Just International

CIA Used Sexual Threat And Other Brutal Methods: US Senate Report Exposes Details Of Torture

By Countercurrents.org

The CIA carried out “brutal” interrogations of al-Qaeda suspects in the years after the 9/11 attacks on the US, a US Senate report has said. The CIA used sexual threats, waterboarding and other brutal methods to interrogate terrorism suspects and all were ineffective at eliciting critical information, according to a US Senate report released on Tuesday. The report also shows dissent and disarray within the CIA. The summary of the report, compiled by Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the CIA misled Americans about what it was doing.

The report took years to produce, charts the history of the CIA’s “Rendition, Detention and Interrogation” program, which US president Bush authorized after the Sept. 11 attacks.

A Reuters report said:

“The [Senate] report on government-sanctioned interrogation at sites around the world for questioning captured al Qaeda and other militants prompted the United States to warn its facilities abroad to shore up security in case of violent reactions.

“Sources familiar with the document said it includes graphic details about techniques the Central Intelligence Agency used in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

“The sources said tactics meant to force detainees to divulge information on terrorist plots and cells went beyond the techniques authorized by White House, CIA and lawyers working for President George W. Bush’s Justice Department.”

The more than 500-page report that the Intelligence Committee has prepared is a summary of a much more detailed, 6,000-page narrative which will remain secret. The report includes a 200-page narrative of the interrogation program’s history and 20 case studies of the interrogations of specific detainees.

In a statement, the CIA insisted that the interrogations did help save lives.

“The intelligence gained from the program was critical to our understanding of al-Qaeda and continues to inform our counterterrorism efforts to this day,” Director John Brennan said in a statement.

However, the CIA said it acknowledged that there were mistakes in the program, especially early on when it was unprepared for the scale of the operation to detain and interrogate prisoners.

A few of the main points included in the Senate report are the following:

# At least 26 of 119 known detainees in custody during the life of the program were wrongfully held, and many held for months longer than they should have been.

# Aggressive techniques were used on suspects from the start, despite CIA claims that interrogations would begin with less coercive methods.

# Methods included sleep deprivation for up to 180 hours, often standing or in painful positions.

# Waterboarding was physically harmful to prisoners, causing convulsions and vomiting.

# The CIA misled politicians and public, giving inaccurate information to obtain approval for using techniques.

# At no time did coercive interrogation techniques lead of collection of intelligence on imminent threats.

# None of 20 cases of counterterrorism “successes” attributed to the techniques led to unique or otherwise unavailable intelligence.

# The CIA claimed falsely that no senators had objected to the program.

# Management of the program was deeply flawed, for example the operation of the second detention facility, known as COBALT.

The Washington datelined Reuters report said:

“Cases in which CIA interrogators threatened one or more detainees with mock executions, a practice never authorized by Bush administration lawyers, are documented in the report, the sources said.”

The Reuters report added:

“The report describes how al Qaeda operative Abdel Rahman al Nashiri, suspected mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, was threatened with a buzzing power drill, the sources said. The drill was never actually used on him.”

Citing sources the report documents the way at least one detainee was sexually threatened with a broomstick.

The report on CIA concludes that “harsh interrogations did not produce a single critical intelligence nugget that could not have been obtained by non-coercive means. Former CIA and government leaders, including former U.S. vice president Dick Cheney, dispute that conclusion.”

The Reuters report observed:

“It was unclear whether the report would lead to further attempts to hold those involved accountable. The legal statute of limitations has passed for many of the actions.”

Introducing the report to the Senate, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein described the CIA’s actions as a stain on US history.

“The release of this 500-page summary cannot remove that stain, but it can and does say to our people and the world that America is big enough to admit when it’s wrong and confident enough to learn from its mistakes,” she said.

Earlier, on Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the US president Barack Obama supported making the document public “so that people around the world and people here at home understand exactly what transpired.”

The Reuters report cited the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero. Anthony said in an opinion piece in The New York Times that Obama should issue formal pardons to senior officials and others to make clear that these actions were crimes and help ensure that “the American government never tortures again.”

Bush ended many aspects of the program before leaving office, and Obama swiftly banned “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which critics say are torture, after his 2009 inauguration.

Two Republican lawmakers issued a statement calling the release of the report “reckless and irresponsible.” Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Intelligence Committee, is due to make the report public in a Senate floor speech.

“We are concerned that this release could endanger the lives of Americans overseas, jeopardize U.S. relations with foreign partners, potentially incite violence, create political problems for our allies, and be used as a recruitment tool for our enemies,” senators Marco Rubio and Jim Risch said.

Senator Angus King, an independent, told CNN releasing the report was important because it could persuade a future president not to use these techniques.

“We did things that we tried Japanese soldiers for war crimes for after World War Two. This is not America. This is not who we are. What was done has diminished our stature and inflamed terrorists around the world.”

“Did we torture people? Yes. Did it work. No,” King said.

09 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

Final Statement of the 4th Global Inter-religious Conference on Article 9

From Seoul and Okinawa to Tokyo

December 5, 2014

YMCA Asia Youth Center

Article 9 of Japan’s Peace Constitution

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

All religions are universal, transcending races and nations. Today, however, there are cases where religions are used to instigate and justify violence. Religions should be purified to their original inspiration, and their followers should faithfully translate these truths and realities about life in word and deed in their respective contexts. Each religion should be an expression of the universal truths like peace, and lead to collectively proclaim and live these rather than insist on differences that may lead to disunity or even hostility.

The 4th Global Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution gathered 120 participants from Japan, South Korea, China, Hong Kong/PRC, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, Australia, Congo, Norway, Switzerland, Germany, Canada and the USA. The conference was held at the YMCA Asia Youth Center and its participants hereby issue this Statement. This Conference follows upon the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9, which were held in 2007 (Tokyo), 2009 (Seoul) and 2011 (Okinawa), but the name was changed to the Global Inter-religious Conference on Article 9, to
reflect the broadened base of participation from abroad.

1) We reaffirm our commitment and call the followers of all religions to be accountable to the values of justice, peace and care for all life, nationally, regionally and globally.

2) In the statements issued on the occasions of the 2nd and the 3rd Asia Inter-religious Conference on Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution, we affirmed that Article 9 is more than ever relevant, not only for Japan, but for regional and international relations, and that it is forward-looking. It can be seen as an essential step toward preventing and ending all war, and as a unique expression of the core value of a just, peaceful, and sustainable future for all communities around the world.

3) Together with our Japanese hosts and partners, we are deeply concerned that the Abe/Liberal Democratic Party administration has reinterpreted and further intends to revise and amend Article 9, which is Japan’s pledge for peace and to desist from war. Revising the peace constitution of Japan will bring about serious instability in the region of Asia and beyond. Japan should never be a threat to neighboring countries, nor become a destabilizing factor. This constitutional reinterpretation and proposed revision by the Abe administration is contrary to the wishes and desires of the people in this region, and a threat to constitutional democracy.

4) The Abe administration should squarely reflect upon Japan’s modern history of invasion and colonialism, and express this reflection clearly before the world. Not only should the government of Japan protect the Constitution, which is also the Japanese people’s promise of non-belligerence, but it should uphold previously-made official Government statements that reflect upon Japan’s past invasions and colonialism, such as the (Chief Cabinet Secretary) Kōno Statement 2 , the (Prime Minister) Murayama Statement 3 and the (Prime Minister) Kan Statement4. Members of the administration should also not pay official homage visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, which can be perceived as aprovocative act of endorsing war crimes. Genuine acknowledgement and apology for Japan’s invasions, atrocities and colonial rule by the Japanese government forms a foundation for peace in the Asia region.

 

1 Excerpt from Our Mission: Inter-Religious Conference on Article 9 and Peace in Asia. Seoul, 2009.
2 Statement by the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yōhei Kōno, on the result of the study on the issue of”comfort women.” 1993.08.04
3 Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war’s end. 1995.08.15
4 Statement by Prime Minister Naoto Kan, on the occasion of 100 years since the Japan-Korea
Annexation Treaty. 2010.08.10

 

5) We demand that the government of Japan strive to resolve regional territorial disputes in accordance with the letter and spirit of Article 9, through dialogue and diplomatic negotiations. We call upon each country to refrain from the use, or threatened use, of armed force as a means of settling such disputes.

6) The government of Japan should take action, without delay, to mitigate the crushing burden of U.S. military bases placed upon the people of Okinawa and other Japanese communities. We are witnessing the pain of the people and ecological destruction around military bases. We demand of the Japanese and US governments the immediate closing of Camp Futenma and the immediate halt of construction of the new base in Henoko. We demand that the United States government recall its military forces to the U.S., not only from Japan but from other countries in the region.

7) Remilitarization brings not more security, but more vulnerability, to a nation and a region. The cynical manipulation of the idea of collective self-defense through the Abe regime’s reinterpretation of Art 9 will, we fear, lead to a dangerous arms race that will destabilize the entire region. It is obvious that this remilitarization of Japan is linked to and supported by a US desire to strengthen its hegemony in Asia. We call upon all nations to abstain from and reject military solutions to political conflicts and diplomatic challenges. We encourage the Japanese government to show leadership that is true to the letter and spirit of Article-9, and to resist pressure from other states to accept a remilitarization of their country. We are grateful to the efforts of people in peace movements in the US and other countries, and encourage them to continue their work for true peace.

8) We are hopeful that all people around the world will overcome narrow nationalism and, following the spirit of Article 9, will construct relationships based on the principles of no-war, reconciliation, equality, mutual respect and mutual benefit. As consequence of the commitment to non-violence as expressed in Article 9, and as persons of faith committed to life, we plead to respect the human right of conscientious objection to military service.

9) In addition to the points raised in the text above, we petition the government of Japan in the spirit of Article 9 to address the growing problem of hate speech, which is being directed against Korean and other minority groups, as well as peace advocates, in communities across Japan. We urge the government of Japan to institute laws that would protect residents from fear-inducing taunts and threats, and to end the practice of lending police protection to those who deliver hate speeches under the cynical guise of “protecting freedom of expression.”

