C. The State shall act to enable all residents of Israel, without regard to religion, race or nationality, to act to preserve their culture, heritage, language and identity.

Outside of religious observances, it would be interesting to know the cultural and historic heritage and tradition of the Jewish people, what and how they shall be studied and how a foreign nation fosters them in the Diaspora.

In article C does that mean “all residents” and not “all citizens?” Why if “The State shall act to enable all residents of Israel, without regard to religion, race or nationality, to act to preserve their culture, heritage, language and identity,” did the Zionists limit these attributes in its immigrants and subdue the heritage of its Palestinian citizens?
Principle 8 — Official calendar:

The Hebrew calendar is the official calendar of the State.

Official calendar, and not just for holidays? Is this the lunarsolar calendar, which is eleven days shorter than the solar cycle? If so, why the need to confuse an Israeli public that is already satisfied with the Gregorian calendar and will be forced to adjust to another calendar that is an archaic measurement of the year? Does that mean everyone must have a Date Converter app?

Principle 11 — Hebrew law:

A. Jewish law shall serve as a source of inspiration for the Knesset.

B. If a court faces a legal question that must be decided, and cannot find an answer in legislation, precedent or clear deduction, it shall decide the matter in light of the principles of liberty, justice, integrity and peace in the heritage of Israel.

Rather vague and not well defined. What is Jewish law? Does this mean the re-establishment of the Sanhedrin, “the council of seventy-one Jewish sages who constituted the Supreme Court and legislative body in Judea during the Roman period?” Could be, but let us hope not.

In October 2004, a representative group of rabbis in a ceremony in Tiberius claimed re-establishment of the Sanhedrin. The new Sanhedrin has not been recognized by the Israeli government and is probably unknown to the vast majority of Israelis. If all knew what the Sanhedrin website at

http://www.thesanhedrin.net/en/index.php?title=Sanhedrin_Initiative#Conflicts_with_Israeli_government

regards as its authority, they would gasp.

One area where the Sanhedrin has offered extensive opinions is in the area of war and military policy. Based on the Mishnah’s statement “they may not send forth (the people) to a Milchemet Reshut (non-mandatory war) except by order of the court of seventy-one,” the new Sanhedrin has declared that it is “the authorized institution to decide in matters of military policy, issue definitive moral guidance to soldiers on active duty and in the reserves. It also comments on the current administration’s defense policy…” They clearly state “The commandment to ‘inherit and dwell’ (Deut. 12:29 ) in the Land of Israel is obligatory upon every Israeli government. In this regard Israel is commanded by G-d to conquer the entire expanse of the Land of Israel within its Biblical boundaries, including the Gaza strip.”

Evidently the Sanhedrin is already in control.

Dan Lieberman is editor of Alternative Insight, www.alternativeinsight.com , a commentary on foreign policy and politics.

31 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Niles Williamson

Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union, accused the United States Thursday of initiating a new Cold War with Russia and expressed fears that the conflict could escalate into a nuclear Third World War.

Gorbachev made his comments as fighting escalated in Ukraine between forces directed by the US- and European Union-backed government in Kiev and pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donbass region.

“Plainly speaking, the US has already dragged us into a new Cold War, trying to openly implement its idea of triumphalism,” the former Soviet leader told Interfax. “What’s next? Unfortunately, I cannot be sure that the Cold War will not bring about a ‘hot’ one. I’m afraid [the United States] might take the risk.”

He criticized the US and the EU for continuing to press for more economic sanctions against Russia. “All we hear from the US and the EU now is sanctions against Russia,” he continued. “Are they completely out of their minds? The US has been totally ‘lost in the jungle’ and is dragging us there as well.”

Earlier this month, Gorbachev gave an interview to the German news magazine Der Spiegel about the ongoing conflict between the US, EU and Russia over Ukraine. While he stated that it was “something that shouldn’t even be considered,” Gorbachev warned that a major war in Europe would “inevitably lead to a nuclear war.” He added, “If one side loses its nerves in this inflamed atmosphere, then we won’t survive the coming years.”

In the same interview, Gorbachev lamented these developments as the outcome of Washington’s construction of a “mega empire” in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev, as the initiator in the late 1980s of the process of capitalist restoration, in the form of the policies of “perestroika” and “glasnost,” bears a huge degree of responsibility for the current crisis in Ukraine and the expansion of NATO. At the time, he argued that the relentless drive of imperialism toward war had been replaced by the pursuit of universal “human values.”

The decision of the ruling Stalinist bureaucracy to preserve its own interests by liquidating the Soviet Union and restoring capitalism allowed NATO to expand its reach to Russia’s Western border.

Gorbachev was not alone in warning of the dangers involved in the Ukraine conflict. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has been involved in countless crimes of US imperialism, spoke Thursday before the US Senate Armed Services Committee, declaring himself “uneasy about beginning a process of military engagement [in Ukraine] without knowing where it will lead us and what we’ll do to sustain it.”

The 91-year-old Kissinger added: “I believe we should avoid taking incremental steps before we know how far we are willing to go. This is a territory 300 miles from Moscow, and therefore has special security implications.”

The ongoing imperialist operations in Ukraine, from last year’s US- and EU-backed fascist-spearheaded coup to the ongoing fighting in the Donbass, as well as the current sanctions regime against Russia, are aimed at asserting US hegemony over all of the former Soviet Union and ultimately breaking the Russian Federation itself into a series of semi-colonies, opening the way for the plunder of its vast natural resources.

While there had been signs in recent weeks of a desire on the part of some EU states, in particular France and Italy, to begin rebuilding diplomatic relations with Russia, a deadly rocket attack on the Ukrainian city of Mariupol last weekend brought the EU members back into line behind the sanctions regime.

An emergency meeting of EU foreign ministers on Thursday decided to extend travel bans and bank account freezes against 132 Russian citizens and 28 organizations until September of this year. The foreign ministers will meet again on February 12 to discuss escalating the current tranche of economic sanctions against Russia.

