Archives: Articles

Over the last few days we have seen some of the bravest people facing down some of the worst.

Armed with nothing more than a revolutionary heart and hopes of a better future they gathered and protested as government forces aimed their weapons and fired live rounds in to the crowds.

But the ammunition and the underlying threats of arrest and torture meant absolutely nothing to the masses – for they had simply lost their fear.

It was the final testament to the brutality of a dictator who has had the support of European leaders and various presidents of the United States.

And that the Tunisian President Zine El-Abedine Ben Ali fled from his country like a rat up a drainpipe after 23 brutal years spoke volumes about the character of the man himself.

If he had one ounce of the courage his own people displayed, he too would have stayed but most of these tyrants are gutless with the moral fiber of a dung beetle.

The demise of Ben Ali came when police prevented an unemployed 26-year-old graduate from selling fruit without a license. Mohammad Bouazizi turned himself in to a human torch on December 17 and died of the horrific burns in Sidi Bouzid, in central Tunisia.

It was the final straw, a defining moment which ignited rallies, marches and demonstrations across Tunisia.

And revelations from Wikileaks cables exposing the corrupt and extravagant lifestyle of Ben Ali and his grasping wife fanned the flames of unbridled anger from a people who were also in the grip of poverty.

I knew it was coming. I saw the burning desire for freedom in the eyes of the courageous people of Ghafsa when the Viva Palestina Convoy entered the country in February 2009 on its way to Gaza.

Our convoy witnessed the menacing secret police intimidate the crowds to stop them from gathering to cheer us on.

This vast army of spies, thugs and enforcers even tried to stop us from praying in a local mosque

That they stood their ground to cheer us on prompted me to leave my vehicle and hug all the women who had turned out. We exchanged cards and small gifts and then, to my horror, I discovered 24 hours later that every woman I had embraced in the streets of Gafsa had been taken away and questioned.

Human rights organizations have constantly condemned and exposed the brutality of the Ben Ali regime but that has not led America and European leaders to intervene or put pressure on the regime to stop the brutality.

Sadly, it serves western interests to have a people brutalized and subjugated.

Now Tunisia is minus one dictator but it is still in a state of emergency. The next few days and weeks are going to be crucial for the Tunisian people who deserve freedom and liberty. My God, they’ve paid for it with their own blood and we must always remember their martyrs.

None of the politicians, secret police or other odious government forces will emerge from this period with any honor and quite a few are already cowering in the shadows.

But perhaps the biggest show of cowardice in this whole sorry episode has come from The White House.

Not one word of condemnation, not one word of criticism, not one word urging restraint came from Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton as live ammunition was fired into crowds of unarmed men, women and children in recent weeks.

And news of the corrupt, mafia-like regime would not have come as a surprise to either of them. We know this thanks to the Wikileaks cables written by US Ambassador Robert Godec who revealed in one memo: “Corruption in the inner circle is growing.”

But, as the injustices and atrocities continued there was not one squeak from the most powerful nation on earth … until America’s dear friend, Ben Ali had scuttled from the country.

The reality is the US Administration likes dealing with tyrants and even encourages despotic behavior. Egypt is one of the biggest testaments to this with its prisons full of political opposition leaders. Hosni Mubarak is Uncle Sam’s enforcer and biggest recipient of aid next to the Zionist State.

Pakistan’s treatment of its own people is little better. Remember when US Ambassador Anne Patterson in Islamabad wrote in one Wikileaks cable about the human rights abuses carried out by the Pakistan military? Patterson then went on to advise Washington to avoid comment on these incidents.

But now the US has made a comment on the situation in Tunisia … but only when Ben Ali was 30,000 feet in the air did White House spokesman Mike Hammer issue a statement which read: “We condemn the ongoing violence against civilians in Tunisia, and call on the Tunisian authorities to fulfill the important commitments … including respect for basic human rights and a process of much-needed political reform.”

Unbelievable. Too little, too late, Mr President. Actually that statement could have been uttered any time during the last US presidencies since Ronald Reagan.

But as I say, America couldn’t give a stuff about the human rights of the people of the Maghreb, Pakistan, Egypt and Palestine to name but a few.

When US condemnation finally came through the tyrant had fled leaving behind more than 60 civilian martyrs and countless more injured.

Tomorrow I will go to the Tunisian Embassy in London as I have done previously and stand shoulder to shoulder with my Tunisian brothers and sisters and their supporters. We will remember the dead, we will pay tribute to the brave and courageous many who are still in the process of seizing back their country and we will pray that no tyrant will sleep easy in his bed from this moment on.

Tonight we are all Tunisians.

By Yvonne Ridley

15 January, 2011

Foreignpolicyjournal.com

British journalist Yvonne Ridley is the European President of the International Muslim Women’s Union as well as being a patron of Cageprisoners. Read more articles by Yvonne Ridley. http://yvonneridley.org/

Washington, DC – There has been a democratic revolution in Tunisia over the past four weeks. This is a new and exciting era in Tunisian history, and an example for other countries of the Arab world.

Unfortunately, however, it all started when a 26-year-old university graduate set himself on fire on 17 December in a public town square in Sidi-Bouzid, in the south of Tunisia. He died a few days later.

Daily demonstrations and clashes with the police ensued and quickly spread to other cities. The demands initially focused on economic issues, such as employment and poverty alleviations, but quickly became political: denouncing corruption and demanding accountability, freedom of expression and a representative government.

The overwhelming majority of the demonstrations have been peaceful, ranging in size from a few hundred to over 40,000 people. The government, the opposition and experts on Tunisia were caught off-guard by the magnitude and the strength of these spontaneous demonstrations, and by the veracity of their political demands.

Tunisia has often been cited as a “good student” of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. It has enjoyed sustained economic growth in the past 20 years – extraordinary by Arab standards – posting an average of five per cent annual growth. However, the “spoils” of development have not been shared equally between all sectors or regions of the country.

Corruption is rampant, with a few families and individuals controlling an increasing proportion of the economy. Tunisians speak daily about how the “Trabelsi clan” – the family of the president’s wife – is above the law and forcibly stealing private and public lands and properties.

Officially, unemployment is at 14 per cent, however, among recent university graduates (85,000 students graduate every year), it is estimated to be between 34 per cent and 36 per cent.

A restive youth decided to take matters into its own hand. The half of the Tunisian population under 25 years of age declared “enough is enough” and took to the streets to demand immediate changes.

Promises by Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of creating 300,000 jobs over the next two years and guaranteeing a job for every graduate within two years of entering the job market did not appear to satisfy popular thirst for major reforms, especially at the political level. On 12 January, Ben Ali indefinitely closed all schools and universities, called in the army, announced the release of all prisoners and an investigation looking into charges of corruption. But it was too little too late. On 14 January Ben Ali stepped down.

The opposition has now been galvanised and united like never before. In the past, the government played on the divisions between Islamic and secular forces to keep the opposition weak and divided, but Tunisians abhor violence and extremism, and do not want a theocratic government. What they do want and deserve is a democratic system of government that is based on their Islamic values and identity.