10) We believe that ultimate security can be guaranteed only by no weapons and no military forces. Acting on this belief, Conference participants pledge to communicate to their communities the importance of Article 9, and to support the reaffirmation of Article 9 by correspondingly addressing their governments. Our prayer is that Article 9 will inspire people of all nations.

Recommendations for Action

Religious Communities

  •  We call upon faith communities in Japan, Korea and other Asian nations to form country working groups in East Asia, to implement Article 9 activities.
  •  We call upon faith communities to engage youth in the promotion of the cause of Article 9, by use of creative media and by the creation of education materials.
  •  We call upon faith communities to include a prayer for the spread of the spirit of Article 9 on September 21st, the International Day for Peace.
  • We call upon faith communities and advocates of peace in other lands to remember Japan and Article 9 on May 3, Constitution Day, when the people of Japan commemorate the promulgation of the Constitution.
  •  We call upon the World Council of Churches to consider the possibility of hosting an international interfaith Article 9 conference, as part of its Pilgrimage of Justice and Peace.
  •  We call upon our Muslim friends in peace across Asia to consider the possibility of hosting an interfaith Article 9 conference in a majority Muslim country in Asia.
  •  We call upon the Christian Conference of Asia to help organize a solidarity visit by article 9 leaders to North and South Korea, to promote peace, reunification and Article 9.
  •  We call upon the Asia Pacific Forum of North America to organize an Article 9 solidarity visit to the United States.

Civil Society

  •  In order to actualize the spirit of peace in article 9, we will make efforts to strengthen our solidarity with those who advocate for peace in civil society.
  •  We will work with those who advocate for peace in civil society to make Article 9 and the commitments arising from it a subject of instruction in school.
  •  We will support the ongoing efforts of peace advocates to seek nomination and award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the Japanese people who conserve Article 9.

 
Participants of the 4th Global Inter-religious Conference on Article 9

 

click here for PDF format.

Article Nine of the Japanese Constitution – A Pillar for Peace in Northeast Asia and Beyond

Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit
World Council of Churches General Secretary
Address to the 4th Global Inter-Religious Conference on Article Nine of the Japanese Constitution
December 3, 2014

INTRODUCTION AND TRIBUTE TO INTER-RELIGIOUS ACTION

I bring greetings to you all from the World Council of Churches. It is a distinct privilege to be here in Tokyo for this 4th Global Inter-Religious Conference on Article Nine. The World
Council of Churches is pleased to have also taken part in the three previous conferences, in Tokyo, Seoul and Okinawa.

These conferences are timely and of singular importance. Seventy years after World War II, they breathe new life into Article Nine. They concentrate the hearts and minds of different faiths and
different cultures on an issue that brings peace and reconciliation onto the agenda of religious communities in Asia and other parts of the world.

In July this year, the Central Committee of the WCC adopted a policy position on Article 9. The WCC noted that Article Nine has contributed to the image of post-war Japan as a peace-loving
nation, has become a diplomatic asset for Japan, has helped Japan to re-develop relationships with neighbouring states and make non-military contributions in crises overseas.

The WCC statement names the tragic history of women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II as a “constant reminder of the abhorrence of war and its
destructive impact on the lives of innocent and vulnerable people”.

The Central Committee expressed its grave concern at the Japanese government’s initiative to reinterpret or change Article Nine. The WCC warned that to weaken this constitutional prohibition would undermine regional security. It called for the Japanese government to respect both the letter and the spirit of Article 9. It urges the government of Japan to live up to its “Peace Constitution”, building non-military collective security agreements with all neighbouring states in Northeast Asia. It encourages the Japanese government not to surrender to external 2 pressures to weaken Article 9. The WCC statement says that Article Nine is Japan’s oath to not repeat its war-time mistakes.

The statement praises Japanese churches and organizations for “upholding the Peace Constitution in hope that Japan would become a truly peaceful nation”. And on August 4th 2014 a church delegation led by WCC President Rev Dr CHANG Sang of South Korea, including a Buddhist leader, met the Chief Cabinet Secretary of the Japanese government. They presented him with the Article Nine statement and the new WCC Statement Towards a Nuclear-Free World.

The Chief Cabinet Secretary engaged in an exchange of views. He thanked the churches of Japan and the WCC for assistance in the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster. He said that significant changes in global conditions had brought the Japanese government to consider the right of collective self-defence within the framework of Article Nine, and that self-defence would only be exercised in a limited way. Japan’s regard for world peace and for post-war freedom and democracy has not changed in any way, he said.

CURRENT TRENDS
Trends in Northeast Asia would certainly indicate that robust government action for peacebuilding and collective security is greatly needed. Nation by nation, the picture is troubling.

There are extensive and expensive programs to build-up military capacities. The United States’ “pivot” to Asia is a troubling long-term shift in the global deployment of military forces. Japan’s profile in Northeast Asia is taking on a more military character.

The footprint of the US military on Japanese territory has been heavy since World War Two. It is now being up-graded, as the 2012 Article Nine Conference could see in Okinawa. One analyst at that conference called new missile defense systems the “Trojan Horse” that is destroying the Peace Constitution. If missile defense is a Trojan Horse, then the naval base being built on Korea’s Jeju Island is its newest stable. Church and civil society resistance to the new base there was brought to the attention of the WCC Assembly in Busan.

Endemic hostility with North Korea and mutual suspicions with China can be readily used to justify militarization. However, such tensions should in fact be used as opportunities tonormalize relations. People of goodwill must call for greater regional commitment to confidence-building measures, equitable commercial contacts, and negotiations to settle old disputes. Instead, we are witnessing a relaxation of Japan’s arms export controls, a weakening of 3 civilian authority over the Japanese military, and pressure for Japan to join one-sided schemes of self-defense. In the event of crisis, the so-called Self-Defense Force is tasked with a broad variety of military operations alongside the US.

These are Article Nine issues. They must be analysed and understood regionally as well as nationally. The Big Power rivalry behind them is evident along the DMZ, in the Philippines and the South China Sea. Its impact is seen in basing agreements, regional arms sales and intensifying territorial disputes.

Article Nine’s peace provisions are historic. The current pressure to weaken them is deeply concerning. If actions speak louder than words, the actions of the state that imposed Article Nine are already rewriting Article Nine. In the mind of an average citizen, the message seems to be:

Yes, Japan, you are still not supposed to use war as in instrument of foreign policy. However, we want you to see our wars as your wars. You must be prepared to do your part. Meanwhile, we will continue to protect you with our nuclear weapons and we will continue to use your land and other allies’ lands for our military bases.  In effect, you will use force as an instrument of foreign policy but it will be mostly our foreign policy.

AN UNFINISHED PILLAR
In places where people build great buildings out of stone, pillars are an essential element. At the site or in a quarry, one sometimes sees a half-finished pillar. A block of rock lies on the ground with one end still rough and the other end neatly sculpted into a pillar. Sometimes, the capitol or top of the pillar is already carved with decorations.

There is a parable of Article Nine in this image. The adoption of Article Nine in 1947 was like sculpting a pillar of stone for a remarkable living monument, a Peace Constitution. Article Nine was a constructive achievement after a vastly destructive war. The pillar stands upright, but the work is not finished. The base of Article Nine, and its foundation, still have to be finished. These Inter-Religious Conferences demonstrate the conviction which will be needed to complete the peace pillar that is Article Nine.

Religious communities here and abroad do not look to the Japanese government to weaken its Peace Constitution. We do not accept that Japan can move away from Article Nine. Rather, we expect Japan to follow Article Nine as a pillar for peace in this region, and far beyond. 4 There is nothing in Article 9 that a responsible government can ignore. The UN Charter – written in the same epoch as Article 9 – does not grant states an absolute right to wage war. It obliges all states to settle international disputes without the use of force. It also calls them to minimize the diversion of resources from public welfare and the common good to armed forces and the waging of war.

We expect Japan to follow Article Nine. We are convinced of the power of Japan’s positive example to influence the conduct of other states.
PILLAR FOR PEACE, HEALING THE PAST Article Nine serves as a pillar for peace in Northeast Asia because it helps to heal the past, to guide the present and to shape the future.

Much of the past remains unhealed in a region which has endured the traumatic effects of war, rape, pillage and occupation. Article Nine exists in a difficult context. This unfinished pillar can be seen from different angles—as an example of victor’s justice, as a penalty for defeat, or as a historic bid to bring healing.

What kind of message does it send, though, to wage total war on a country, even using atomic bombs, and then make that country promise never to do what was done to it? Certainly, a very mixed message at best. The most likely outcome might be for the defeated nation to learn the opposite lesson from the one intended: Adopt the strategy of your conqueror; wait till the time is right; seek revenge.

However, it is not hard to understand the healing power of Article Nine for the countries that Japan conquered in World War II. In addition, it is important to note that Article Nine has wide support in Japan too. Many citizens have recognized the wisdom of breaking the cycle of violence, of refusing the reflex of revenge, of rejecting the destructive dynamics of narrow nationalism. Let us give thanks for the role that religious beliefs and public witness play in this shared commitment to peace.

Those who resent Article Nine, who see it as a stain on their national honour, and who look forward to its demise, are doing what one would expect of human nature. A population that has lived through a violent past is fertile soil for the cultivation of future violence. An embittered society is poor soil in which to grow the seeds of peace.

The Cold War froze out a proper recovery from World War II for Northeast Asia. The Cold War lasted for a long time, but it is over. Article Nine may have been ahead of its time, but it has survived. Today, with East Asia emerging as a world center, is surely the time for Article Nine to come into its own as a central pillar for peace.

The WCC Assembly Statement On the Way of Just Peace addresses alternatives to war which are consistent with Article Nine. It says that: “For peace among the nations, churches must work together to strengthen international human rights and humanitarian law, promote multilateral negotiations to resolve conflicts, hold governments responsible for ensuring treaty protections, help eliminate weapons of mass destruction and press for reallocation of unnecessary military budgets to civilian need. We must join other communities of faith and people of goodwill to reduce national military capacities and delegitimize the institution of war.”