Speaking after the meeting, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated menacingly, “If there is an offensive towards Mariupol or other regions, one will need to respond with clear and harsher measures.”

In the wake of the EU foreign ministers meeting, Donetsk was subjected to a new round of artillery shelling. At least five civilians were reported killed when mortars struck a crowd of several hundred people waiting outside a community center for the distribution of relief aid.

Another two civilians were reported killed after a mortar shell landed near a bus stop. Artillery shelling throughout the day on Friday in western Donetsk killed at least five more civilians.

The pro-Russian separatists continued their assault on a key railway hub between Donetsk and Luhansk, taking control of the village of Vuhlehirsk, just west of a city, Debaltseve, where at least 8,000 Ukrainian forces are currently entrenched. While the city’s civilian population of 25,000 has for the most part been evacuated, at least seven civilians were reported killed by shelling on Friday.

Semen Semenchenko, founder of the Ukrainian nationalist Donbas Battalion militia, which has been integrated into the National Guard of Ukraine, reported that Kiev-backed forces in Debaltseve had been fired upon by artillery shells, mortars and grad rockets.

Ceasefire talks hosted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe that were set to resume on Friday failed to even get off the ground. Vladislav Deinego and Denis Pushilin, representatives of the pro-Russian separatists, announced they were leaving Minsk for Moscow after Kiev’s representative, former president Leonid Kuchma, failed to show.

The Ukrainian government and its backers in the US and the EU have shown little desire to reach a compromise with the rebels. Speaking in the UN Security Council last week, US Ambassador Samantha Power dismissed the latest Russian peace plan as an “occupation plan.”

On Friday, in a desperate attempt to stimulate its economy and avoid a devastating recession, the Russian central bank made a surprise announcement that it was cutting its key interest rate by two percentage points, to 15 percent. This decision came little more than a month after it raised the same interest rate by 6.5 percentage points, to 17 percent, in an attempt to stem the decline of the ruble, which has lost more than 17 percent of its value since the beginning of the year.

The sudden move by the Bank of Russia is an indication that the sanctions regime, combined with the collapse of oil prices, is contributing to a mounting political and economic crisis within Russia. According to preliminary reports from Russia’s Statistics Services, the country’s economy grew by a mere 0.6 percent in 2014. Citigroup projects that, if the average price of Brent crude oil remains deflated, Russia’s economy will contract by 3 percent in 2015.

31 January, 2015
WSWS.org

By Ramzy Baroud

Whenever the word ‘refugee’ is uttered, I think of my mother. When Zionist militias began their systematic onslaught and ‘cleansing’ of the Palestinian Arab population of historic Palestine in 1948, she, along with her family, ran away from the once peaceful village of Beit Daras.

Back then, Zarefah was six. Her father died in a refugee camp in a tent provided by the Quakers soon after he had been separated from his land. She collected scrap metal to survive.

My grandmother Mariam, would venture out to the ‘death zone’ that bordered the separated and newly established state of Israel from Gaza’s refugee camps to collect figs and oranges. She faced death every day. Her children were all refugees, living in shatat – the Diaspora.

My mother lived to be 42. Her life was tremendously difficult. She married a refugee, my dad, and together they brought seven refugees into this world – my brothers, my sister and myself. One died as a toddler, for there was no medicine in the refugee camp’s clinic.

No matter where we are, in time and place, we carry our refugee ID cards, our undefinable nationalities, our precious status, our parents’ burden, our ancestors’ pain.

In fact, we have a name for it. It is called waja’ – ‘aching’ – a character that unifies millions of Palestinian refugees all across the globe. With our refugee population now dominated by second, third or even fourth generation refugees, it seems that our waja’ is what we hold in common most. Our geographies may differ, our languages, our political allegiances, our cultures, but ultimately, we meet around the painful experiences that we have internalized throughout generations.

My mother used to say – ihna yalfalastinieen damitna qaribeh – tears for us Palestinians are always close by. But our readiness to shed tears is not a sign of weakness, far from it. It is because throughout the years we managed to internalize our own exile, and its many ramifications, along with the exiles of everyone else’s. The emotional burden is just too great.

We mask the unbearable aching somehow, but it is always close to the surface. If we hear a single melody by Marcel Khalifeh or Sheikh Imam, or a few verses by Mahmoud Darwish, the wound is as fresh as ever.

Most of us no longer live in tents, but we are reminded of our refugee status every single day, by the Israeli occupation, by the Gaza siege and the internally-displaced Palestinians in Israel, by the Iraq war and the displacement of the already displaced Palestinians there, by the despicable living conditions of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, and throughout the Middle East.

But for us, Syria has been our greatest waja’ in years. Aside from the fact that most of Syria’s half a million Palestinian refugees are on the run again , living the pain of displacement and loss for the second, third, or even fourth time. Nine million Syrian refugees are now duplicating the Palestinian tragedy, charting the early course of the Palestinian Nakba, the catastrophe of 1948.

Watching the destitution of the Syrian refugees is like rewinding the past , in all of its awful details. And watching Arab states clamor to aid the refugees with ample words and little action feels as if we are living Arab betrayal all over again.

I watched my grandparents die, followed by my parents and many of my peers. All of them died refugees, carrying the same status and the same lost hope of return. The most they ever received from the ‘international community’ was a few sacks of rice and cheap cooking oil. And of course, numerous tents.

With time our refugee status morphed from being a ‘problem’ to an integral part of our identities. Being a ‘refugee’ at this stage means insisting on the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees as enshrined in international law. That status is no longer just a mere reference to physical displacement but also to a political, even a national identity.

Political division may, at times, dominate Palestinian society, but we will always be united by the fact that we are refugees with a common cause: going home. While for the Palestinians of Yarmouk near Damascus, being a refugee is a matter of life and death – often by starvation – for the larger Palestinian collective, the meaning of the word has become more involved: it has been etched onto our skin forever.