It appears that opposition leaders have finally overcome their fears of the regime, and mistrust of each other, and are willing to work together for political and economic reforms. Tunisians, across the board, realise that prosperity for the majority of people or economic development that benefits everyone will not be possible without political reforms, a major clampdown on corruption, and a representative and accountable government that listens to the people, and protects their rights and interests.

The rules of the game are changing. The interim government, or any future government, must pay close attention to public opinion and sentiments. They promise to legalise all political parties, and organise free and fair elections with international observers within six months. They also promise to reform the political system to allow greater transparency and accountability. Government officials have been reminded that they are public servants. Let’s see if they can act the part.

Having seen the success of people’s power in Tunisia, it is probable that other Arab populations will demand similar rights and reforms in the coming months and years. Already there are reports of self-immolation by people in Algeria, Egypt and Mauritania, hoping to be heard and to set their countries upon the same path as Tunisia. Arab leaders must reform or face their people.

The genie of democratic change is out of the bottle.

by Radwan Masmoudi

21 January 2011

* Radwan A. Masmoudi is President of the Washington, DC-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 18 January 2011, www.commongroundnews.org

Copyright permission is granted for publication.

Jerusalem – Jerusalem, home to Christianity, Judaism and Islam – and highly significant to Palestinians and Israelis alike – continues to be a crucial focal point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Holy Basin in Jerusalem is home to some of the most sacred sites to all three religions, including the Western Wall, a remnant from the Second Temple and the holiest place in Judaism, and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam. Sovereignty, freedom of movement and the symbolism of the city are therefore very important to Palestinians and Israelis, both of whom see Jerusalem as their nation’s capital.

There have always been religious motives for the conflict over Jerusalem, but in recent years the religious-historical justifications are trumping political ones, and Jewish and Muslim extremists are using Jerusalem as a rallying point.

Since Israel annexed East Jerusalem following the Six-Day War in 1967, it has been building and expanding Jewish neighbourhoods beyond the Green Line and as of the 1990s it has been settling Jews in the middle of densely populated Palestinian neighbourhoods.

Organisations such as Ateret Cohanim and Elad promote the Jewish purchase of property in Palestinian neighborhoods, portraying it as redemption of Israel’s land. Ateret Cohanim is a religious seminary that acquires property in the Old City’s Muslim quarter. They use the religious significance of this area for political gains, presenting it as a mitzvah (religious deed) to displace Palestinians from their homes.

Elad, founded in 1987, runs the City of David archaeological tourist site in the Palestinian neighborhood of Silwan. Tourists who visit there are excited about seeing where King David supposedly once roamed, but are unaware of the fact that not only are the region’s archaeological findings questionable, but Palestinian homes were expropriated inside the City of David to “resettle” Jews.

The Jewish religious settlement project has generated similarly one-sided responses by Muslims. To some Muslims these groups represent a new “crusade” against Islam itself. One of the leading groups countering the “Judaisation of Jerusalem” is the Islamic Movement in the North of Israel, which has been making strong inroads in Jerusalem. Like Hamas, the Islamic Movement fills the vacuum created by the absence of Israeli government services in East Jerusalem and the prohibition on the Palestinian Authority to take action. It has gained strong support from the Arab community by launching the “Al-Aqsa in Danger” campaign, which highlights the importance of the mosque as a unifying symbol.

Such groups capitalise on the fear of the local residents confronted with growing settlement and security activities in the city and the municipality’s neglect of Palestinian residents. They have positioned themselves as the defenders of Islam and Jerusalem and have quickly won local support by providing charity and infrastructure.

Both Muslim and Jewish groups have been denying each other religious and historical heritage in Jerusalem. A recent study by the Palestinian Authority (PA) claimed that Jews have no historical or religious heritage in Jerusalem. However, the PA leadership was quick to dismiss the study and its findings, a move which constitutes a shift away from previous trends of claiming exclusive rights to Jerusalem.

The change in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a political conflict over identity, nationality and land to a conflict being led by extreme religious groups for political gains is a dangerous shift that should be worrying, especially for mainstream religious leaders. The more people see this conflict in starkly religious terms, the less likely they will be to accept compromise.

Jerusalem has the potential to be a city of peace and coexistence as mentioned in the holy books. This has been exemplified by efforts of non-violent protest and education, such as the Wadi Hilweh Information Center in Silwan, comprised of residents of Wadi Hilweh who seek to effectively communicate information about their struggle to retain their land, and the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity movement, which has been bringing Palestinians and Israelis together to protest the settlements in East Jerusalem every week for the last year.

Such groups must be strengthened so that Jerusalem’s potential to bring Christians, Jews and Muslims together in peace can be realised.

by Aziz Abu Sarah and Mairav Zonszein

21 January 2011

* Mairav Zonszein (972mag.com) is an American Israeli journalist, blogger and activist based in Jerusalem. Aziz Abu Sarah (azizabusarah.wordpress.com), a Palestinian from Jerusalem, is Director of Middle East projects at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University, and winner of the Eliav-Sartawi Award for Common Ground journalism. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 18 January 2011, www.commongroundnews.org

South Beirut — Informed Congressional sources in Washington DC today  are confirming that the White House has informed Congressional Committee  Chairpersons and American allies that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon  (STL) will indict Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Wali al  Faqui (jurisconsult or Supreme Religious Leader) for issuing the order to  assassinate Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The US and Israel believe  Iran’s motive was that PM Hariri was considered a serious threat to Tehran  and Damascus because their intelligence agencies established that Hariri was  conspiratorially linked to Saudi Arabia, France and the United States–and  by extension, Israel.

There continues to be much speculation about the timing of the Special Tribunal indictments and what they will mean on the street. Bookies at the Casino de Liban near Jounieh have odds that those indicted will be named publicly on next month’s valentine’s day, the 6th anniversary of the Hariri murder. Others are holding their bets arguing that using that date would make the STL prosecutor’s office appear too politicized, a charge Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare has been chafing under for more than a year. The STL has said that the names of those indicted will be kept sealed when prosecutor Bellemare sends them to Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen. The public will likely learn the names of those indicted when arrest warrants are issued by the Court.

More likely would be Israel undertaking a White House green-lighted  invasion of Lebanon to degrade Hezbollah and Syria as a base toward the weakening of Iran from ground level. Congressional sources report that the Pentagon disagrees with Israel and intend to attack not from the base but from above the top of the Resistance pyramid, which is Iran. The US will hit Iran hard thus hopefully opening up another attempt to peel away Syria and forced them to accept a peace deal with Israel. The scheme would return the Golan heights to the Assad regime minus the 100 meters strip along Syria’s Lake Tiberius. This sliver of lake front is where former Syrian President Hafez Assad told President Bill Clinton in 2000, he used to swim as a kid. He also told Clinton that Syria’s demand for its full return was non-negotiable, the same position adamantly held today by the Syrian government.

In Beirut, discussing the likelihood of street violence, a March 14th Hariri supporter attending Professor Norman Finkelstein’s public lecture at AUB last night told this observer that Lebanon needs stability and justice. “Let all the dead from Lebanon’s black civil war period rest in peace. It’s time to move on and rebuild our fractured country. I say all those who have been killed in Lebanon are equal.”