These words evoke the spirit of Article Nine. No matter its origins in the politics of occupation and new schemes for hegemony, Article Nine is a pillar for helping a war-torn region recover from its terrible past.

GUIDING THE PRESENT
If there is one place where Article Nine must serve as a guide for current affairs in Northeast Asia, it is the Korean peninsula. The Korean peninsula has endured more than a century of occupation and division. The Korean people have earned themselves wide international recognition for their perseverance, hard work and ingenuity, yet their tireless dedication to progress and modernity has not been rewarded with peace.

At the WCC Assembly in Busan we recognized the long history of ecumenical and inter-religious engagement for peace in the Assembly Statement On Peace and Reunification of the Korean Peninsula.

We recommended more such initiatives to continue, involving North and South Korean church leaders, other churches from Asia, North America and Europe, and including Christian-Buddhist cooperation. Such initiatives show civil society in harmony with the spirit of Article Nine. “On the Korean peninsula, shared human security and human rights must become a greater priority than divisive, competitive and militarized national security,” the Assembly declared.

It called for “fresh and decisive action” on a peace treaty agreed by the countries related to the Armistice Agreement. It reminded participants in the Six-Party Talks of their promise to hold peace forums. It called China to act as a facilitator for reaching long-pending agreements. The statement denounced military build-ups in the region including the stockpiling of nuclear weapons. We “strongly urged” the US and Japan to stop blockades and sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to halt all military exercises on the Korean peninsula and to reduce military expenditures in the region.

We called for a “truly Demilitarized Zone” in Korea that, with international cooperation, would transform the peninsula into a zone of peace. This is the geography of Article Nine. Much has happened since Busan. Church leaders from North and South Korea came to Geneva in June for an international consultation on peace, reconciliation and reunification. New relationships were begun. Doors were re-opened. A key follow-up step also took place in October – a WCC visit to the Korean Christian Federation in Pyongyang.

SHAPING THE FUTURE
Finally, the obligations enshrined in Article Nine also help to shape the future, in Northeast Asia and beyond. Let us look at one concrete opportunity to build a safer future, specifically, so that no one in the world will ever again suffer what Hiroshima and Nagasaki have suffered. These inter-faith conferences have all denounced nuclear dangers. Let us say here with conviction that Article Nine is inherently incompatible with nuclear weapons. First, it is clearly unacceptable under Article Nine for Japan to possess nuclear weapons. Indeed, a more flagrant violation of the constitution is hard to imagine. Second, it is antithetical under Article Nine for Japan to accept that the monstrous weapons used against it should ever be used on its behalf against others. Yet this is what Japan accepts in the US strategy of extended nuclear deterrence policy. Third, it is hypocritical under Article Nine for the US to co-opt Japan into its own war plans and doctrines.

The Asia we hope for – an Asia where Article Nine is working properly – must be an Asia that is free of nuclear weapons. A Japan threatened by nuclear weapons is not a Japan at peace. A Japan dependent on nuclear weapons is a Japan living in fear and at constant risk. This is true for Japan, and true for its neighbours.

We are an inter-religious conference. Let us listen to some words of faith on this topic from the Busan Assembly: The WCC Assembly stated that to use the energy of the atom in ways that threaten and destroy life is a sinful misuse of God’s creation. Christians are to understand God as a generous Creator who calls life into being from atoms and molecules and endows creation with life in abundance.

We believe that humanity is called to live in ways that protect life instead of putting it at risk – neither living fearfully, defended by nuclear weapons, nor living wastefully, dependent on nuclear energy. Our task is to build communities and economies in harmony with God’s manifold gifts of life, the Assembly said.

In the 1990s, when the Sahtu-Dene people of northern Canada learned that uranium from their lands had been used in the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, they sent a delegation of elders to Japan to apologize.

We must listen to all who suffer nuclear harm. The voices of the hibakusha, the pi-pok-ja, and the test site victims in the Pacific and central Asia cry out for an exodus from the nuclear age. And now these are joined by the victims of nuclear disaster in another form, Fukushima.

“We must refuse to accept that the mass destruction of other peoples can be a legitimate form of protection for ourselves. God sets before us life and death, blessings and curses. God implores us, ‘Now choose life’, so that we and our children may live.”

The Assembly quoted a recent faith declaration of a group of Korean Christians: “We urgently proclaim the need not for the security of the status quo of nuclear-armed states but for the securing of life for all humanity and creation,” they said.

Let us all pray and work together for that “securing of life”. Progress is possible. The WCC is blessed with a network of churches which take a step-by-step approach to protecting life and building peace. This ecumenical network is helping to unite more and more governments behind a joint statement at the United Nations which says in part: “It is in the very interests of the survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again under any circumstances”. 155 governments have now joined. Japan’s “yes” vote is widely appreciated. These joint actions are part of a groundswell of support for delegitimizing nuclear weapons and ultimately banning them for their catastrophic humanitarian impact.

The WCC is grateful for member church representatives in Japan and Korea who help lobby their governments in this way, and for collaboration with Buddhist partners pursuing the same results.

Next week in Vienna, Japan will join some 150 governments in the latest of a series of groundbreaking conferences on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Because these conferences are fact-based and multi-disciplinary, they challenge the dominant paradigm of nuclear deterrence and are giving rise to healthy concern among the nuclear armed states.

It is important that Japan continues to take part in these conferences and helps them succeed. If Article Nine is incompatible with nuclear weapons, it is also incompatible with the collective failure to abolish nuclear weapons, a failure in which Japan shares.

Ecumenical progress along this path of peace affirms and validates Article Nine. After the 1983 WCC Assembly in Vancouver, Canada, churches played key roles in a successful campaign to make the South Pacific a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. Following a WCC recommendation at the 2006 Assembly in Brazil, WCC churches helped make Africa a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. Now the Busan Assembly has called on the churches to “Ensure the complete, verifiable and irreversible elimination of all nuclear weapons in North East Asia”. As many of you know, this is the goal of long-standing proposals for a Northeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. It is a difficult proposition, but it is not a dream. A just and sustainable peace in the region will be a
peace where neighbouring states no longer threaten each other with mass destruction, as they have for the past 60 years.

It is our conviction that Article Nine must be reaffirmed, not reinterpreted. It must be repositioned in the center of Japan’s international relations, not relegated to the margins of national life. Article Nine is Japan’s heritage and more. It is a lesson for all nations scarred by war, a corrective for all governments that indulge in confrontation. Article Nine is a healthy challenge for America, China, Korea and Russia as well as for Japan. More and more religious leaders must rally around this pillar for peace, in Asia and beyond.

It is interesting to see who runs US Government?

Members in US Government who hold dual US/Israeli citizenship
AS RECEIVED FROM LA/CAL.

This is a serious infiltration of Israeli citizens and Israeli lobbyists in the US government……
This is a serious US National Security issue with dual citizenships resulting in possible conflicts of interest and allegiance.
How can the US Government pursue a Middle East policy in the best US National interest?
Who is naïve enough to believe the US government is not influenced by Israel
Those holding U.S./Israeli citizenship in our Government number about 100 top officials.
Of course these are the officially declared names….. !!!

Members in US Government who hold dual US/Israeli citizenship.

1. Attorney General – Michael Mukasey
2. Head of Homeland Security – Michael Chertoff
3. Chairman Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle
4. Deputy Defense Secretary (Former) – Paul Wolfowitz
5. Under Secretary of Defense – Douglas Feith
6. National Security Council Advisor – Elliott Abrams
7. Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff (Former) – “Scooter” Libby
8. White House Deputy Chief of Staff – Joshua Bolten
9. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – Marc Grossman
10. Director of Policy Planning at the State Department – Richard Haass
11. U.S. Trade Representative (Cabinet-level Position) – Robert Zoellick
12. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – James Schlesinger
13. UN Representative (Former) – John Bolton
14. Under Secretary for Arms Control – David Wurmser
15. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Eliot Cohen
16. Senior Advisor to the President – Steve Goldsmith
17. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Christopher Gersten
18. Assistant Secretary of State – Lincoln Bloomfield
19. Deputy Assistant to the President – Jay Lefkowitz
20. White House Political Director – Ken Melman
21. National Security Study Group – Edward Luttwak
22. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Kenneth Adelman
23. Defense Intelligence Agency Analyst (Former) – Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
24. National Security Council Advisor – Robert Satloff
25. President Export-Import Bank U.S. – Mel Sembler
26. Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families – Christopher Gersten
27. Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs – Mark Weinberger
28. White House Speechwriter – David Frum
29. White House Spokesman (Former) – Ari Fleischer
30. Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board – Henry Kissinger
31. Deputy Secretary of Commerce – Samuel Bodman
32. Under Secretary of State for Management – Bonnie Cohen
33. Director of Foreign Service Institute – Ruth Davis

Current members of the US Senate:

• Senator Barbara Boxer (California)
• Senator Benjamin Cardin (Maryland)
• Senator Russ Feingold (Wisconsin)
• Senator Al Franken (Minnesota)
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (California)
• Senator Herb Kohl (Wisconsin)
• Senator Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey)
• Senator Joe Lieberman (Connecticut) (Independent)
• Senator Carl Levin (Michigan)
• Senator Bernard Sanders (Vermont) (Independent)
• Senator Charles Schumer (New York)
• Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon)

House of Representatives:

• Representative Gary Ackerman (New York)
• Representative John H. Adler (New Jersey)
• Representative Shelley Berkley (Nevada)
• Representative Howard Berman (California)
• Representative Steve Cohen (Tennessee)
• Representative Susan Davis (California)
• Representative Eliot Engel (New York)
• Representative Bob Filner (California)
• Representative Barney Frank (Massachusetts)
• Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona)
• Representative Alan Grayson (Florida)
• Representative Jane Harman (California)
• Representative Paul Hodes (New Hampshire)
• Representative Steve Israel (New York)
• Representative Steve Kagen (Wisconsin)
• Representative Ronald Klein (Florida)
• Representative Sander Levin (Michigan)
• Representative Nita Lowey (New York)
• Representative Jerry Nadler (New York)
• Representative Jared Polis (Colorado)
• Representative Steve Rothman (New Jersey)
• Representative Jan Schakowsky (Illinois)
• Representative Adam Schiff (California)
• Representative Allyson Schwartz (Pennsylvania)
• Representative Brad Sherman (California)
• Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Florida)
• Representative Henry Waxman (California)
• Representative Anthony Weiner (New York)
• Representative John Yarmuth (Kentucky)

U.S. House Votes 98% to Donate U.S. Weapons to Ukraine; U.S. Public Is 67% Against. Is this democracy?