But what can one say by way of advice to the relatively new refugees of Syria, considering that we are yet to liberate ourselves from a status that we never sought?

There can be only reminders and a few warnings:

First, may your displacement end soon. May you never live the waja’ of displacement to the extent that you embrace it as a part of your identity, and pass it on from one generation to another. May it be a kind of fleeting pain or passing nightmare, but never a pervasive everyday reality.

Second, you must be prepared for the worst. My grandparents left their new blankets in their village before they fled to the refugee camps because they feared they would have been ruined by the dust of the journey. Alas, the camps became home, and the blankets were confiscated as the rest of Palestine was. Please remain hopeful, but realistic.

Third, don’t believe the ‘international community’ when they make promises. They never deliver , and when they do, it is always for ulterior motives that might bring you more harm than good. In fact, the term itself is illusory, mostly used in reference to western countries which have wronged you as they have us.

Fourth, don’t trust Arab regimes. They lie. They feel not your pain . They hear not your pleas, nor do they care. They have invested so much in destroying your countries, and so little in redeeming their sins. They speak of aid that rarely arrives and political initiatives that constitute mostly press releases. But they will take every opportunity to remind you of their virtues. In fact, your victimhood becomes a platform for their greatness . They thrive at your expense, thus will invest to further your misery.

Fifth, preserve your dignity. I know, it is never easy to maintain your pride when you sleep in a barren street covered in cardboard boxes. A mother would do whatever she can to help her children pass into safety. No matter, you must never allow the wolves awaiting you at every border to exploit your desperation. You must never allow the Emir, or his children or some rich businessman or sympathetic celebrity to use you as a photo-op. Do not ever kneel. Don’t ever kiss a hand. Don’t give anyone the satisfaction to exploit your pain.

Sixth, remain united. There is strength in unity when one is a refugee. Don’t allow political squabbles to distract you from the greater battle at hand: surviving until the day you return home, and you will.

Seventh, love Syria. Yours is an unparalleled civilization. Your history is rife with triumphs that were ultimately of your own making. Even if you must leave to distant lands , keep Syria in your hearts. This too shall pass, and Syria shall redeem its glory, once the brutes vanquish. Only the spirit of the people shall survive. It is not wishful thinking. It is history.

Dear Syrian refugee, it has been 66 years and counting since my people’s dispossession began. We are yet to return, but that is a battle for my children, and their children to fight. I hope yours ends soon. Until then, please remember the tent is just a tent, and the gusts of cold wind are but of a passing storm.

And until you return home to Syria, don’t let the refugee become who you are, as you are so much more.

– Ramzy Baroud – www.ramzybaroud.net – is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com.

29 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

By Alan Hart

A longer version of my headline would be this. How President Obama could take on and defeat the Zionist lobby and secure for himself the freedom to put America’s own best interests first in the Middle East and wider Muslim.

In the course of a prime time address to his fellow Americans, Obama could do it with just one sentence. This one.

“To our Jewish citizens I have to say the time has come for you to decide whether you are Americans first or not.”

More on that in a moment.

At the time of writing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress (I think they are best described as traitors) are on a collision course with the Obama administration.

The issue is the determination of Netanyahu and his collaborators to wreck the prospect of a comprehensive agreement with Iran over its nuclear programme. The wrecking mechanism is a new bill under discussion for more sanctions on Iran.

Here’s what Obama said on this subject in his State of the Nation address (my emphasis added).

QUOTE

Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material. Between now and this spring, we have a chance to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that prevents a nuclear-armed Iran; secures America and our allies – including Israel; while avoiding yet another Middle East conflict. There are no guarantees that negotiations will succeed, and I keep all options on the table to prevent a nuclear Iran. But new sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails – alienating America from its allies; and ensuring that Iran starts up its nuclear program again. It doesn’t make sense . That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress . The American people expect us to only go to war as a last resort, and I intend to stay true to that wisdom.

UNQUOTE

Hours later Republican John Boehner, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, issued an invitation to Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress (the House and the Senate) for the unstated purpose of mobilizing enough senators to override an Obama veto of a new bill for more sanctions on Iran . (There are 100 senators and to override an Obama veto the Republican majority with 54 seats would need the support of 13 of the 44 Democrats and 2 Independents).

When Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress in May 2011 he got 29 standing ovations, four more than Obama was given during his State of the Nation address earlier that year. (The loudest and most prolonged applause was for Netanyahu’s declarations that Israel will not return to the 1967 borders; that there will be no right of return for the Palestinians; and that an undivided Jerusalem must remain the capital of Israel).

According to the very well informed Robert E. Hunter, Boehner was set up to invite Netanyahu by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer. If so it’s more than reasonable to assume that Netanyahu himself was the originator of the idea.

When he addresses both Houses of Congress on 3 March he will have two main objectives.

One will be to put fire into the bellies of enough members of Congress to guarantee that, if necessary, an Obama veto on a bill for more sanctions on Iran will be overridden. In other words he will be seeking to demonstrate that he not the president is the boss.

The other will be to improve his chances of remaining prime minister after Israel’s forthcoming elections by taking some wind out of the opposition’s sails. That wind is being generated by a significant number of Israeli Jews who don’t want Netanyahu to continue as prime minister because they believe, with very good reason, that he is putting Israel’s special relationship with America at great risk. When he returns to Israel he imagines he will be able to say something like, “It’s true that my relationship with President Obama is not so good, but I command much more support than he does where it matters most – in Congress.”

Behind closed doors at the White House, which was not consulted, the invitation for Netanyahu to address both Houses of Congress provoked extreme anger. One unnamed official told Ha’aretz that Netanyahu had “spat ” in President Obama’s face. (Two weeks previously Obama telephoned Netanyahu to demand that he toned down his pro-sanctions rhetoric). Also revealed was that the “chickenshit” epithet with which an anonymous administration official branded Netanyahu several months ago was mild compared to the language used in the White House when news of Netanyahu’s intentions came in.