Well almost.

The enthusiastic young man did not believe his counsel should apply to the case of his personal idol, former P.M. Rafik Hariri, who while not the first PM to be killed in office, is the first one to be killed with such powerful friends insisting on “justice.”

LEBANON IS in crisis. And what is new?

Since the founding of the state, 90 years ago, the word “crisis” has been inseparably linked with its name.

From the Israeli perspective, this crisis has a double significance.

First, it endangers the quiet on the Northern border. Every internal crisis in Lebanon can easily lead to a conflagration. Somebody in Lebanon may trigger a confrontation in order to divert attention from internal matters. Somebody in Israel may decide that that this is a good opportunity for advancing some Israeli scheme.

Lebanon War III, if it breaks out – God forbid! – threatens untold destruction on both sides. Lebanon War II will look, in comparison, like a picnic. This time, all Israeli towns and villages will be within range of Hezbollah’s rockets. During the big Carmel fire, a few weeks ago, it became clear that nothing has been prepared for the defense of the rear, besides an impressive arsenal of speeches and declarations.

But this Lebanese crisis is also significant on quite another level. It holds an important lesson concerning the existential question facing us now: Israel in its 1967 borders or a Greater Israel that will rule over all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan.

The Lebanese crisis calls out to us: Look, you have been warned!

THE LEBANESE malaise started with a crucial decision made on the very day the state was set up.

In Arab eyes, Lebanon is a part of Syria. Greater Syria – al-Sham in Arabic – includes the present state of Syria as well as Lebanon, Palestine, Jordan and Sinai. This is a basic tenet of modern Arab nationalism.

During the hundreds of years of Ottoman rule in the region, there were no real borders between these provinces. The administrative divisions changed from time to time, but were unimportant. One could travel from Haifa to Damascus or from Jerusalem to Beirut without encountering any problem.

Lebanon is a country of high mountain ranges, one of the most beautiful countries in the world. This topographical reality encouraged persecuted minorities from all over the region to look for refuge there. They established themselves between the mountains, organized for all-round defense, fiercely resolved to hold on to their special character. The very tolerant Ottoman rule gave each community far-reaching autonomy (the “millet” system).

Thus the Druze established themselves in the Chouf mountains, the Christian Maronite sect in the Central Mountains and the Shiites in the South. Next to them there were other Christian communities (mainly Greek Orthodox and Greek Catholics) and the Sunni Muslims. These last were concentrated mainly in the coastal towns – Tripoli, Beirut and Sidon – and not by accident. The (Sunni) Ottomans put them there as guardians of their empire in face of all these diverse communities.

THE HISTORIC change in the annals of Lebanon occurred in 1860. Until then, the two main communities – the Maronites and the Druze – lived in strained co-existence. There were many clashes between them, and for some time, Druze princes established something resembling a mini-state in the region, but the relations between them were tolerable.

In 1860 the local conflicts escalated disastrously, and the Druze massacred the Christians. The Jews, too, were in danger, and the British Jew, Moses Montefiore, rushed to their aid in his coach. The world was shocked – that was a time when the world was still shocked by massacres – and the situation was exploited by the French, who had always cast covetous eyes on the “Levant”. The Istanbul government was compelled to recognize them as protector of the Christians in Lebanon. In order to defend the Christians, the Lebanese mountains were given an autonomous status within the Ottoman Empire, under French protection.

With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I, the region was divided between the two victorious powers – Great Britain and France. In a cynical betrayal of their declared aim (“national self-determination”) the French took hold of Syria (including Lebanon), while the British took possession of Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq. The Arabs were not consulted. When Emir Faisal (the brother of Abdallah) set up a Syrian kingdom in Damascus, he was brutally thrown out by the French. A later national Arab revolt against the French, led curiously enough by the Druze, was put down with great cruelty.

The Muslims, who constituted the overwhelming majority in united Syria, hated the French conquerors and continued to hate them until the last day of their rule in Syria, when the British evicted them in the course of World War II (with the help of the “illegal” Jewish forces in Palestine. It was in this campaign that Moshe Dayan lost his eye and gained his trademark eye patch.)

THE MAIN aim of French rule from its first day was to turn the Lebanon mountains into a solid French dominion, based on the Christian population. They decided to cut Lebanon off from Syria and turn it into a separate state. This separation aroused a huge storm among the Muslims, but without effect.

Then there arose the crucial question that casts its shadow over Lebanon to this very day: should the Christians be satisfied with a small state, in which they would constitute a decisive majority, or should they prefer a large state and annex extensive Muslim territories. This was called in French “le Grand Liban” – Greater Lebanon.

Every Israeli can easily recognize this dilemma.

There is a Jewish legend in which Pharaoh was told that a newborn baby called Moses was destined to become a king. In order to test him, Pharaoh offered the baby, side by side, a golden crown and a heap of burning coals. The baby extended its hand towards the crown, but God sent an angel who pushed the hand towards the coals. Pharaoh was satisfied and Moses was saved.

When the Christians in Lebanon were offered this choice, they chose the crown.

Acceding to their demands, the French included in Lebanon the Muslim towns of Tripoli, Beirut, Sidon and Tyre, the Bekaa valley and the entire Shiite South. All the inhabitants of these “disputed territories”, as they were to be called, including the Shiites, opposed this violently, but to no avail. All opposition was brutally crushed by the French.

EVEN AT the founding of Greater Lebanon, the Maronites constituted a minority of the population. All the Christians together, including all the various communities, made up a bare majority. It was clear that the Muslims, with their higher birthrate, would become the majority in the Christian state before too long.

This, of course, happened soon enough. The Muslims did give up their dream of turning the wheel back and returning the “disputed territories” to their Syrian homeland, but they started to struggle against the total domination of Lebanon by the Christians.  In the course of time, the Christians were forced to surrender some of their privileges to the other communities. An iron-clad communal division was put in place: the president (with extensive executive powers) was always a Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim, and so forth, down the line. But within a short time, this division ceased to reflect the demographic realities.

To use Israeli terms: Lebanon claimed to be a “Christian and democratic state”. But as a matter of fact, it never was a democratic state, and gradually it ceased to be a Christian state as well.

The short history of Lebanon consists entirely of a struggle between the communities which were joined together against their will, like cats in a sack. One can learn a lot about this from the excellent book recently released by Patrick Seale, “The Struggle for Arab Independence”.

The struggle reached one of its peaks in the great civil war that started in 1975. The Syrians invaded the country in order to defend (how ironic!) the Christians against the Muslims, who were reinforced by the PLO which had established a kind of mini-state in the south, after being expelled from Jordan.

Into this mess blundered the leaders of Israel, without having the slightest idea about the complexities of the situation. Sharon invaded Lebanon in 1982 in order to annihilate the PLO and drive the Syrians – their enemies – out. The IDF struck a deal with the Maronites without realizing that they were much better at committing indiscriminate massacres (Sabra and Shatila) than real fighting. 18 years and hundreds of dead soldiers were needed to extricate the Israeli army from this trap.