By Eric Zuesse

In a remarkable disjunction between voters and their elected (supposed) representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, the members of the House voted on December 4th, by 411 “Yea” to 10 “Nay,” to donate U.S. weapons to the bankrupt Ukrainian Government, which is engaged in trying to eliminate the civilian population of the portion of Ukraine that had voted 90% for the former Ukrainian President whom the U.S. Government (CIA, State Department, USAID, etc.) had overthrown in a violent coup in February of this year .

This 411 to 10 vote margin is 98%, and it contrasts starkly against the 62% of Americans who, in the most recent poll, opposed sending U.S. arms to the Ukrainian Government; 30% favored sending those weapons. (8% had no opinion.) (The above link includes also that poll-result.) So, 67% of those who had an opinion (62% divided by 92% is 67%) shared the view of the 10 members (2%) of the U.S. House who voted against this measure. Only 33% of the surveyed Americans who had an opinion on it shared the view of the 411 House members (98%) who voted in favor of this measure.

This is a war-and-peace issue, so the U.S. Constitution assigns it to the Congress; the President is assigned the executive function of carrying out the will of Congress, as the Commander-in-Chief and U.S. Chief Executive Officer.

However, the situation here is actually even a bit more extreme than that, because the way that the Pew poll of the U.S. public was phrased, it had the U.S. “sending arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government,” and not “donating arms and military supplies to the Ukrainian government.” The Ukrainian Government cannot possibly actually pay back all of the financial obligations that it already has, much less pay those plus interest, and buy more weapons. As was documented in the first of the links within the linked report above, “The only reason that things haven’t totally imploded [for the Ukrainian Government] is because of the $18 billion package of assistance from the IMF and the $9 billion in additional assistance pledged by the United States and the European Union.” All of the weapons that the U.S. will be technically ‘selling’ to Ukraine will now go to the back of the line of creditors for Ukrainian debt — never be paid. U.S. arms-makers will receive payment for those arms from U.S. taxpayers (the sale won’t be merely technical for them, nor for the lobbyists they pay), it won’t be paid actually by the Ukrainian Government. Consequently, the U.S. taxpayer is totally funding Ukraine’s bombing campaign going forward, to eliminate the residents in the area which overwhelmingly supported the previous Ukrainian President.

In fact, on September 18th, when the U.S.-installed new Ukrainian President was greeted with standing ovations by a special Joint Session of the U.S. Congress, he addressed them and the weapons-lobbyists to cheers as if he were a hero; he said that this was “the forefront of the global fight for democracy,” and said “I urge America to help us, I urge America to lead the way.” He was doing a sell-job for them and their financial backers. Of course, those financial backers also fund the sale of these politicians to the public.

His use of the term “democracy” there was interesting. A secretly recorded phone conversation on 25 February 2014, right after the coup , was subsequently uploaded to the Internet, and the discussants were Catherine Ashton, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Minister, and her appointed investigator into how Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych came to be ousted on February 22nd, Urmas Paet. In it , was revealed that the snipers who precipitated the coup had been hired by “somebody from the new coalition” (perhaps the U.S. CIA) that replaced Yanukovych, and that, “it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, … they don’t want to investigate [since they were its beneficiaries].” Paet told Ashton that, “what was quite disturbing, the same oligarch [Poroshenko — and so when he became ‘democratically elected’ as President of all of Ukraine on May 25th, he already knew this] told [Paet] that well, all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers, from both sides, among policemen and people from the streets, [this will shock Ashton, who had just said that Yanukovych had masterminded the killings] that they were the same snipers, killing people from both sides.” So, Poroshenko himself knows that his regime is based on a false-flag (meaning set up so as to falsely blame the other side) U.S.-controlled coup d’etat against his predecessor. So, there can be no reasonable doubt that, despite his rhetoric when speaking before the Special Joint Session of the U.S. Congress on September 18th, Poroshenko actually knew, by no later than February 25th, that the regime that replaced Yanukovych was being appointed by the United States Government, hardly a ‘democratic Maidan’ event (though it is sold as if it were).

Specifically, the new regime had been selected on 4 February 2014, 18 days before the coup, in yet another secretly recorded phone conversation , this one between the U.S. State Department official who is responsible for Europe, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. Ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, in which she instructed Pyatt to place “Yats,” Arseniy Yatsenyuk in charge of Ukraine until a new Ukrainian President, acceptable to Washington, would be installed in such a way that it would seem more democratic than merely a coup-regime.

The Maidan demonstrations that were used as a cover for the U.S. operation were actually not for democracy, since Viktor Yanukovych had been as democratically elected as any previous Ukrainian President, but it was instead a movement against Ukraine’s endemic corruption, which was embodied in Yanukovych and every other Ukrainian President. It was not a democracy movement. There is no democratic tradition in Ukraine; it doesn’t exist there. What exists there instead, and has always existed there, is a population who are constantly fooled and exploited by an elite, an aristocracy, which Ukrainians call “oligarchs.” Basically, in the new Ukrainian regime, America’s aristocracy are in control of Ukraine’s aristocracy who are in control of the Ukrainian public. Under Viktor Yanukovych, Russia’s aristocracy were in control of Ukraine’s aristocracy who were in control of the Ukrainian public.

This contrasts with Poroshenko’s address to the U.S. Congress , which presents himself as being the leader of a new democracy. It’s not new, and it’s not a democracy; but only the personnel, and the foreigners who are in ultimate control, have changed. But, of course, any member of the U.S. Congress who even cared about the matter, already knew that; and, presumably, the 421 House members who voted on the bill about donating weapons to Ukraine, knew about it, too. They are insiders; the public are outsiders. Insiders exist in order to exploit outsiders. Outsiders exist in order to be exploited by insiders. That’s the system.

When Poroshenko delivers speeches to Ukrainians, they’re very different. He tells his audiences there that the Ukrainian Army will destroy the residents in the Donbass or rebelling southeastern region , and that those people are “subhumans,” and not merely “terrorists.” “Subhumans” (in addition to “terrorists”) is a commonly used term for them also among the U.S.-imposed regime’s other leaders . (Of course, Germany’s Nazi Party likewise used the term — “Untermenschen” — often.) The regime’s Army (and its mercenaries who are paid per piece for the corpses they produce and dispose of ) treat them as being that (as you’ll see in that video).

This vote in the U.S. House follows less than two weeks after the November 21st U.S. vote at the U.N. in which the U.S. was one of only 3 countries, out of the 173 countries, which three voted against a resolution condemning nazism or racist fascism. The Ukrainian Government voted against it because their ethnic-cleansing operation in the heavily pro-Yanukovych area is clearly nazi , though the proposed resolution doesn’t even so much as mention Ukraine, which is the only nation in the world that is run by nazis and which was installed by nazis. The representative of Canada’s far-right Premier Stephen Harper also voted against it. This was the first occasion in U.S. history in which the U.S. Government was clearly pro-nazi. The verbiage of Obama’s U.N. Representative explaining the vote denied that the U.S. Government is at all pro-nazi . Lying is now routine at the top levels, just as it was for Germany’s Nazis.

In any case, the condition of U.S. ‘democracy’ itself comes into question when 98% of the U.S. House of Representatives vote to donate U.S.-made weapons to the world’s only nazi regime — one right on the border of Russia, moreover — and when 67% of the American public (including the vast majority of the American public who don’t even know that the Ukrainian Government is nazi) oppose not only the donating of these weapons, but even any sort of transmittal or “sending” of them, including selling of them, to that Government.

So, the U.S. House vote about this on December 4th was a reflection of today’s U.S. ‘democracy,’ whatever that is. It displays a pervasive and profound alienation between the U.S. Government and the U.S. people, and this is something that’s impossible in a democracy. It cannot happen in a democracy; it disproves a ‘democracy’; but it’s the case in the United States.

This House vote is one crucial step along the path toward a nuclear war with Russia. (To call it a renewed “cold war,” as some writers do , is dangerously understating and misrepresenting the actual threat. This is not “MAD.” It’s the opposite of that. This is already part of a “hot war,” that could easily get out of control.) Many more steps are yet to go, but now the direction is clear and incontrovertible, and we are already on it.

How can the Russian Government stand by and merely watch while Russia’s supporters right next door to them in Ukraine are being exterminated ? However, now clearly, the U.S. Government seems to be overwhelmingly committed to exterminating them . There are even cluster-bombs , and white phosphorous , and also more-advanced forms of incendiary munitions , that are being used to get rid of the residents there. But mostly, it’s just the routine type of military mass-murder . (Those are the ‘terrorists’ that Ukraine and its sponsors are constantly referring to including in their standard phrase for the extermination-campaign: “Anti-Terrorist Operation,” or ATO for short. That’s the sales-phrase by which they market it to suckers everywhere. And these are the ‘terrorists.’)

The U.S. is laying down the gauntlet to Russia. Perhaps the idea is that if Russia sends in their army and publicly commits to the defense of these people, the U.S. aristocracy and the ones who are in its pay will proclaim this to be a cause by ‘the West’ to attack Russia for its ‘aggression.’ Things might already be out of control.

On the positive side, member-nations of NATO could quit the alliance, which would considerably reduce the U.S. threat. NATO was supposed to have been set up in order to defend against communism. However, now that communism is all but dead, yet NATO has expanded and especially surrounds Russia, NATO is more clearly shown as being instead the international marketing-organization for U.S.-made weapons. It’s not only for invading Syria, etc., but especially for weakening and isolating Russia and all of its allies. Even a third world war could be highly profitable to their financial backers. And perhaps those financial backers have more clout in the U.S. Government now than the American people do. However, if that’s the case, then arms-makers wouldn’t be the only industry — there’s also banking, oil, corporate agriculture, and others, who would also be at the feast — and perhaps Ukraine isn’t more corrupt than the United States after all.