The reasons why Obama wants a comprehensive agreement with Iran, which I believe is there for the taking subject only to America agreeing not to drag out the ending of all sanctions on Iran, include the following.

* He knows that Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons and does not want to develop them . (It follows that he also knows Netanyahu has been playing the Iranian nuclear threat card with great success to take attention away from Israel’s on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank).

* He fears, with very good reason, that if the prospects for a comprehensive agreement with Iran are sabotaged, its hardliners may well demand that Iran changes course and develops nuclear weapons for deterrence . (These hardliners know that the Bush-Blair war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq would not have happened if it had possessed nuclear weapons). In other words, and as Obama also knows, the sabotaging of a comprehensive agreement with Iran could set in motion a doomsday scenario in which an American president could be manipulated into going to war with Iran, a war that would have catastrophic consequences for the region and, almost certainly, the whole world.

* He knows that America needs Iran’s assistance if ISIS and other forms of violent Islamic fundamentalism are to be contained and ultimately defeated.

* He knows that American big business wants a comprehensive agreement with Iran because it is fully aware that European big business is fed up with the sanctions on Iran and could well break ranks with the U.S. and do wealth-generating and job-creating business with it if a comprehensive agreement is sabotaged by Zionism and its stooges in Congress and the mainstream media. In that event Europe not America would have the lion’s share of the lucrative business to be done with Iran for many years to come.

In summary Zionist lobby prisoner Obama has a complete understanding of why it is in the best interests of America that a comprehensive deal with Iran is done.

If the time comes when it seems that the Zionist lobby will have the Senate votes needed to override a presidential veto on a new bill for more sanctions on Iran, Obama will have a choice: either to surrender to Zionism’s will and become complicit by default in the betrayal of America’s own best interests, or, to take the Zionist lobby on and defeat it.

My view is that he could set in motion a change of political dynamics to ensure the Zionist lobby’s defeat by taking to the bully pulpit – going over the heads of Congress with a prime time television and radio address in which he would spell out, explicitly, why it is in America’s own best that a comprehensive deal with Iran be done.

He could also point out that even if the day did come when Iran possessed nuclear bombs, the notion that it would use them to launch a first strike on Israel is ludicrous because doing so would invite Iran’s complete destruction. On this point he could add that those in Congress who insist that Iran poses a threat to Israel’s existence are recycling Zionist propaganda nonsense.

That said Obama could then deploy his rhetorical nuclear bomb – a statement to the effect that it is time for American Jews to decide whether they are Americans first or not.

And he could put flesh on that bone by adding something like this.

“The question our American Jewish citizens need to come to grips with is the following. Is it acceptable that a lobby which represents the views of less than a quarter of America’s Jews, and by no means speaks for all Israeli Jews, can cause Congress to defy policies enunciated by the elected president of the United states and commander-in-chief of its armed forces?”

If I was drafting a bully pulpit speech for Obama I would have him add that while he understood and empathised with American and European Jewish fears that anti-Semitism is on the rise, he could not leave unsaid the fact that the prime cause of the creeping transformation of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism is Israel’s behaviour – its defiance of international law and all that comes with it, including on-going colonization of the occupied West Bank and brutal rejection of the Palestinian claim for an acceptable amount of justice .

QUESTION . How would Jewish Americans respond if the Zionist lobby continues its campaign to kill the prospect of a comprehensive agreement with Iran and President Obama confronted it in the way I have suggested above?

While I was thinking about the answer I read an open letter to President Obama by the Jewish American writer David Harris-Gershon. As published by Tikkun Daily it reads as follows (my emphasis added).

QUOTE

You don’t know my name, though you know the names of those who represent hundreds of thousands of American Jews who, like me, publicly support your diplomatic efforts with Iran.

And while you don’t know my name, you know that I and those like me represent 52 percent of U.S. Jews who support your diplomatic efforts over those presented by Congressional Republicans and Israel’s Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, who are now shamelessly working, behind your back, in concert to undermine your administration’s historic gains.

As the leader of Israel, Netanyahu often claims to speak for all Jews, absurdly conflating his political ideals with those of American Jewry. But he does not speak for most of us. Indeed, there are over three million American Jews for whom he does not speak. Over three million voices in the American Jewish community who reject current efforts to scuttle historic nuclear negotiations with Iran. Who reject efforts to undermine peaceful diplomacy. And who reject John Boehner’s outrageous breach of protocol by inviting a foreign leader to deliver a response to your State of the Union address.

I know you are rightly outraged, viewing Netanyahu as having spat in your face after your consistent defence of Israel on the international stage. I know that you and officials in your administration feel as though there should be consequences for what is about to transpire on March 3, when Netanyahu will rise before Congress as the leader of a foreign ‘ally’ and publicly reject your diplomatic efforts for political gain back home.

This, in my view, should be the consequence: the amplification of ‘pro-Israel’ voices like mine in the American Jewish community who reject Netanyahu, be it for his desire to bomb Iran, his desire to continue Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians or his expansion of settlements and rejection of peace.

I’m not actually asking for a personal invitation to the White House, though I would certainly not turn one down. What I’m asking is that you invite American Jewish leaders and activists to the White House on March 3 to publicly amplify those liberal and progressive voices Netanyahu claims to represent. I’m asking that you use this as an opportunity to reveal to the American public that most American Jews see Netanyahu as a harmful force, both in Israel, in the Middle East and in the world. I’m asking that you give us a chance to support your diplomatic efforts with Iran passionately and eloquently as Congress rises repeatedly to applaud Netanyahu’s damaging rhetoric.

And after you have done so, I ask that you invite civil leaders and activists in the Iranian-American and Palestinian-American communities in order to amplify their pro-diplomacy, pro-peace voices.