The Israeli intervention had only one lasting effect, and a totally unexpected one. The Shiites in the South of Lebanon, the most downtrodden community in the country, held in utter contempt by both the Christians and the Sunnis, suddenly woke up. In their prolonged guerrilla war against the Israeli army, they became an important political and military, and finally a decisive national force in Lebanon. If Hezbollah indeed takes over the whole country, it would owe Ariel Sharon a statue in the central square of Beirut.

THE PRESENT crisis is a continuation of all the former crises. But during the 90 years of Lebanon’s existence as a state, profound changes have taken place. The Christians are now a secondary force, the Sunni Muslims have also seen their political importance diminished. Only the Shiites have gained ground.

The present crisis started with the assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri, the Sunni Prime Minister, whose place was filled by his son, Saad al-Din Rafiq al-Hariri. (The word assassination, by the way, is derived from the medieval Shiite sect of Hashishi’in.) An international investigation was set in motion, mainly in order to damage Syria, the enemy of the US, but the traces led in the direction of Hezbollah. To forestall the report, Hezbollah and its allies (including an important Christian general) this week brought down the coalition government, of which they were a part. Saudi Arabia and Syria, recently mortal enemies, joined forces in an effort to avert a catastrophe that could easily spread throughout the region. They offered a compromise – but the US instructed its client, Hariri, to reject it.

The Americans resemble – and even upstage – the Israelis in their arrogance and ignorance, which border on fatal irresponsibility. Their intervention this week, emanating from a frivolous contempt for the incredible complexity that is called Lebanon, may bring about a civil war and/or a conflagration that may involve Israel.

All this would have been prevented, and 90 years of suffering might have been avoided, if the Christians had been satisfied with their part of the country. When they chose the option of “Greater Lebanon” – a clear parallel to “Greater Israel” – they condemned themselves and their country to 90 years of struggle and pain, without an end in sight.

At the decisive moment, no angel diverted their hand from the golden crown to the burning coals. Now we Israelis face a very similar choice.

Uri Avnery

January 15, 11

GOOD MORNING, Joe. At home In the US, your name is mud. But here you can really feel at home.

In your time, you succeeded in infecting all of the US with hysteria. You detected a Soviet agent under every bed. You waved a list of Soviet spies in the State Department (a list which nobody was ever shown). In a hundred languages around the world – including Hebrew – the name McCarthy, McCarthyism, has become a household word. Yes, you made your mark alright.

But you were, after all, only a plagiarist. Before you, the House Anti-American Activities Committee terrorized the country, destroyed careers, hounded people into suicide and tarnished the reputation of the US throughout the democratic world. It “investigated” intellectuals and artists and branded many of them as “anti-American”.

I DOUBT that Faina Kirschenbaum ever heard about this committee. She was not born in the United States but in the Stalinist Soviet Union, and that’s her spiritual homeland. Her attitude towards democracy reflects this background.

The meaning of her Germanic name is “cherry tree”. But the fruits of this tree are poisonous.

This week, the Knesset adopted a bill tabled by Kirschenbaum, a settler who is also the Director General of Avigdor Lieberman’s party. The bill calls for the appointment of a Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry to investigate whether international funds or foreign countries are financing organizations that “take part in the campaign to de-legitimize IDF soldiers”. A parallel bill tabled by Likud member Danny Danon demands that the Inquiry Commission investigate whether foreign governments finance Israeli “activities against the State of Israel”.

It is easy to guess what such an investigation by a committee composed of politicians, appointed by the rightist-racist majority of the Knesset, will look like. The infamous Anti-American Activities Committee will look distinctly liberal in comparison.

It is very interesting to see who voted for and who against. Among the 41 who voted for, there were not only the usual fascists of the extreme right, headed by the declared Kahanist Michael Ben-Ari, but also the chief Orthodox representative, Jacob Litzman, the former army spokeswoman, Miri Regev, and the former army Chief of Staff, Moshe Ya’alon. Special mention must go to Matan Vilnai, who once almost became Chief of Staff, a leading member of the Labor Party, at present the Deputy Minister of Defense in charge of settlements.

Among the 17 who voted against were, of course, the Arab MKs who were present and all the Meretz members. A pleasant surprise was provided by Yitzhak Herzog, a candidate for the Labor Party chairmanship; the former Likud and present Kadima member Meir Sheetrit; and the Likud member Michael Eitan. Eitan is the last remnant of the Revisionist movement of Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky, which combined an extreme nationalist agenda in foreign affairs with a very liberal attitude in local matters.

All in all, 58 of the 120 members of the Knesset took part in the vote. Where were the other 62? They were in hiding. Binyamin Netanyahu disappeared. Ehud Barak disappeared. Tzipi Livni disappeared. Even Eli Yishai disappeared. Presumably they all have a doctor’s certificate to cover their absence.

There are votes whose significance is greater even than the matter itself – votes that characterize an era and are looked upon, in retrospect, as decisive. This may well have been such a vote.

THE FIRST thing about this law that stands out is that it does not apply to all political associations in Israel.

If such an even-handed law had been enacted, I would have welcomed it. I am very curious about the origin of the money that supports the settlers and the other extreme-rightist organizations.

Huge sums, tens and hundreds of millions, are flowing to these bodies – many times more than the comparatively pitiful amounts received by the human rights and peace associations. Some of the recipients are devoted to the expulsion of Arabs from East Jerusalem. They offer Palestinian home-owners astronomical prices for their property and promise them new identities in the US so they can live there happily ever after. They use hired straw men, mostly Arab. The weak succumb to the temptation. That costs a lot of money, and one of the well-known donors is a famous billionaire who made his money as an owner of casinos. In Israel, incidentally, owning a casino is a felony.

It is known that the financiers of the extreme right include some of the heads of evangelical sects, born anti-Semites, who believe that Jesus will return to Earth when all the Jews are concentrated in this country. Then – either the Jews get baptized or they will be annihilated to the last man and woman. These adherents of the really-final solution are the main source of the money that finances many rightist associations.

This money nurtures openly fascist associations as well as more discreet ones, who advocate the dismissal of “leftist” professors from the universities, organize networks of student-spies who inform on their lecturers (another way of earning money for their studies). Some organizations monitor the media in order to cleanse them of people suspected of such misdemeanors as striving for peace. There is also a huge apparatus that combs all TV, radio and print media throughout the Arab world and provides our “correspondents for Arab affairs” (almost all of them army intelligence and Shin-Bet alumni) choice pieces, like something about a crazy Muslim preacher in Yemen or a particularly nasty statement in a Cairo salon. They are very successful in poisoning the wells of peace.

If a serious inquiry committee investigates the financing of the extreme right, it will discover that much of it comes straight from the pocket of the American taxpayer. That is one of the great scandals: the US government is financing many of the settlements. For dozens of years, it has turned a blind eye to the American organizations that are providing funds to the settlements – settlements that are illegal even in the official policy view of the US government. In the US, one can donate tax-free money for humanitarian purposes – but not for political purposes. Almost all the money flowing to the extreme right in Israel is officially marked as devoted to humanitarian purposes.