Perhaps Ukraine is America’s future, unless America’s future is World War III. The odd thing is that this time we would be leading the fascist nations, instead of leading their enemies. It could be called “Hitler’s revenge.” In case it seems not possible, consider America’s vote for nazism at the U.N., and the House’s vote for war against Russia. Hitler’s revenge is a possibility. It is not an impossibility. However, this time, the first target is Russia, not Jews. But the conflagration could be world-wide, and far worse than last time.

The December 4th House vote to finance the “ATO”; and the November 21st U.N. vote for nazism; are just two steps along the path toward that conflagration, but they are both steps that are of historical magnitude in that they indicate not just that America’s aristocracy are determined to do everything to destroy Russia, but that they don’t care what the American people think or feel about that, and they have the overwhelming support of the U.S. Government in doing it.

So, the alienation between the rulers and the ruled in the United States is bound to intensify even beyond its current 98%-versus-33% support-level, and its 2%-versus-67% opposition-level. But is that not extreme enough already? How much more would it need to be in order to consider the United States to be a dictatorship?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

07 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

Another Climate Change Summit: Don’t Give Up

By Kumi Naidoo

Many have simply lost faith in global climate negotiations summits such as the COP 20 which started in Lima, Peru this week. But while the process has not delivered the climate action we need, I would argue that this year key things have changed and that we must continue to demand from our politicians that they listen and act and, by that, safeguard the future of next and current generations on this planet.

As nations start this latest global round of climate change negotiations, it is easy to be cynical. Because in the 20 plus years that our governments have been meeting for global climate meetings, emissions have risen more than ever before. This year is already predicted to be the warmest since records began.

And yet, this is a moment of opportunity. Because things are changing, really changing. In the climate movement, in the economy and in the politics of climate change. Today, the climate movement all over the world is reenergised. The largest ever climate march in New York this September was a powerful symbol for the global rise of a movement that is stopping pipelines and coal plants as well as forcing renewable energy solutions all over the world.

In economics, too, we live in a different world: Cost-effective, sensible renewable energy solutions have made quantum leaps. Renewables are the most economical solution for new power capacity in an ever-increasing number of countries. One hundred percent of new power capacity added in the United States in August was renewable and countries such as Denmark and Germany are producing new “clean electricity” records almost every month. China is installing as much solar this year as the US has ever done.

Bilateral agreement

The recent bilateral agreement between China and the United States to cut pollution and drive cleaner energy sources is, in addition, a sign of changing politics. Many said that such an agreement was impossible, that it would not happen in our lifetimes. And yet it did. Only a fool would argue that the action proposed by these two biggest polluters and biggest economies is enough.

It is not enough, experts have already told us, to protect our planet from a potential three or four degree Celsius rise in global temperatures – with all the disastrous consequences that would have for us, our children, and our ecosystems.

But the fact that the world’s biggest emitters have come together moves us from a “you go first” mentality, that had paralysed global climate negotiations for years, to an “I will act if you will act” frame. At Lima, others must now follow and our pressure must speed up the action.

Because we need an agreement to tackle the climate crisis, which meets the needs of the many not the few. Because it is ordinary people living in flood and drought prone areas, dependent for their livelihoods on fishing, farming and forests, or living in cities engulfed by pollution or in housing that cannot protect them from storms or heat waves, who are bearing the brunt of our experiment with the world’s climate.

The United Nations – where every country has a voice, not matter how small, relatively poor or vulnerable – are still the only place where we can hope to secure action that takes full account of these peoples’ rights.

At Lima, we need governments to make sure that the direction is right. They need to agree a goal of ending carbon pollution and deliver renewable energy for all people on this planet by 2050. And in Lima, governments must agree to renew and review their targets every five years, starting in 2025.

Not just to cut pollution, but to help the vulnerable adapt to climate change, and to support poorer countries to provide sustainable energy access for their populations.

Every government should already be preparing their “intended nationally determined contribution” – their offer towards the Paris deal. Before March 2015 we must see concrete, ambitious plans from each and every one of the world’s polluting nations – to phase out coal and nuclear power, to install solar and wind energy, to increase energy efficiency, to build cleaner and more livable cities, and to protect forests.

In Lima, governments must agree to review whether these plans are enough to prevent climate chaos and whether the effort is shared fairly between richer and poorer nations before they meet again in Paris in December 2015.

In Lima, we expect scientists, business people and investors, city mayors, faith leaders and civil society organisations from all over the world to be calling for more ambitious climate action. The climate movement gets broader and more effective day. It is an unstoppable force now – and in Lima and Paris, we will make our voices heard.

Kumi Naidoo is Executive Director of Greenpeace International

06 December, 2014
Al-Jazeera English

 

Aligarh Muslim University , Raja Mahendra Pratap And Attempts Of Polarization

By Ram Puniyani

Those resorting to communal politics have not only perfected their techniques of polarizing the communities along religious lines, but have been constantly resorting to new methods for dividing the society. On the backdrop of Muzzafar nagar, where ‘Love Jihad’ propaganda was used to enhance the divisive agenda, now in Aligarh an icon of matchless virtues, Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh is being employed for the similar purposes.

The attempt by BJP and associates to hold the memorial function in his honor within campus was successfully deflected by the Vice Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) University with the plan for a seminar befitting his contribution to the freedom movement of this AMU alumnus. BJP dug up this icon from pages of history and gauzing prevalent respect for him after the lapse of decades after his death. The answer to why now at this particular juncture is very revealing. Mahendra Pratap died on 29 April 1979, and now out of the blues BJP seems to have felt that his Jat, Hindu identity can be pitched as a flag of their politics. Pratap was a freedom fighter extraordinary, a journalist and a writer. He was a humanist, believing in International federation of nations transcending the national and religious boundaries. He was a Marxist who called for social reforms and empowerment of Panchayats. He was president of Indian Freedom Fighters’ Association He was also the first one to form the provisional Indian Government in exile by establishing it in Kabul in 1915. Just to recall the Indian National Congress adopted the goal of complete freedom for India much later in its 1929 session. This Provisional Government was called Hakumat-i-Moktar-i-Hind, and was constituted with Pratap as the President, Maulvi Barkatullah as prime minister and Maulana Obaidullah Sindhi as interior minister.

After independence he also participated in the electoral arena where he defeated Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Mathura in the 1957 Lok Sabha election. His commitment to being opposed to communal forces could not be more evident than this opposition of his to the leader of Bhartiya Jansangh, Vajpayee. Ironically same person is being lifted up as the icon, who opposed their politics. BJP leaders like Yogi Adityanath are claiming that had Mahendra Pratap not donated the land the AMU would not have come up. This is contrary to the facts. The predecessor of AMU, Mohammadan Anglo Oriental College was formed in 1886, with a land bought from British cantonment (Nearly 74 Acres) and much later Pratap had leased 3.04 acres of land, this is called Tikonia ground and is used as a playground by the City High School of AMU in 1929. He joined the Mohammedan Anglo Oriental College in 1895, but could not complete his graduation. He left MAO College in 1905. MAO became Aligarh Muslim University in 1920, which regards Raja Mahendra Pratap Singh as an alumnus. In 1977, AMU, under V-C Prof A M Khusro, felicitated Mahendra Pratap at the centenary celebrations of MAO.

He wasn’t born when MAO was established, and there is no record of any donation of land from him. Mahendra Pratap’s father Raja Ghanshiam Singh of Mursan had got a hostel room constructed, which continues to stand as Room Number 31 in Sir Syed Hall (South).

BJP demanded that Mahenra Pratap’s birthday should be celebrated as AMU celebrates the birthday of Sir Syed, the founder of the University RSS Functionaries and BJP leaders put pressure on the VC. VC pointed out that AMU cannot celebrate birth day of every donor or alumnus, while recognizing their contribution to the building up of the University. As such already AMU in recognition of Pratap’s contribution to the University has put up his photo in University along with the photo of Sir Syed.

On November 17 (2014), BJP chief of UP Mr. Laxmikant Bajpai and general secretary Swatantra Dev Singh visited Aligarh and directed their district unit to celebrate the birth day of Mahendra Pratap’s within the MU campus. The raja is a also Jat icon, In popular perception AMU is seen as a Muslim institution. The Jat-Muslim conflict instigated by communal forces, which erupted in the form of violence in Muzaffarnagar continues to affect in western part of UP. The BJP through its machinations allegedly wants to restore the glory of a Jat ‘king’. As such the idea is to appropriate one more of icons and in the process if the state government puts curbs on the celebration, the BJP can benefit by accusing the state Government of “Muslim appeasement”.

As the matters stand VC, Gen. Shah’s suggestion of celebrating the birth anniversary of Raja Mahendra Pratap by organizing a seminar on his contribution to freedom movement of India is a welcome initiative. The situation seems to have been diffused for the time being. BJP had planned a rally outside the gate of AMU, which would have precipitated the unwarranted incidents.

This whole episode has many lessons for the society. To begin with, the national icons are being modulated to suit the interests of communal politics. Be it Sardar patel, Swami Vivekanand, Mahatma Gandhi or in this case Raja Mahendra Pratap, they are being presented in the light which suits the communal politics. In case of Mahedra Pratap, who was a Marxist internationalist; is being presented as a mere Jat leader. He was a person who opposed the politics in the name of religion, as is evident by his electoral fight against BJP’s previous avatar, Bhartiya Jan Sanghs’ Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Secondly BJP associates are manipulating people’s identity as primarily being religious identity, Hindu or Muslim. In case of Muzzafarnagar, the Jats who were instigated in the name of ‘love Jihad’ came to stand more for Hindu identity. This identity is then made to stand opposed to the ‘other’ religious identity in particular, the Muslim identity and sometimes Christian identity. Same game is also being experimented in parts of Delhi, where Dalits are being made to pitch against Muslims, in a way two deprived communities being made to fight for’ their’ religion’ on the pretext of some issues related to faith.