The New York Times calls what Israel and the GOP have done to be a disrespectful “breach of sense and diplomacy.” What NYT editors did not say is that this breach is an opportunity, now that the hole is gaping, for you to counter Netanyahu’s voice with powerful ones which exist within the nation you lead.

I ask that you let us help you lead.

Best,
An American Jew

UNQUOTE

I agree with Harris-Gershon. Netanyahu, the Zionist lobby and Boehner have overplayed their hand to such an extent that they have created an opportunity for Obama to take them on. If he does the result will be what Harris-Gershon is calling for – an amplification of American Jewish voices which reject Netanyahu and all he represents and the support of a significant (possibly overwhelming) majority of America’s Jews for Obama’s efforts to secure a comprehensive agreement with Iran. And that would be a major and very public defeat for the Zionist lobby, a defeat which I think would mark the beginning of the end of its ability to call the policy shots.

It should be noted that even Fox News (repeat even Fox News!) lashed out at Netanyahu for his “egregious snub of Obama”. Anchorman Chris Wallace said he was shocked and called Netanyahu’s move “wicked.” He also said he thought Netanyahu’s strategy was “very risky”.

It is but I hope it’s a risk Netanyahu and the Zionist lobby won’t back away from because they can be beaten, thanks to the incredibly arrogant and stupid way they have overplayed their hand.

Footnote

In the Fox News discussion with Chris Wallace from which I quoted anchorman Shep Smith made the following comment.

QUOTE

George Bush used to say “You must stop the expansion of the settlements,” so what does Israel do? They move on with expanding the settlements. This president says, “You gotta stop expanding the settlements,” and they just keep expanding the settlements.” It seems like they think we don’t pay attention and that we’re just a bunch of complete morons.

UNQUOTE

That was more or less my opinion of the Fox News presenters, but if they are now coming to grips with the fact that Netanyahu is dangerously deluded and is, as Harris-Gershon put it, harmful in Israel, the Middle East and the world, I’ll revise my opinion.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent.
29 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org

 

26 January, 2015

YANGON – During the course of his pre-organized mass meeting on 16 January, 2015, Ah-shin Wirathu, self-declared Nationalistic leader, attacked United Nations Special Rapporteur to Myanmar, Ms. Yanghee Lee and women activists. Hate speech, intimidation and degradation of human dignity will not be tolerated in Myanmar.

In his verbal assault on Ms. Lee, Ah-shin Wirathu specifically attacked her for her support of Rohingya Muslims and interfaith marriage. The interfaith movement in our country is strong, and this incident has publicly detracted from it. As a Buddhist Monk, Ah-shin Wirathu has marred the face of clergy and tarnished our country’s image. Religious authorities everywhere should be outraged by such disgraceful representation.

Hate speech is an unacceptable practice in Myanmar, as our country moves toward democratic change, and we condemn it wholeheartedly. We believe that moving forward, clergy, especially, have a responsibility to act as exemplary leaders of love, peace, openness and respect. Ah-shin Wirathu’s speech stands in direct opposition to religiosity and morality. We must, therefore, indicate to the international community and reiterate to ourselves that hate speech is inexcusable in Myanmar and an impediment to democratic progress.

Myanmar Peace and Human Rights Consortium members will continue to condemn any person who employs hate speech and insults the dignity of others.

Contact:

Myo Win, Steering Member, starmywin@gmail.com

Myanmar Peace and Human Rights Consortium
All member organizations support the actions of the Myanmar Peace and Human Rights
Consortium.
Equality Myanmar – Myanmar, Land Core Group – Myanmar Lawyers Network in Yangon –
Karen Women’s Empowerment Group – The National Youth Congress – SMILE Education and
Development Foundation – Shwe Minn Tha Foundation – The Myanmar Journalist Union –
Thabyay Education Foundation – International Organization Membership:

By Jon V Kofas

The global significance of the election in Greece is the symbolism of popular opposition to:

a) Western-imposed austerity that results in income redistribution from the bottom 80% the population to the top 20%;

b) Blatant disregard for national sovereignty of debtor nations by the hegemonic creditor governments that represent finance capital;

c) Popular democracy can prevail despite the massive propaganda by the mainstream media demonizing any political party or movement appealing for social justice;

d) Contagion effect, as other political movements, PODEMOS in Spain for example, will follow the precedent set by the Greek election

e) A major blow to the neoliberal model of development under globalization that the West has been presenting as “the only way” to conduct economic and social policy.

f) The EU and the US will exert immense pressure on the newly-elected government to pursue neoliberal policies with some watered down version of social and economic policies that take into account the working class and waning middle class. In short, a strategy of co-optation has already begun, so that the center-left party becomes in essence a neoliberal one in policy but remains center-left in rhetoric.

g) If co-optation fails, the challenge of the financial and political elites now is to prevent popular political parties in other nations asserting national sovereignty and social justice as cornerstones of their platform. This means that there will be an international overt – media propaganda – and covert efforts through political and economic means – to undermine, discredit and topple the elected government and bring about regime change.

On 25 January 2015, Greece elected SYRIZA, a left-of-center regime opposed to the harsh austerity measures that the IMF and EU had imposed along with a series of policies that essentially resulted in the super-concentration of wealth in the hands of a few thousand families while 50% of youth were unemployed in an economy where “formal unemployment” remains at 26% and the poverty rates at one third of the population. These are Great Depression conditions, but the defenders of austerity and neoliberalism insist that there is no alternative.

The initial Western press reaction ranged from panic to caution about SYRIZA that people chose to lead them. Nothing about the process of democracy working, nothing about popular sovereignty, nothing about the sense of hope, real or not, that the new government instills in a country that has seen its income drop by one-third and the middle class destroyed. The only issue is that neoliberalism now threatened beyond Greece, in Spain, Italy, Portugal and other debtor nations that will dare choose governments representing the majority and not banks and corporations.