And what about the Russian mafiosi, who are intimately connected with the Israeli right? What about the various dictators in fragments of the former Soviet Union? Where does Lieberman, whose connections with these countries are well-known, get his money from? Police investigators have been trying for years to unravel this mystery, with no concrete results so far.

All this could keep several inquiry committees busy for years to come – and the initiators of the bills know this perfectly well. They are adamant: inquiry into leftist associations only, most definitely not rightist ones.  (Rather like the lady who cried out in the darkness of a cinema: “Take your hands of me! Not you, YOU!”

THE INITIATORS of the bills did not hide the identity of the associations they want to “investigate”. The list includes B’Tselem (“In the Image”), a veteran outfit that monitors events in the occupied territories and is treated with respect even by the army; Shovrim Shtika (“Breaking the Silence”), a group of former soldiers that collects testimonies from soldiers; Yesh Din (“There is a Law”), which is active in matters of land ownership in the occupied territories as well as overseeing the military courts; Yesh Gvul (“There is a Limit”), which defends soldiers who refuse to serve in the occupied territories; Machsom Watch (“Checkpoint Watch”), an organization of female volunteers who oversee what’s happening at the roadblocks; “Physicians for Human Rights”, who have just been awarded the Alternative Nobel Prize in Stockholm for activities in service of the sick in the occupied territories; the Association for Human Rights, the New Fund, IR Arim (“City of Peoples”), which conducts legal fights against the penetration of settlers into East Jerusalem; and Shalom Achschav (“Peace Now”) for its important activities monitoring the building in the settlements.

(As far as I am concerned, this is a deeply insulting list because it omits Gush Shalom. Maybe the bodies hiding behind the initiators of the bill know that the Gush does not receive a penny from any foreign governmental source.)

There is nothing wrong with receiving funding from international governmental sources that are active in the field of human rights around the world. The Breaking the Silence group did not hide the fact that its recent book, a collection of the testimonies of 183 soldiers, was financed by the European Union. They boasted about it on the cover of the book.

ESPECIALLY REPREHENSIBLE is the pretense of the racists to be acting on behalf of the soldiers. They do not speak about the de-legitimization of the settlers, or of the fascist right, or of the racist policies of our government – only about the “de-legitimization of the IDF soldiers”.

That is a classic tactic of all fascist movements in the world. They wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism (“patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”) and claim to defend “our troops”.

Our troops come from all segments of society. They include rightists and leftists, the religious and the secular, settlers and the informants of Breaking the Silence. Who appointed this peddler of poisoned cherries to speak for “our troops”? Woe to the army that needs defenders like these!

THE CAREER of Joe McCarthy was suddenly cut short. It was buried under one sentence that made history.

Joseph Nye Welch, a respected lawyer representing the US army, who appeared before the McCarthy committee, was shocked by his tactics and cried out: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

The audience in the hall burst out in spontaneous applause. These few words electrified the American public. Suddenly the wheel turned. The McCarthy era ended, the public regained its sanity and since then, McCarthyism is remembered only as something to be ashamed of.

I am waiting now for a decent Israeli citizen to seal the open sewer in the Knesset that is threatening to submerge the entire country.

Mr. Binyamin Netanyahu, sir, have you no sense of decency left?

Uri Avnery

January 8, 2011

Growth rates that take demographics into account show Japan has done better than most of Europe over the past 10 years.

The first decade of this century started with the so-called dotcom bubble. When it burst, central banks moved aggressively to ease monetary policy in order to prevent a prolonged period of Japanese-style slow growth. But the prolonged period of low interest rates that followed the 2001 recession instead contributed to the emergence of another bubble, this time in real estate and credit.

With the collapse of the second bubble in a decade, central banks again acted quickly, lowering rates to zero (or close to it) almost everywhere. Recently, the US Federal Reserve has even engaged in an unprecedented round of quantitative easing in an effort to accelerate the recovery. Again, the key argument was the need to avoid a repeat of Japan’s “lost decade”.

Policymaking is often dominated by simple “lessons learned” from economic history. But the lesson learned from the case of Japan is largely a myth. The basis for the scare story about Japan is that its GDP has grown over the last decade at an average annual rate of only 0.6%, compared with 1.7% for the US. The difference is actually much smaller than often assumed, but at first sight a growth rate of 0.6% qualifies as a lost decade.

According to that standard, one could argue that a good part of Europe also “lost” the last decade, since Germany achieved about the same growth rates as Japan (0.6%) and Italy did even worse (0.2%). Only France and Spain performed somewhat better.

But this picture of stagnation in many countries is misleading, because it leaves out an important factor, namely demography.

How should one compare growth records among a group of similar developed countries? The best measure is not overall GDP growth, but the growth of income per head of the working-age population (not per capita). This last element is important because only the working-age population represents an economy’s productive potential. If two countries achieve the same growth in average WAP income, one should conclude that both have been equally efficient in using their potential, even if their overall GDP growth rates differ.

When one looks at GDP compared with WAP figures (defined as the population aged 20 to 60), one gets a surprising result: Japan has actually done better than the US or most European countries over the last decade. The reason is simple: Japan’s overall growth rates have been quite low, but growth was achieved despite a rapidly shrinking working-age population.

The difference between Japan and the US is instructive here: in terms of overall GDP growth, it was about one percentage point, but larger in terms of the annual WAP growth rates – more than 1.5 percentage points, given that the US working-age population grew by 0.8%, whereas Japan’s has been shrinking at about the same rate.

Another indication that Japan has fully used its potential is that the unemployment rate has been constant over the last decade. By contrast, the US unemployment rate has almost doubled, now approaching 10%. One might thus conclude that the US should take Japan as an example not of stagnation, but of how to squeeze maximum growth from limited potential.

Demographic differences are relevant not just in comparing Japan and the US, but also in explaining most of the differences in longer-term growth rates across developed economies. A good rule of thumb for the average growth rates of the G7 countries would be to attribute about one percentage point in productivity gains to the growth rate of the working-age population. The US has done slightly worse than suggested by this rough measure; Japan has done a bit better; and most other rich countries come pretty close.

Looking to the decade ahead, this analysis suggests that one can predict the rich countries’ relative growth rates based on the growth pattern of their working-age populations, which one already knows today, given that anybody starting to work over the next two decades has already been born.

On this basis, Japan’s relative decline as a major economic power will continue, as its working-age population will continue to shrink by about 1% a year. Germany and Italy increasingly show Japanese patterns of decline in their working-age populations, and are thus likely to grow very little as well.

In the case of Germany, one observes an interesting kink in its demography: from 2005 to 2015, the working-age population is temporarily stabilised. But this will be followed by accelerating decline, as the working-age population declines even faster than in Japan.

The current strength of the German economy is also partly due to this temporary demographic stabilisation. But a Japanese-style scenario seems inevitable after 2015. By contrast, the US, the UK and France are likely to grow faster for the simple reason that their working-age populations are continuing to grow, even if at a relatively slow pace.