The communal politics not only manipulates the identity of the people but also that of the icons, as is clear in the case of Raja Mahendra Pratap. The third major lesson for society to learn is that the search is on to find more and more issues to pitch one religious community against the other to strengthen the politics of a particular type. While the top leadership will talk of moratorium on violence, the associates of the same leadership will stoke the processes which will lead to the process of violence in due course.

A great amount of restraint is needed to ensure that we learn the values of the icons, e.g. the likes of Mahendra Pratap teach us the basic lessons of love and amity, peace and universal humanism. To use the techniques of conflicting religious identities is a gross violation of human morality, irrespective of the religion in whose name it is done.

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.

01 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

Repression, Resistance, And Rebellion In Police State Ferguson

By Larry Everest

Sunday, November 30, Ferguson , Missouri . The governor of Missouri declared a state of emergency on November 17, and this is what’s been happening in Ferguson and St. Louis County , Missouri :

You drive past a major traffic and commercial intersection like Chambers and West Florissant and you see the cross-street barricaded by a half-dozen or so police cars with bubble lights flashing, crime scene tape, a military Humvee, armed soldiers, and more police in the Walgreen’s / mini-mall across the street. You often hear helicopters circling overhead, at night sometimes you can see their searchlights sweeping nearby. Meanwhile, the airspace has been closed off to all other traffic, reportedly to prevent news helicopters from providing video and pictures of what is going on below.

You go to a protest—whether in the streets or at a shopping mall—and you see a heavy police presence, often backed up by uniformed military personnel and undercover cops. Nonviolent marches and rallies can be (and have been) declared “illegal assemblies” and then violently shut down on the slightest pretext. Sometimes this means massive riot vehicles firing volleys of teargas—effectively collective punishment of the whole crowd for the alleged actions of one or two. Sometimes military-like riot police line up threateningly, or even charge the crowd. Pepper spray, bean-bag rounds, and clubs have all been deployed and used. Those who speak up in outrage have been pointed out by the police, and then a gang of six or eight cops jump, throw down, arrest, and drag them away.

After claiming to be a democracy that respects the people’s right to assemble, speak, and protest, the government has deployed dozens of police, spies, and military organizations that have been planning for months about how to contain and suppress expected protests. They’ve arrested more than 500 people in the area since August, and have conducted widespread surveillance on political activists, organizers, and journalists—some of whom have then been arrested driving in their cars, or when they come to protests. Revolutionaries and other resisters have been targeted, slandered, and vilified in the media.

If all this was taking place in countries that the U.S. has a conflict with—like Russia, China, or Iran—the same mainstream media that are now supporting the repression of protesters and the people in Ferguson would be condemning those countries as “dictatorships” and “tyrannies.” Well, that is what is going on here.

Ferguson —Epicenter of an Uprising Rocking the Country

This is happening because Ferguson has been the epicenter of a powerful uprising that has rocked the whole country and awakened millions to the fraud of “civil rights progress” and “equal rights,” and to the reality of the vicious oppression and murder of Black and other oppressed people in America today.

Michael Brown was murdered by Ferguson cop Darren Wilson on August 8, triggering a massive rebellion and waves of protest across the country. The system responded with a military deployment in the streets of Ferguson that further outraged millions and exposed the founding lies of America : that this country is a global beacon of freedom, a place unlike any other in the world in its respect for people’s rights, including the right to speak out and to protest.

Since then, authorities in St. Louis County, as well as nationwide up to the highest levels, have been preparing for the day the prosecuting attorney’s office would announce whether Michael Brown’s murderer would even be charged.

Leading up to the announcement, Loyola University law professor and associate legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Bill Quigley, wrote, “Dozens and dozens of different police forces will be surrounding the protesters in Ferguson when the Michael Brown verdict is announced. There will be federal FBI agents, Homeland Security, US Marshals, State Police troopers, County Sheriffs , and local city cops from the dozens of little towns in and around St. Louis .”

This is a system based on white supremacy, one whose functioning and interests are directly contrary to those of the vast majority of people, and one whose rule is maintained by violence. It’s a system that understands that particularly the Black masses—like the people who’ve risen up in Ferguson —pose a threat to its existence—including because when Black people rise up, it calls forward the best of other sections of the people. When they talk about government “of the people, by the people, for the people” they mean violently enforcing oppression.

In the 108 days between Michael Brown’s murder and the announcement that Wilson would walk free, the powers-that-be coordinated and built up their police response, including Governor Jay Nixon’s November 17 announcement of a state of emergency, even as they made a (thin) pretense that they would give protesters “an opportunity to express their first amendment rights,” as St. Louis Mayor Slay put it.

Then came the November 24 announcement that Darren Wilson was getting off free, that a Black person could be murdered in America any time, any place, by law enforcement in particular, without consequence. The rage that erupted was deep and wide. That night the system lashed back and the next day Nixon tripled the National Guard presence to 2,200, escalated its role, and the police adopted even more aggressive tactics.

Police State Ferguson —This Is What American Imperialist Democracy IS Like

On Monday night, November 24, people in front of the Ferguson police station were confronted with huge riot vehicles, were massively tear gassed, and many were forced from the streets. Sixty-one were arrested that night, some with felony charges. And for all the system’s bullshit about “outside agitators”—as if that is a bad thing—these were actually overwhelmingly local residents.

Tuesday night, November 25, the section of West Florissant around Canfield Apartments—where Michael Brown lived and was executed—was blocked off. Police declared illegal and broke up a protest of about 60 at the corner of Chambers and West Florissant without provocation. On South Florissant police tear gassed and dispersed a protest of hundreds in front of the police station.

Wednesday, the 26th, I saw police violently shut down a mass demonstration in central St. Louis , pepper spraying some demonstrators and snatching people just for speaking out.

Intimidation on Black Friday

Friday, the 28th, I saw a big police presence, including undercover cops in Walmart’s parking lot. When I went up to one regular car with a young Black man inside to ask him what he thought of the Black Lives Matter boycott, he said, “Step back from the car.” I thought he just meant to back off a little, but when I tried to ask him a question he began to get out and said more loudly, “No, I mean step back from the car.” I did. He was an undercover pig and there were more nearby. There was also a large police presence at the Galleria in Richmond Heights . (See reports on the Black Friday protests.)

One of the activists who shut down a Walmart in St. Louis County told me:

There were aggressive, armed security and dogs at Walmart. We started chanting, and rallied at the exit. There was a wall of police. Police were yelling at shoppers: “If you’re gonna shop, shop”—as if to warn people, don’t pay attention to them. When we were chanting outside Walmart, police officers put hands on their pistols! I found that shocking, if believable. Almost grotesque in the sense that this is just a store. You have a police presence in a store to protect private property, and this holiday, and these transactions.

The Blinding of Dornella Conners

On Saturday, November 29, Dornella Conners, a young, pregnant Black woman, was in a car with her boyfriend simply trying to drive away from a police clampdown. The police blocked the car, front and back, and fired a bean bag at the window. It shattered the glass, sending shards of glass into her face and blinding her in one eye. “I weren’t looting or anything. I was just out with my boyfriend. We were just riding around respecting Mike Brown,” she told a local radio station. “How can a pregnant person in a car be causing chaos?” her father asked.

A Broad, Countywide, Unconstitutional Pattern of Repression

These are not isolated incidents. Kris Hermes, the National Lawyer’s Guild (NLG) legal worker vice president, described a broad multi-dimensional pattern of repression against the people and those protesting.

“Chasing people out of an area to disperse them, as happened on Tuesday, November 25, near the Ferguson Police Department, because of some property destruction, instead of allowing people to demonstrate—this was violating the constitutional right to assemble and protest.”

So is using weaponry against protesters like rubber and plastic bullets, pepper spray, and tear gas. “This is not individual punishment for breaking the law, this is collective punishment,” Hermes said. “Tear gas is indiscriminate. Shooting rubber bullets into a crowd is indiscriminate. Pepper spray is indiscriminate.”

One particularly egregious example was the tear gassing of people at MoKaBe’s Coffeehouse in south St. Louis in the early morning hours of Tuesday, November 25. This was supposed to be a safe space and people were in the café and outside on the patio having coffee, a popular hangout for people active in the struggle for justice for Michael Brown and VonDeritt Myers Jr., a young Black man who was shot eight times and murdered by St. Louis police on October 8. But around 1:00 am , police fired tear gas at people at the café, and then a little later even tear gassed people attempting to get to St. John’s Episcopal Church, another safe haven. Jennifer McCoy, an NLG legal observer, told me that when people went into the church, there was so much tear gas on their clothes that they were forced back outside.

The NLG’s Hermes said that widespread arrests as well as blocking off streets—a stretch of West Florissant in this case—are also a means of preventing or suppressing protest. One hundred twenty people had been arrested since Monday night when the grand jury decision was announced, 30 of them for felonies. Contrary to all the government and media talk about the uprising being driven by outsiders, Hermes said, “The vast majority were local residents.”

Quigley—the CCR’s constitutional law expert—wrote that the whole notion that the government can tell people when, where, and how to protest—as police have been doing in Ferguson—is unconstitutional. “The government will say people can only protest until a certain time, or on a certain street, or only if they keep moving, or not there, not here, not now, no longer. Such police action is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution. People have a right to protest, the government should leave them alone.”

Quigley points out that police intimidation—showing up in full riot gear—is also an unconstitutional suppression of dissent.

The National Guard—Actively Helping Suppress Protest

The National Guard has been portrayed as playing a passive role in simply protecting property, but Hermes emphasized this is not the case, that they are playing an active role in suppressing protest: “The National Guard has helped block off an entire stretch of West Florissant, preventing vehicular and pedestrian traffic, which is itself a suppression of rights.

“The National Guard,” Hermes added, “has also appeared on the scene at the Ferguson Police Department, an act of intimidation and a form of policing against crowds there to peacefully protest. Friday night, there were a couple dozen or so National Guard there. Together with law enforcement agencies they outnumbered the protesters. This kind of massive show of force is a form of intimidation.”