Some media outlets called SYRIZA Communist, others radical left, others populist left. Not a single mainstream media outlet bothered to explain the ideological orientation of the political party or its platform, other than to state it opposes austerity, opposition that right wing political parties across Europe also share. Instead of stating the ideological position and specific platform of the party, the mainstream Western media simply warned that SYRIZA poses a threat to markets and to EU’s stability, as though the EU has been stable in the past five years when SYRIZA was in the opposition.

SYRIZA is a coalition of Socialist and reformist centrist political elements that rests on an ideology of reformism within the system. Its ideology has roots in European Socialism, with strong elements of the Euro-Communism of the 1970s. Eclectic and rooted in the concept of social justice that entails creating a strong social welfare safety net, the ideology of SYRIZA is classic European social democratic, despite rhetoric that tends to carry over to Socialism. The party platform includes private sector backed by the state, a multi-dimensional foreign trade policy and a foreign policy rooted in national interests rather than Western imperial interests intended to destabilize the Middle East and Balkans.

The triumph of neoliberalism – a trend that started under the conservative governments of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – was complete with the downfall of the Communist bloc and the global economic integration in which Communist China became the engine for global growth since the 1990s.

The symbolic significance of SYRIZA winning the election has shocked the neoliberals across Europe, because they fear national sovereignty and popular resistance to globalization. Throughout the 20th century, the Western countries tried everything from political and economic pressure to military coercion to pursue their interests in non-Western countries as well as the periphery of Europe. The goal was always integration under the patron-client model, a model of hegemony by the Western countries – the patrons – over the rest they see as client states serving Western economic, political and military interests. The anathema for the West has always been a strong state representing national interests and opposed to the patron-client integration model.

How did Greece along with many other EU and non-EU countries fall into debt? The number one culprit was that the fiscal system favored the top income earners, the financial elites foreign and domestic, forcing the state to engage in heavy borrowing to meet its needs, among them a very expensive defense program that added nothing to the productive capacity of the economy. The austerity and neo-liberal solution resulted in a sharp rise of the public debt which cannot possibly be serviced under any conditions short of a 50% haircut with the investors taking the loss.

The economy has been experiencing negative growth under austerity, unemployment and poverty rates are the highest in the EU, and the prospects for development are almost nil in the absence of massive investment that has been absent. Despite this reality, the representatives of the Western financial elites have already condemned SYRIZA even before it has had the chance to take power.

Defending neo-liberalism and corporate welfare, which means massive transfer of public funds from social programs to corporations, a number of bank representatives have argued that SYRIZA must either comply with IMF-EU austerity, or face the consequences of no credit from the European Central Bank. Naturally, this means that Greece must accept integration under the German-imposed patron-client model, or face a possible exodus from the euro.

Saxo Bank chief economist Simon Smith argued that: “The troika (ECB, EU & IMF) are now in a bind. If they cede to [Greece’s] demands, then markets will display no faith in the ability of other eurozone members to stick to austerity policies. If they stand their ground and Greece leaves, then the irreversible nature of the single currency would have been broken, which would make other peripheral nations more vulnerable as investors would be prepared to price in exit in certain circumstances.”

The rating agency Standard and Poor’s immediately warned the new government of a possible downgrade if it deviates from the IMF-EU austerity program and neo-liberal policies. Similar warning have come pouring in from official circles and banks across Europe. These are reminders that Greece has no leverage and that the patron-client integration model, austerity and neo-liberalism will remain exactly as the G-7 and financial markets dictate. By contrast, the new prime minister Alexis Tsipras visited the memorial site of Nazi war-crime victims, symbolically reminding Germany that it owes billions in war reparations to Greece, while reminding the West about the absence of justice when it comes to relations between core countries and periphery within the EU. Of course, the EU and US will try both co-optation and coersion and will even threaten to isolate Greece if it dares defy austerity measures and neo-liberalism.

The Europeans know very well that if Greece leaves the euro it will be even more costly for the creditor nations and the markets than if it remains and cuts a deal to reduce its public debt and payments it cannot possibly afford to make unless it impoverishes more than half of its population. The financial and political elites have major challenges not because SYRIZA won the election in January 2015, for that may prove highly symbolic victory for popular democracy, but because the rest of the world, especially the rest of EU, needed a concrete example to point the way to an alternative that at least addresses some social justice and gross socioeconomic inequality issues. If Spain follows the Greek example, that will not be just a symbolic defeat for neo-liberalism, but a substantive one with serious political and economic consequences for the EU. Fear and dread of popular democracy and national sovereignty on the part of the financial elites and mainstream political parties remains very strong motivator for the strategies they adopt to combat any efforts to water down neo-liberalism and the patron-client integration model on a world scale.

In foreign policy, SYRIZA will try to pursue a policy that tries to take into account the roles of China and Russia, while remaining part of the Western sphere of influence. Greek foreign policy government will depend on many factors. It is true that SYRIZA, like PASOK in the early 1980s, will have a rhetorical commitment of a more balanced foreign policy that takes into account Russia’s interests in Greece and throughout the EU. In the last analysis, Greece is a NATO member, it is an EU member and it has constrictive conditions placed on it. On the other hand, Turkey is also a NATO member, but does not necessarily follow whatever the EU and US dictate. My guess is a foreign policy that at least takes into account China and Russia, while making accommodations to the West without submitting completely to the West as have previous regimes. One last caveat here, there is a huge difference between rhetoric politicians use for domestic and international consumption and what measures they take. SYRIZA has what I call “non-aligned” rhetoric employed, but in the end it will have to accommodate the West more than its leaders now realize.

28 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org

Jon V Kofas is a novelist.

By Kim Scipes

A talk by John Mearsheimer and Rick Rozoff, Evanston , Illinois , January 10, 2015

Two widely recognized authorities on big power politics and NATO recently gave a public talk on the current situation in the Ukraine at the Evanston ( Illinois ) Public Library. Organized by the Evanston Neighbors for Peace, John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago ( http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu ), and Rick Rozoff, a long-time activist who maintains the “Stop NATO—Opposition to Global Militarism” web site ( https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com ), spent three hours recently trying to cut through the lies and obfuscation that the US public has been fed around the current developments in Ukraine.