Two lessons emerge from this consideration of the influence of demographic factors on economic growth. First, the idea of a Japanese-style “lost decade” is misleading – even when applied to Japan. Slow growth in Japan over the last decade was due not to insufficiently aggressive macroeconomic policies, but to an unfavourable demographic trend.

Second, a further slowdown in rich countries’ growth rates appears inevitable, given that even in the more dynamic countries the growth rates of the working-age population is declining. In the less dynamic ones, such as Japan, Germany and Italy, near-stagnation seems inevitable.

 The only thing worse than injustice is an attempt to disguise it. 

This was among my first reactions to a piece of news published on Zenit.com, “Rabbi Visits Benedict XVI,”[1] which describes the meeting between the Pope and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin (chief rabbi of the illegal Efrat settlement in the West Bank), ostensibly to inform His Holiness about the work of the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation (CJCUC). Among this centre’s objectives are to connect Christians and Jews, both religious leaders and members of these religious communities, in “dialogue,” as well as to find ways to alleviate Christian poverty in the Holy Land.

At first glance, this encounter smacks simply of normalisation: an initiative that tries to gather Israelis and Palestinians and/or foreigners without expressly exposing the occupation and oppression to which Palestinians are subjected, especially one that (to quote the definition put forth by the first Palestinian BDS conference of 2007) “impl[ies] equity between Israelis and the Palestinians in the responsibility for the conflict, or claim that peace is achieved through dialogue and understanding…without achieving justice.”

But with even a little further prodding, the appeal made by Rabbi Riskin before the Holy Father becomes more shocking and offensive.

First and foremost, Rabbi Riskin is not only the chief rabbi of the Efrat settlement, but one of its co-founders (together with Moshe Moskovics, Chairman of the tellingly named Judean Hills Development Company and Efrat’s first mayor). These settlements – constructed on land stolen from Palestinians, enforcing discrimination and completely disparate access to resources and basic liberties between Israelis and Palestinians, and perpetuating a situation in which rampant acts of violence committed by settlers go without investigation or trial — constitute one of Israel’s gravest violations of international law, as well as one of the greatest obstacles to a just and lasting peace in the region.

In short, settlements are not only morally reprehensible but also utterly defiant of international standards of justice: they are illegal; they are crimes. Settlers themselves are perpetrators of these crimes. Founders of settlements are leaders of these crimes. Rabbi Riskin is one such leader.

It is a serious mistake, then, for His Holiness to meet with Rabbi Riskin, who not only lives in an illegal settlement but has also helped its illegality into existence and continuation. Moreover, Rabbi Riskin’s stated belief in the powers of dialogue and understanding do nothing to hide a violently rightist stance with respect to Palestinians, as we can see in this excerpt from an interview with the Makor Rishon newspaper:

“My turning point came between the first and second Oslo Agreement… When the first Oslo Agreement was signed, I was for it. But after reading the text of the agreement and the accompanied acts of terrorism which ensued, I arrived at two conclusions: First of all, we do not know how to negotiate. Everything was handed over to the Palestinians from the very start leaving only Jerusalem and the Temple Mount open for negotiations. The second conclusion was that we gave concessions of land for peace and in return we got terrorism.”[2]

The mentality of anyone who actually believes that “everything was handed over to the Palestinians,” and that the Oslo Accords constituted “concessions of land for peace” that were met only with terrorism, is characterised by the delusions and aggressions produced by fervent pro-Israeli nationalism. Indeed, Rabbi Riskin’s portrayal of the Oslo Accords is ludicrous in itself: if anything, the Accords effectively legitimized and certainly normalized the occupation. Moreover, they did not cause Israel to decrease its settlement activity; in fact, settlement construction increased after the signing. Rabbi Riskin’s position is quite clear; equally clear, then, is the fact that he lacks even a shred of ethical or political credibility to appeal before His Holiness in the name of “cooperation.”

What makes matters worse is one of the CJCUC objectives I mentioned at the beginning, an objective Rabbi Riskin discussed with the Holy Father during their meeting: to help “alleviate Christians’ poverty.” He refers to Christians’ poverty (which also means Palestinians’ poverty, although he never says so) in the Holy Land as if it were an accident, a merely unfortunate circumstance that charitable acts can resolve. It is not. Our poverty is a product of our occupation: the result of the Separation Wall and the way it economically chokes us off from centres of work, education, and health; of the movement restrictions imposed by the Israeli government and military; and of the settlements so valued by Rabbi Riskin.

In other words, Rabbi Riskin is a direct contributor to the circumstances that have created and aggravated our poverty. It is thus his responsibility to be part of the solution, rather than masking the problem as anything other than what it is.

Moreover, I am insulted that Rabbi Riskin considers himself able to speak on behalf of Palestinian Christians to begin with. We are quite capable of speaking for ourselves, and what we will continue to speak about is the fact that the occupation of our land and lives – which, as a settler, he supports – is the primary cause of our misery. 

It would mean a great deal to know from the Vatican whether they believe that this meeting with Rabbi Rivkin and Pope Benedict XVI was conducted in error. As such, it would be equally important to know if the Vatican has somehow changed their political position on Israeli settlements. As Palestinians, as Christians, as brothers and sisters, we request a clear response on this matter; I urge them to restate their perspective.

Dialogue is not enough, and understanding is impossible, when words serve only to paint over injustice. It is my sincerest hope that the Vatican will share this conviction.

By Rifat Odeh Kassis

January 2011

There is no single universally-approved definition of ‘communalism’, the term having been defined in many diverse, indeed often contradictory, ways.  But, as a working definition, one could define it as an ideology and politics that are based on the wholly untenable notion that human communities are defined on the basis of an extremely reified notion of religion, and that the interests of each community so defined are wholly or to a large extent opposed to those of other communities defined in the same way. Inevitably, therefore, communities defined in this way are seen as antagonistic to each other, and it is believed that they can never harmoniously and peacefully co-exist. If they at all do live in peace with each other, the assumption is that this peace is only temporary, that it is out of compulsion of circumstance or due to the fear of the law or the wrath of the state, and that, in the absence of these compelling circumstances, the different communities would otherwise have been engaged in never-ceasing conflict, whether symbolic or physical.