Widespread Surveillance and Targeting of Activists

Hermes stressed that “heavy surveillance has been a foundation” of what the police have been doing. “They are intensely videotaping activists across the St. Louis area, targeting particular people and picking particular people out of a crowd—often for brutal arrest. They’re going after organizers.”

One example was the arrest of videographer and live-streamer Bassem Masri, who has been very prominent and active in the protests. He was being followed by police and was then arrested and detained on a $15,000 cash bond for allegedly driving a vehicle with a revoked license. This constitutes an act of preventive detention. The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee in St. Louis quickly raised the money through crowdfunding to get Masri out.

Hermes reports that “Some of what is going on is people are being filmed, and if they seem to be leaders or organizers, they are then later targeted at demonstrations. This has been common and has happened over and over again. The protests have been going on weeks and weeks and this has gone on for that time. I would say dozens of times. It’s a practice they’ve been using since August. There have been over 500 arrests since then.”

Three NLG legal observers were illegally arrested on November 21 while monitoring and filming the police.

The Bronx Defenders, a legal group whose mission is to “zealously defend the rights of clients, fight for systemic change and promote justice for the community,” sent a delegation to Ferguson and their Tweets paint a similar picture:

Like in the Bronx , but perhaps even more marked here, it’s clear the legal system as a whole is ground zero for injustice in # Ferguson .

Heard a LOT this evening at county jail from protestors & spectators hauled in on trumped up charges and abused by police in # Ferguson .

The St. Louis County police denying access to counsel here in Clayton to visit with arrested # Ferguson protestors.

NYPD Spying on Protest Leaders

It has also been reported (WNYC, November 25) that the NYPD has sent experts to Ferguson to identify “professional agitators.” “We have a number of our detectives out there, have had them out there for over a week to help out in terms of intelligence we have on some of the professional agitators who are involved in these types of activity,” NYPD Commissioner William Bratton said.

Coming from New York ‘s police commissioner, this is an outrageous self-exposure and admission of illegal actions by the authorities. First, it’s not against the law to be a “professional agitator,” whatever that means. The targeting of “agitators” is not being based on any specific allegations of illegal activity but simply people the NYPD doesn’t think have the right to speak out against police brutality and murder!

Reports seem to indicate this strategy is being put into action: In Ferguson as well as in New York, Los Angeles, and other cities, activists and “agitators,” including communist revolutionaries, have been targeted simply for political speech, and snatched out of crowds and arrested.

What’s described above is, no doubt, just some of the state’s illegitimate violence, violation of rights, and repression being wreaked on the people. Email your stories to revolution.reports@yahoo.com. The whole world needs to know!

Larry Everest is a correspondent for Revolution newspaper / revcom.us, where this article first appeared, and author of Oil, Power & Empire: Iraq and the U.S. Global Agenda (Common Courage, 2004).

01 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

Israeli Barbarity And International Hypocrisy

By Dr. Elias Akleh

The slow simmering Palestinian/Israel tension have been lately escalated to a boiling level at many fronts; social, political and religious. This tension has led to many violent confrontations between Palestinians and Israeli armed security forces, and between Palestinians and armed Israeli mobs. The epicenter of these violent confrontations is Al-Quds/Jerusalem and radiates to all the major Palestinian towns in the West Bank, and to all the 1948 occupied Palestinian towns. These confrontations would ignite a Palestinian Intifada (uprising) that would be different in nature and intensity than the previous Intifadas; 6 years long first Intifada (1978) and the 5 years long second Intifada (2000) known as Al-Aqsa Intifada.

Israelis have taken the opportunity of the world’s attention being diverted away from them and focused on the war against ISIS (Israeli Secret Intelligence Services) terrorists in Syria and Iraq, in order to intensify their oppression of Palestinians, their demolition and occupation of private Palestinian homes, their confiscation of large areas of Palestinian land, the expansion of their illegal colonies (settlements), and lastly, which is more insulting and inciting to Palestinian anger, desecrating and attempting to control the Islamic Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound.

Zionist leaders know very well that in order to accomplish their Zionist project they have to evict the Palestinians out of the land. They use supremacist religious ideology to brainwash and to manipulate naïve Jews to do this dirty job. Thus, Judaism has become the driving force for Zionism. Palestinian forced eviction and ethnic cleansing are the operating mode of Zionism as declared openly by most of their political leaders. Yitzhak Shamir, a former Israeli Prime Minister stated:

“The settlement of the land of Israel is the essence of Zionism. Without settlements, we will not fulfill Zionism. It is that simple” (Maariv, February 21st 1997 edition).

Ariel Sharon, another former Israeli Prime Minister, went even further when he was still a Foreign Minister by stating the following:

“It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to (Israeli) public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization, or Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands” (Agence France Presse November 15th 1998)

Religion is an effective way politicians use to control and manipulate people. Through their pro-militaristic educational system, administered by military personnel, intertwined with their supremacist religious ideologies of Jews as god’s chosen people while the rest of humans are merely animal souls born in human bodies only to serve the Jews, and that Palestine is their god’s promised land, the Israeli young generations have been indoctrinated into and brainwashed to become brutally militaristic, extremely racist, and egotistically religiously supremacist.

The Yeshiva system (Jewish religious schools) starting with elementary children through after marriage (from ketana to gedola to kollel Yeshivas) in occupied Palestine (Israel) are the center of supremacist teachings and the producers, the promoters, and the meeting centers for young Israeli vigilante gangs, who descend from their colonies (settlements) into Palestinian villages to harass and assault Palestinian residents and farmers, burn their crops, kill their farm animals, vandalize their schools and assault students, torch their mosques, vandalize their churches, kidnap their children and amuse themselves by torturing and burning them to death. All these and a lot more are done under the watchful eyes and the protection of Israeli soldiers. These young Israeli vigilante gangs have been daily attacking Palestinians even in 1948 occupied Palestinian towns. Such attacks include stabbing, beating, lynching, kidnapping and torturing and burning to death, vehicular hit and run, property vandalism, and even police shooting dead Palestinians for the mere reason of being a Palestinian; a goyim; non-Jew.

Al-Quds/Jerusalem is the epicenter of the Arab/Israeli conflict. The Israelis want to claim the city as their own Jewish-only eternal religious and political capital. They have enforced all kinds of oppressive laws and measures aimed at evicting Palestinians out of the city. Between 1967 and 2013 the Israeli government had revoked the residency status of more than 14,309 Palestinian families of Al-Quds/Jerusalem under dubious justifications that apply only to Palestinians. The Israeli government has been confiscating large areas of Palestinian lands around the city, and have been building their own satellite colonies for the long run of claiming them as Jerusalem suburbs in order to claim a Jewish majority in the city.

Israeli extremists, including what is called Temple Mount Faithful, are encouraged to harass and terrorize Palestinian Jerusalemites in an attempt to force them out of the city. Large scores of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem suburbs, such as Silwan and Jabal Al-Moukaber, had been forcefully occupied by these extremists after assaulting and evicting their Palestinian owners. Muslim Palestinian prayers below the age of 50 are denied entry to the Old City and cannot pray in Al-Aqsa Mosque. They end up praying in the streets at the closest point, usually a check point, they can get to Al-Quds/Jerusalem. Orthodox Jewish religious extremists have been, for many years, marching towards the Al-Aqsa Compound calling for the destruction of the Mosque and the erection of their alleged temple.

It is worth noting that for the last 47 years, since Israel occupied the West Bank, Israeli archeological teams had been digging beneath and around Al-Aqsa Compound looking for evidence to prove the existence of their alleged Solomon Temple on the Compound. None have been found. The only discovered artifacts have been Romans and Islamic.

The violence was ignited by the assassination attempt of religiously extremist Yehuda Glick, an American born Rabbi who is the leader of religious HaLiba; a coalition of religiously extremist groups calling for the rebuilding of the Temple on the Al-Aqsa Compound. This group had in many occasions attempted forced entry to the Compound and had clashed with the Muslim watch-guards and prayers. Violent clashed between Muslim prayers and armed Israeli security forces erupted, where Israeli forces attacked prayers in the Compound with tear gas and stun grenades, and forcefully evacuated Muslim prayers from the Compound while allowing Israeli extremist settlers entry to perform their dancing rituals on the Compound.

Some Israeli politicians took this opportunity to score electoral political points. In three consecutive days three Knesset Members; Netanyahu’s sole competitor Moshe Feiglin, with mayor Nir Barkat, Miriam “Miri” Regev, and Chuli Rafeili, forced their way through Al-Aqsa Compound accompanied with scores of extremist settlers , under the protection of heavily armed Israeli security forces. At the same time Israel’s Public Security Minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, threatened to close Al-Aqsa Compound completely if Jews cannot visit the Compound.

It seemed that these politicians had forgotten that the 5 years long Al-Aqsa Intifada started as a response to Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Compound under heavy police protection. Under fear of such Intifada, and under pressure from Jordan, the official custodian of the Al-Aqsa Compound, and from international community, Netanyahu stated that he will keep the status quo of the Compound as it was. Yet, despite his statement, extremist settlers are still routinely force their way through the Compound.

While Palestinians have been under brutal occupation for the last 66 years, most of the Arab regimes and the international community have provided only lip service for their aid. Others had supported Israeli terror while calling Palestinians terrorists. Initially Arab regimes seemed to oppose Israeli occupation, later on some of them turned out to become Israeli collaborators and anti-Palestinians. Jordan and Kuwait are helpless and weak militarily. Saudi Arabia is covertly agreeable and exerting pressure on the rest of Arab states to stay silent. Qatar is virtually an American occupied military base and is a full economic and political partner to Israel. Egypt has been a partner to Israel since Sadat. Its president, el-Sisi, has turned out to become a big disappointment to his people and to the rest of the Arabs. He continued his predecessor’s; Mubarak, siege against Gaza Strip in full partnership with Israel. He even went further by demolishing the houses on the Rafah Egyptian side to create a 5km long buffer zone, and virtually had declared Hamas as a terrorist group because of its remote association with the Muslim Brotherhood. Arab states that had supported Palestinian cause (Saddam’s Iraq), and those that are still supporting Palestinians (Syria and part of Lebanon – Hezbollah) are busy defending their territories against terrorist groups, such as Al-Nusra and ISIS, that had been created, armed, and financed by some Arab states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia in partnership with Israel and USA.