Mearsheimer began the session, and was followed by Rozoff. Afterwards, they responded to each other’s presentation and then took questions and statements from the public, making this a very lively and informative session. This reporter was present throughout and took notes from the presentations; this reporter inserted sub-headings within to help readability.

JOHN MEARSHEIMER

Mearsheimer started off, noting the “significant deterioration in US-Russian foreign relations.” He argued this situation is “fundamentally wrong.”

He gave background to what’s going on. Basically, US-Russian relations were ok until February 22, 2014 . Since then, things have gone “down the toilet bowl.” (On February 22, 2014 , there was a coup in Kiev , Ukraine , where protestors—which the support of the US Government—overthrew the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych.)

Before February 22, there was no evidence of American or European policy makers being concerned with Ukraine . US Ambassador to Russia , Michael McFaul, stated there was “no reason to contain Russia ,” and said that the US did not see [Russian President Vladimir] Putin as an “aggressor.” There was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Since the coup, Russia has encouraged the citizens of Crimea—a Russian speaking area that had been given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in 1954—to reunite with Russia, which they did via a local referendum in March 2014. At the same time, there’s been a war “by virtually all accounts” in the Eastern Ukraine between the Ukrainian government on one side, and Russia-supporting rebels on the other.

The US blames Putin for all of the turmoil. According to Mearsheimer, the US is acting “like kids who never understand what they’ve done wrong.” Some commentators have called Putin “a new Hitler,” which Mearsheimer says such arguments are “ludicrous in the extreme”: nothing that Putin has done has ever put him in the category of Hitler.

Mearsheimer says, “The Russians have made clear that Ukraine is a core strategic area.” In other words, they will defend it at all costs: their response to crisis in Ukraine is similar to what the US would do if a nuclear-armed “opponent” were to try to take over Canada or Mexico .

Mearsheimer said there were three things going on in Ukraine : NATO was trying to expand, the EU (European Union) was trying to expand, and that the US was trying to “promote democracy” in Ukraine and Georgia : basically, the idea was to put the Western powers directly on the borders of Russia . And they were trying to do this by incorporating Ukraine (as well as Georgia ) into NATO and the EU.

Some Relevant Historical Background

When the Soviet Union allowed its Empire in Eastern Europe to collapse in 1989 without sending in tanks, US President George Herbert Walker Bush (the old man) told Mikhail Gorbachev that the US would not take advantage of the situation and would not expand NATO eastward. [Apparently, Gorbachev accepted Bush at his word, and this was never written down—KS.] NATO did not expand eastward until 1999, when it expanded under Bill Clinton. In 2004, under George W. Bush, it expanded to include the Baltic States . In April 2008, at a NATO Summit in Bucharest , Romania , NATO offered membership to the former Soviet republics, Ukraine and Georgia . In August 2008, there was the war between Russia and Georgia , where the Russians said unequivocally, NO WAY.

At the same time, the EU was expanding eastward, trying to incorporate as many countries in Eastern Europe into its monetary and trading zone. They were steadily trying to incorporate Ukraine as well.

At the same time, the West was also trying to “promote democracy,” and getting pro-Western leaders into positions of political leadership in these countries, including Ukraine . The so-called “Orange Revolution” in 2004 was intended to do this.

The Russians were spooked by these three strategies, especially when combined, like they were.

Where things hit the crisis level was the result of Ukraine ‘s president Viktor Yanukovych’s flirting with accepting a EU economic package for this country during the Fall of 2013. Ultimately, Yanukovych decided to “deep six” the deal, and decided to accept an economic package from Russia . This lead to massive protests inside Ukraine—particularly in the European-leaning western part of the country—and these protests led to the February 22 coup, which forced Yanukovych out of office and out of the country.

Russia’s Response to the Coup

Mearsheimer labeled Russia ‘s response “highly understandable.” Russia made clear this situation was “categorically unacceptable.” He said that if we wanted a good analogy, we should look at the US response to the Soviet Union ‘s placement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 or even the Monroe Doctrine itself, which he described as telling other world powers to stay out of “our neighborhood,” the entire Western Hemisphere .

As Mearsheimer summed it up, “Great Powers are very sensitive to disruptions on their borders and in their neighborhoods.”

He stressed it again: Russia ‘s response is “completely understandable.” Putin and the Russians are not going to allow Ukraine to join NATO: they see this as an “existential threat.”

Accordingly, they “took Crimea,” although they had 25,000 troops stationed there under a long-term lease that allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to harbor at Sevastopol; obviously, they didn’t want to risk that lease being terminated, causing them to loose that naval base. The Russians have also helped facilitate troubles in eastern Ukraine . According to Mearsheimer, however, they will not invade. He notes that Russia is in both serious economic and political trouble—the West’s sanctions have hurt Russia, but probably the bigger, immediate problem is the collapse of global oil prices—but he argues that the conventional forces of Russian cannot swallow Ukraine; they have limited military capabilities. He says an invasion by Russia is “not in the cards: there’s no evidence that they want to do it and they aren’t capable,” either.

What the Russians can do, however, is wreck the country as a functioning society.

In response, the West keeps telling the government in Ukraine to keep playing hardball with the Russians. Mearsheimer thinks this is misleading Ukraine . He said it’s stupid to tell Ukrainians to keep screwing themselves by poking the Russians. “Putin is certain to make sure Ukraine will not be part of the West.”

From Here?

Mearsheimer thinks there is a simple solution to the crisis: take NATO and EU expansion off the table. His idea is to make Ukraine a neutral border state.

He argues that Putin hasn’t wanted to pick a fight, and the evidence shows that there really wasn’t a problem in Ukraine until the Fall of 2013, after Yanukovych decided to take a Russian deal instead of one with the EU. He states simply, “Putin did not create the crisis.”