It is crucial, however, that such fairly dominant understandings of community and religion be forcefully challenged, not only because of the very real potential for violence that they contain, but also because more often than not such definitions of community and religion do not at all correspond to empirical reality. Textbook definitions of each religion that such notions of community are predicated on assume that each religion is a homogenous, well-defined entity, which is completely separate from and has no overlaps with other religions, defined in this reified way. This assumption is wholly erroneous. It overlooks the fact that every religion is diversely understood, often in very contradictory ways, by those who claim to be its adherents.  Often, intra-religious sectarian rivalry is much more acute than inter-religious rivalry, a fact that is cleverly concealed when we talk of each religion as a monolithic entity and of each community constructed on the basis of this notion of religion as a single whole containing no internal divisions. This fact very clearly challenges the monolithic notion of religion that forms the basis of the ideology of religious communalism. Furthermore, at the empirical level, communities and people who might claim to follow a certain religion might well share practices, beliefs and even what they regard as sacred spaces with what are regarded as followers of other religions. This is what is sometimes mistakenly called “religious syncretism”, where borders between what are thought of as distinct religious communities are blurred and somewhat unambiguous. The notion of communalism based on religion, which is routinely exploited by those who claim to represent such communities and religions, also conceals other internal divisions and contradictions, such as of caste and class, within each of these communities. This, of course, is often deliberate, a tactic deployed by self-styled leaders to clamp down on internal dissent that might challenge them by diverting this dissent onto what is projected as the menacing religious ‘other’. The self-appointed representatives of this religious ‘other’, too, act likewise. Thus, while various forms of communalism might appear to be viscerally opposed to each other, in fact they need each other to define and justify themselves, to shore up their self-appointed spokesmen’s claims to leadership and the various interests linked to such claims. In other words, while appearing to be furiously battling each other, they desperately need each other simply in order to survive.

I do not wish to elaborate all these points further, as these would all be familiar to most readers.  But what I would rather focus on is some practical suggestions as to what we could do to tackle the menace of communalism, that has now assumed terribly violent and extremist forms across the world, including in India as well. There are different things what the state can do, or what civil society actors can do. There is the law-and-order approach, the carrot-and-stick approach, the economic development and equity approach. All these and more are all very necessary. But one approach that has been woefully neglected is what I would like to turn to, which is the religious, or, to be more precise, the spiritual, approach. But before I go on to discuss this let me clarify that I am not a religious person at all. I don’t even think I am very spiritual, either.

It is fashionable to say that religion has nothing to do with communalism, and that communalism is just politics being played in the name of religion. In this way, the blame for communalism is put entirely on politics and religion is said to be innocent of all the hatred that is being spread in its name. I think this approach is entirely naïve and, moreover, represents a quite untenable apologetic approach to religion, reflecting a refusal (for various reasons that I won’t go into here) to accept the harsh reality that religion, as conventionally understood, has much to answer for  its direct and central role in communalism. Religion, I believe, should not be regarded as a holy cow that is completely above criticism.

Without discounting the many people who might be religious (in the conventional sense of the term), without being communal (as we understand it), I think we need to recognize that the manner in which many more people understand the religions they claim to adhere to is such as to promote a distinctly communalist way of thinking. Certain beliefs, personages, rituals and what are regarded as sacred spaces associated with a particular religious tradition come to be seen as the defining bases of a particular religion, and the assumption is that these alone represent the divine will or the way to approach the divine or whatever. The corollary, therefore, is that other ways to understand and approach the divine are inferior or even, in some cases, completely satanic and sure paths to hell. These beliefs, personages, practices and spaces thus come to serve as boundary markers, setting apart a group that claims, on the basis of these attributes, to be superior to others who do not share these attributes. The latter are regarded as polluted or as infidels, who are to be grudgingly tolerated, at best. Distressingly, even if all these mutually opposed religions, as they are conventionally understood, acknowledge the One Ultimate force that pervades the universe, called God or by other names, the force is conveniently forgotten as communities perpetually squabble over whose prophet or founding hero is superior, and over their different ways of worship and performing rituals, each claiming theirs to be the sole ‘correct’ one that leads to heaven. This problem of understandings of religion being indelibly shaped by communalism takes different forms in different religious traditions as conventionally understood, but it is a fairly extensive and deep-rooted problem, and reflects, one can confidently state, a very dominant understanding of what religion is all about that transcends community divisions. In this regard, the typically Indian definition of secularism as ‘equal respect for all religions’ is deeply problematic, for it does not encourage critical examination of the claims of various religions from both a rational as well as humanist point of view. Nor does it in any way sanction the muc-necessary critique of communal supremacism that religious, as commonly interpreted, are a thinly-veiled guise for. Often, it turns out to be used as an argument for equal respect for competing, equally obscurantist and communal supremacist understandings of religion, and so does precious little to critique such understandings. Indeed, any such rational or humanist critiques can easily be branded as a violation of the ‘sacred’ principle of ‘equal respect for all religions.’

As I have just mentioned, dominant understandings of religion are often another name for communalism and are deeply shaped by feelings of communal superiority over other communities. Naturally, then, given this, it is untenable to argue, as many defenders of dominant understandings of religion often do, that religion is not problematic at all and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with communalism, and that the cause of communalism is politics pure and simple, and that religion is perfectly innocent of the crimes that communalists play in its name. The fact of the matter is that religion, as it is often defined and understood by large numbers of those who claim to be religious, is simply another name for communalism and a guise for claiming communal supremacy in the name of being the sole or the best way to approach or worship what is regarded as the divine.

This being the case, the ideology and politics of communalism cannot be critiqued and countered effectively without a critique of religion as it is conventionally understood in a markedly communal supremacist way by vast numbers of people. Simply raising slogans of ‘Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai’ and so on, or invoking the compassion and love that some Sufi and Bhakti saints preached that transcended communal boundaries, can serve no purpose at all without critiquing and challenging supremacist notions of Islam, Hinduism and other religions that many of those who claim to follow these religions deeply cling to. In other words, dominant exclusivist and supremacist understandings and interpretations of religion need to be liberated from the narrow communalism that underpins them.

In order to be justified, religion or a secular substitute for it, ought to serve human beings (irrespective of ascriptive labels such as community, caste and so on) rather than the other way round. Unfortunately, however, that is precisely the opposite of how many people who claim to follow religion understand it. And, as far as I am concerned, religion is true only insofar as it enables those who claim to follow it to become better human beings, rather than better ‘believers’, as that term is understood in an extremely irritatingly ritualistic, narrow and communal supremacist way. It must inspire them to be more compassionate and loving to all human beings, irrespective of religion and community, and even to all living and inanimate beings. It must lead them to understand that association with certain key figures, called prophets or avatars or whatever, as well as distinct rituals and beliefs (all of which set communities apart from each other) should enable them to be better, more kind and compassionate and socially-engaged human beings, and if these do not, then such rituals and beliefs and claims of association with religious personages are completely useless. Unfortunately, however, that is not how religion is often understood by those who claim to be religious. Indeed, people who do not regard themselves as religious are often much better human beings, and, therefore, closer to the One, whom they may not confess faith in, than religious folk who understand religion in a ritualistic and communal fashion and who see themselves as God’s chosen people, believing that others who worship in a different fashion or claim to follow a different prophet or religious hero from theirs are doomed to perdition forever in hell—in jahanam or narak or call it what you will.

From what I have said so far, the urgency of developing new understandings of what religion is, or, rather should be, and, in particular, developing inclusive understandings of the religious ‘other’ in each religious tradition should be readily apparent. Without such reformulation, the communal supremacist interpretations of religion and of the status of the religious ‘other’, which underpin the ideology and politics of communalism, cannot be challenged.

Who should take on this task? Obviously, it would be naïve to expect the so-called and self-styled religious ‘leaders’ in each community to do this. Of course, there may be some notable exceptions. This is because it goes quite against how they understand their own religions, as well as because it directly challenges their own interests. Their authority as self-appointed interpreters of their religions rests on their ability to maintain and continuously reinforce and promote communal supremacist understandings of their own religion.