One should not be surprised by these Arab regimes, who consider Palestinians a foreign nation and not Arabs, when the Palestinian president himself, and his Palestinian Authority, who are supposed to protect and Palestinians, are themselves partners with Israeli security to protect Israelis, and could not raise a finger to protect one single Palestinian citizen. On the contrary the Palestinian security forces arrest Palestinian freedom fighters, and suppress any form if resistance or insurrection. When Palestinian residents of the occupied West Bank towns, especially in Al-Khalil/Hebron attempted to travel to Al-Quds/Jerusalem to protest Israeli settlers’ desecration of Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Palestinian security forces stood in their way.

After 20 years of futile peace negotiations with Israel the PA still follow this path knowing very well that it will lead to nothing. Abbas keeps raising his empty threats of going to UNSC to enforce its many resolutions against Israeli occupation, and to go to International Criminal Court against Israel, but does not follow threats with actions. He is afraid of being assassinated like Arafat, and prefers to keep the illusion of authority and his hefty American/Israeli paid salary plus the millions in perks that he passes on to his son to buy real estate properties in Amman, Jordan.

The Arab League had decided in its latest meeting, Saturday 11/29, to authorize Jordan; a UN member, to present a draft resolution to the UNSC calling for the implementation of UN Resolution 242 of 1967 for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. However the Arab League did not decide on a time for the delivery of such draft.

The Western leaders are so hypocritical when it comes to the Palestinian cause. They talk about their commitment to a two-state solution but are so complicit, and many are supportive, to the on-going Israeli occupation and gradual ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. They justify occupying Israel’s terror as self-defense while denying the occupied Palestinians the same right. Many of them go further than that by providing Israel with billions of dollars and with the latest devastating military armaments. Although some claimed they would support and recognize a Palestinian state yet when the UN, on Saturday 11/29, drafted 6 resolutions against Israel demanding its withdrawal from the occupied West Bank and Syrian Golan Heights according to Resolution 497 of 1981, 57 of these European countries abstained from voting.

Throughout 66 years of occupation, expulsion, mass imprisonment and torture, brutal terror attacks, destruction of homes and properties, theft of their land and livelihood, extremist settlers’ terror attacks, all types of persecution, and international neglect, the Palestinians have been patient and steadfast in their mostly peaceful resistance against Israeli occupation. They had sacrificed a lot in lives and property; loss of family members and loss of 87% of their homeland, in order to live in peace. They offered Israel peace treaties many times. They entered into 20 years of peace negotiations. Yet Israel, understanding only the language of brutal force, kept on stealing more Palestinian land and kept on oppressing Palestinians.

Nature’s laws proved that pressure produces violent explosions, and that for every action there is a reaction. Israelis think that they could conquer and demolish Palestinian resistance spirit through their brutal terror. They thought old Palestinians would die and the young would not remember. Palestinians proved them wrong. Palestinian young cherish the memory of the old. Palestinian resisting spirit is still alive and stronger. Just observe how the unarmed Palestinian young generations courageously face the heavily armed Israeli forces in the streets.

Palestinian patience has run out. They understand now that they cannot depend external help. Their fate is in their hands. The Israeli pressure has produced an explosion. Israeli settlers’ attacks on Palestinian villages are producing Palestinian attacks on Israeli settlers. Israeli vehicular hit and run is producing Palestinian similar hit and run. Israeli attacks on Palestinian Christian and Muslim holy places is producing Palestinian attacks on Synagogues.

Israelis have sewn only terror in Palestine, and terror they will definitely reap.

Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent, born in the town of Beit-Jala.

01 December, 2014
Countercurrents.org

 

Netanyahu’s “Jewish Nation” Bill Enshrines An Apartheid-Style Constitution

By Jean Shaoul

The agreement by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s cabinet to present a Jewish nation-state bill to the Knesset at the beginning of December has provoked a major political crisis.

The bill seeks to anchor Israel’s definition as an explicitly Jewish state in the country’s Basic Laws. While civil rights are theoretically still to be accorded to everyone, “according to the law”, communal or national rights will only be extended to Jewish Israelis. It, in effect, ends the state’s formal commitment to democracy and equality, rendering non-Jews—the Palestinians, Druze and Bedouin, as well as the 300,000 Russian immigrants who are not Jewish according to rabbinical law, and who together account for more than 1.5 million, or nearly 20 percent of Israel’s 8.2 million population—second class citizens.

The bill calls on the judiciary to utilize Jewish law, meaning rabbinical law, “as a source of inspiration”, and enshrines the national anthem, Jewish holy days and the right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel in the Basic Laws.

The Zionist state is now preparing to adopt the institutional arrangements for an apartheid system to ensure Jewish supremacy under conditions where Israel, East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights will soon together have a Palestinian majority. The move follows inexorably from the establishment of the Zionist state as a “safe haven” for the Jews via the dispossession of the Palestinians and the commitment of successive governments to an expansionist policy.

Netanyahu claimed that the law was necessary because “There are many who are challenging the notion of Israel as a Jewish homeland. The Palestinians refuse to recognise this and there is also opposition from within. …” Whereas all would have equal civil rights, he said that, “There are national rights only for the Jewish people—a flag, anthem, the right of every Jew to immigrate to Israel and other national symbols.”

The proposals also discriminate in favour of Jewish heritage and history, stating, “The state will work to preserve the heritage and the cultural and historical tradition of the Jewish people and to instil and cultivate it in Israel and the Diaspora.”

The cabinet agreed by a majority of 14 to six to back several private member’s bills going through the Knesset, provided that the final version of the laws is in accordance with Netanyahu’s 14 requirements—which are a slightly less extreme form of the other bills. Those bills demote Arabic from its already weakened status as an official language and include a commitment to the construction of new Jewish communities, without requiring similar construction for the Palestinian Israelis.

The proposals prompted a furious debate, whose noisy exchanges could be heard outside the cabinet meeting room. But none of the ministers, including Justice Minister Tzipi Livni from the Tenua Party and Finance Minister Yair Lapid from the Yesh Yatid party, opposed the bill as a matter of principle. Lapid called the proposed change a “bad law, which is badly worded”.

Their main concern was to reach some agreement on voting against the measure in the Knesset and remaining in Netanyahu’s coalition.

Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein claimed that Netanyahu’s proposals maintain the principle of equality, but opposed the bill because it was essentially a constitutional amendment that should be introduced by government, not by a private member.

Palestinians, both within Israel and the occupied territories, denounced the bill as racist, crowning the raft of discriminatory legislation passed over the last decade and currently under discussion.

The government has just reinstated house demolitions as a punitive measure and is proposing to strip Palestinian attackers of their residency rights in occupied East Jerusalem. Netanyahu said, “It cannot be that those who harm Israel, those who call for the destruction of the state of Israel, will enjoy rights like social security.”

Others have opposed the bill, fearing it would further isolate Israel internationally. Labour Party leader Isaac Herzog called it “an unnecessary, reactionary provocation”, while Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin, a right winger and member of Netanyahu’s Likud Party, argued that it was unnecessary and gave ammunition to Israel’s critics internationally.

They voiced their concerns after opposition was expressed by the United States. On Monday, a US State Department spokesman said that it expected Israel to “continue [its] commitment to democratic principles”. He added, “The United States position, which is unchanged, has been clear for years—and the president and the secretary [of state] have also reiterated it—is that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state in which all citizens should enjoy equal rights.”

Washington’s concern is that the bill reveals that Israel has already created much of the constitutional and legal framework for an apartheid state. The physical separation of the two communities is assured by the Security Wall between the Occupied West Bank and Israel, and the military control of Area C in the West Bank, by far the largest area that is home to the Israeli settlements. Now the new arrangements set the scene for far greater discrimination than that already endured by the Palestinian population within Israel itself.

In addition, it jettisons any pretence of reaching an agreement with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas—for whom the recognition of Israel as an explicitly Jewish state is a step too far. Any Palestinian state based on this definition of Israel is publicly revealed for what it always was—the equivalent of a South African Bantustan.

The pretence that an agreement on some Palestinian statelet is possible at some future date is the necessary fig leaf to cover the Arab leaders’ support for the US’s predatory wars to control the region’s rich energy resources. As such, the Jewish-nation bill threatens to fuel not only an uprising in Israel/Palestine that is already well developed, but also an international protest movement that would cut across Washington’s plans for military action in Iraq and Syria.

The US intervention has led to a delay in the bill’s ratification, with both of Netanyahu’s right wing partner coalition partners, Israel is Our Home and the Jewish Home Party, calling for a postponement of the Knesset vote.

Nevertheless, the bill, amid heightened tensions in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, gives the green light to the ultra-nationalists to mount further provocations. Religious zealots have sought increased access to the Al Aqsa mosque compound, with provocative marches by prominent Israeli politicians escorted by armed guards, reminiscent of Ariel Sharon’s visit that sparked the second Intifada in October 2000. There are also moves from the security establishment to ban Palestinian guards stationed on the compound, which is subject to Jordan’s control under Israel’s 1994 treaty with Jordan, to block entry by Jews.

Netanyahu is promoting the bill in large measure as a means of shoring up his support among the most rabid nationalist layers. His shaky coalition, which faces crises on the economic and political fronts, is on the point of collapse, presaging an early general election after just two years. Netanyahu represents an isolated and demoralised ruling class that has lost its head and has no answer to the crisis it confronts except increased authoritarianism, brutality and war.

Notwithstanding the nationalist propaganda—that the Zionist state represents all those of the Jewish faith—Israel is a capitalist society, divided by class and beset with massive social antagonisms, serving to preserve the rule of a handful of billionaires and their venal politicians. The turn to measures associated with both apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany will only deepen the revulsion and hostility toward Zionism throughout the Middle East, around the world, and among Jewish workers and youth in Israel itself—in the process discrediting Israel’s backers, the US and European imperialist powers.

01 December, 2014
WSWS.org