Mearsheimer thinks that the US is being “foolish in the extreme” to keep supporting the Ukrainians’ conflict with Russia . He argues this makes the chance of a war more dangerous.

RICK ROZOFF

Rozoff started off by thanking Mearsheimer for speaking truth to power in a recent article in Foreign Affairs, “Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault” (September-October 2014). He then pointed out this was Day 270 of the “anti-terrorist operation” by Ukraine , and the “Fifth Act” of NATO’s expansion.

Most Americans never even consider NATO, especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe , which was touted as “the end of the Cold War.” Rozoff pointed out that despite the supposed end, NATO has been very aggressively expanding eastward toward Russia , which was the heartland of the Soviet Union .

• This began in 1990, when East Germany was absorbed into Germany . (GHW Bush Administration);

• In 1999, at the 50 th anniversary of the founding of NATO, in a NATO Summit in Washington , DC , NATO engaged in its first post-Cold War expansion, inviting Poland , Hungary and Poland to join it. ( Clinton Administration).

• In 2004, Estonia , Latvia , and Lithuania (the “ Baltic States ”) joined, along with Slovenia and Slovakia (parts of former Yugoslavia ), Bulgaria and Romania (GWB Administration).

• In 2009, Croatia (part of former Yugoslavia ) and Albania joined, although they had been invited in 2008, under the GW Bush Administration. By 2009, NATO had increased its membership by 75%, now having 28 full members and 49 “partner” countries, for a total of 77 country members. Over 70% of the total world spending on military weaponry is done by these nations.

(To get a good geo-political understanding of NATO, go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ANATO_partnerships.svg . By NATO_cooperations_partners.svg: *BlankMap-World-Microstates.svg: Nuclear Vacuum NATO_Cooperations_Partners.png: Alinor derivative work: Patrick [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.) All countries except for Russia are in some relationship with NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, including Australia and Columbia !

• In 2008, both Georgia and Ukraine were told they could eventually become members.

Rozoff pointed out that not only had NATO been expanding aggressively, it has now fought in a number of wars, most far away from Europe . It forces fought in the 1994-95 war in Yugoslavia , and then again in 1999, when it carried out a 78 day bombing campaign in support of Kosovo’s succession. After that, it sent forces to Afghanistan beginning in 2001, forces “for training” in Iraq in 2004, ships for anti-piracy duty in the Gulf of Aden (off of Somalia ), and then in 2011, it led the war on Libya .

But NATO engages in war-like activities (called “exercises”) designed to enhance its war-fighting capabilities. For example, Rozoff talked about a March 2014 NATO exercise above the Artic Circle . This “exercise” involved 16,000 troops from 16 nations and took place approximately 200 miles from Russia .

Rozoff pointed out that this aggressive behavior towards Russia, up to and including developments in Ukraine—and he said it could only be seen that way by the Russians, despite whatever rationales were mouthed by NATO—was very dangerous. He mentioned that Mikhail Gorbachev had even suggested recently that things in Ukraine could easily get out of hand, and that ultimately could lead to nuclear war.

Rozoff ended his talk with arguing the need to disband NATO, which he called “the biggest threat to world peace.”

DISCUSSION

Mearsheimer states that the ruling elite of Ukraine wants to be part of the West, not Russia . However, he argues, “they do not have a right to do whatever they want.” He says their problem is what he called “bad geography.” The Russians consider Ukraine to be a core strategic region. He says that the West is leading Ukraine “down a primrose path” that can only end up hurting Ukraine .

An audience member asked about US activities in Ukraine being connected to economic interests?

Mearsheimer stated that the there’s no doubt that the US is economically interested in Ukraine , but he argues there is no need to try to pull Ukraine away from Russia . The sanctions that the Obama Administration and the EU have imposed on Russia have “severely damaged” Russia , but it’s leading to blowback (i.e., unintended consequences) on Western Europe . He believes that some of the current EU economic problems are being caused by the Ukraine crisis. He says German business elites clearly are opposed to economic sanctions against Russia .

Someone else asked if Russia could withstand economic sanctions along with the collapse of oil prices?

Mearsheimer says this is a great crisis for Russia, but he does not think Russia will collapse—and that they will not give up, as Ukraine is a core strategic area for them. He says that Russia has two things going for it: “they have arms, including nuclear weapons, and hydrocarbon.” He pointed out that the EU is the second largest consumer of hydrocarbon in the world.

Someone else asked what was the US role in the 2013 protests/2014 coup in Ukraine ? Mearsheimer said he didn’t know. He said it was hard to get details.

This reporter—a scholar who has done research on the US “democracy promotion” activities—then made a contribution to the discussion. He said that Americans were working closely with the protestors who came to power in the coup. He pointed out that Victoria Nuland, US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, and US Senator John McCain—the Chairman of the International Republican Institute, which is a core institute of the US government’s so-called National Endowment for Democracy—participated in protests in Kiev . However, he said he doesn’t know if the US had facilitated the coup, but that there has been a lot of “democracy promotion” money sent to Ukraine to develop political parties, and this went to opposition politicians who opposed the democratically elected government.

Another audience member pointed out that he understood there had been considerable monies sent to the Ukraine opposition by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (a right-wing foundation) of Germany , as well as USAID (US Agency for International Development). He also stated he had been in Ukraine recently, and specifically noted that there were people from fascist organizations involved in the opposition, and they now held important positions in the post coup government.

With that last interaction, the session was closed. Thus ended a very informative program that helped clear up a lot of misinformation about currents in eastern Europe and specifically Ukraine . It’s importance became even more clear as President Obama, in his January 20 th State of the Union speech, claimed that it was Putin who was the aggressor in Ukraine —more disinformation by the Commander in Chief.

Kim Scipes, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Purdue University in Westville , Indiana , although he lives in Chicago .

27 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org