This task, therefore, falls among others, on the shoulders of secular intellectuals and groups in India who have played a central role in the struggle against communalism. At present, however, few of them are well-equipped for this task. This is because they have, by and large, shunned the realm of religious discourse, seeing it as simply too sensitive to handle or else regarding religion as false consciousness, a primitive vestige that is best left to wither away on its own. This stance has had the lamentable result of leaving the realm of religious discourse to be virtually monopolized by obscurantist forces that thrive on propagating and reinforcing communal supremacist understandings of religion. Therefore, I think it is imperative for secular intellectuals and activists (who may or not be religious personally) to engage creatively with religion and to think of means in which new, inclusive and positive attitudes to the religious ‘other’ in each religion can be promoted and exclusivist, communal supremacist understandings of each religion countered. This would require far greater engagement with the realm of religious discourse than the standard ‘Hindu-Muslim Bhai Bhai’ sloganeering approach, which is, as I have indicated, totally inadequate. For this purpose, secular forces also need to identify and work closely with progressive-minded religious people,  including what I suspect are the not small number of religious ‘specialists’—priests, mullahs and so on, who may be committed to genuine inter-community solidarity and harmony, and who forcefully challenge the right of communal chauvinists to speak in the name of their religion.

A regular columnist for NewAgeIslam.com, Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.

By Yoginder Sikand

20 January 2011
NewAgeIslam.com

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

-Martin Luther King Jr.

Some of the most undercovered stories of 2010 were actions taken by ordinary people standing up for a more just and equitable society. People are taking to the streets on a regular basis across the country, but unlike the corporate-sponsored Tea Party — whose spokespeople can’t answer basic questions about the deficit they claim to be so worried about — those who believe in health care, affordable housing, economic justice, education, a living wage, and a better life for all rarely, if ever, get the attention they deserve. Instead, the media, even the alternative media, spent the better part of last year obsessing over the Tea Party and manufactured personalities like Sarah Palin, while ignoring people like 85-year-old Julia Botello.

Last month, Botello was among 22 people arrested for blocking the doors of a Chase Bank branch in downtown Los Angeles. Over 200 people, many of them homeowners facing foreclosure and eviction, took part in the action organized by Home Defenders League and the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

According to the Alliance, these families have never participated in an event or protest before, but they have exhausted all other options. Imagine if over 200 Tea Partiers took part in a similar action. Imagine if an 85-year-old Tea Party member was photographed being led away by two cops, one holding each arm. Not only would this video footage be shown over and over again on the cable shows, Julia Botello would be bombarded with interview requests, but because she’s standing in solidarity with people who are losing their homes, she’s only been contacted by two other reporters.

“If we’re united, we’re a better force. We need to stand together,” she says. “I use my voice for the people. I know all of the councilmen and councilwomen in my area. I’m not afraid to speak and ask for better conditions for my community.”

Botello found her voice 10 years ago after falling and hurting her knee on a routine walk home. Her South Central Los Angeles neighborhood was usually dark because the street lights rarely worked. “We usually had only one light that worked, so I went to local council meetings and raised my voice. Why are our streets dark? We need light. My neighborhood hasn’t been dark since.” She’s been going strong ever since. If there’s an action focusing on an issue she cares about, she will do whatever it takes to be there, even if it means rescheduling an overdue eye surgery. “I still have time and I want to keep going.”

In addition to the Chase Bank action last month, several other grassroots actions failed to receive the attention they deserve. These actions, no matter how small, should not be discounted. Let’s hope these voices and demands become too loud to ignore in 2011.

— On December 9, thousands of inmates in Georgia state prisons began a six-day strike to call attention to their treatment and to demand basic human rights: a living wage for work, educational opportunities, decent living conditions and health care, and an end to cruel and unusual punishment. It was largest prison strike in U.S. history, but the New York Times was one of the few mainstream outlets to cover it.

“Perhaps there was a larger hand at play—one that did not want the deplorable conditions of the Georgia prison system to surface,” writes Death and Taxes’ Joe Weber.

For extensive coverage, analysis and interviews with inmates, you had to turn to independent outlets like Facing South and the Black Agenda Report. “They want to break up the unity we have here,” said an anonymous strike leader in an interview with the Black Agenda Report. “We have the Crips and the Bloods, we have the Muslims, we have the head Mexicans, and we have the Aryans all with a peaceful understanding, all on common ground.”

By refusing to work or leave their cells, the inmates brought attention to prison labor and the growing prison-industrial complex, two issues that rarely get covered in the national media. In These Times ran a piece about Georgia’s hidden prison labor force and The Irish Times ran a piece about what prison life is actually like in Georgia, which has the highest prisoner-to-resident ratio in the U.S. with 60,000 prisoners and 150,000 people on probation. According to the piece, African Americans comprise 63 percent of the prison population, but only 30 percent of state residents.

“Even though reports are stating that the strike is effectively over, the momentum created by the activities of these inmates cannot be understated,” writes Boyce Watkins, founder of the Your Black World Coalition. “By coming together in such an amazing way, the individuals in the Georgia State correctional system have made a strong statement for human rights around the world.”

The forces against independent journalism are growing. Help Truthout keep up the fight against ignorance and regression! Support us here.

— On December 11, a few local media outlets in Waterville, Maine reported on an action organized by the Maine Fair Trade Campaign to call attention to President Obama’s decision to bring the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement to Congress for a vote. The group, which opposes NAFTA and CAFTA, rang a bell 31 times in honor of the more than 31,000 Maine-based jobs that have been outsourced since 2000. “People all over the state have suffered because of this,” said campaign board member Sarah Bigney in an interview with The Morning Sentinel. “We know what the impact of NAFTA has been. We must say no to this madness. We know it will continue to worsen the job crisis.” According to the Economic Policy Institute, the deal will increase the deficit with Korea by $16.7 billion, and cost 159,000 U.S. jobs within the first seven years after it takes effect.

Public Citizen says it’s up to Congress to make the “right decision and reject this deeply flawed, job-killing” deal, which is an expansion of the deals negotiated under the Bush administration. “As a Senator and then as a presidential candidate, President Obama opposed the deal,” says a statement on Public Citizen’s site. “He pledged to replace the damaging NAFTA model. In June 2010, President Obama said he would start renegotiating parts of the agreement in preparation for sending it to Congress. But he only focused on some modest changes to automobile trade issues. This came after over 100 members of Congress and over 500 unions, environmental, faith and other organizations called on him to meet his commitments and really fix Bush’s old text. The deal Obama is now pushing directly conflicts with his campaign commitments.”

Congress is expected to vote on the deal in February.

— On December 15, workers, union activists, and community supporters took part in more than 40 actions at Rite Aid stores in 11 states to raise awareness about low wages and health insurance cost increases. In These Times, one of the only outlets to report on the National Day of Action, ran a piece by AFL-CIO campaign coordinator Rand Wilson. He writes that the actions were “sparked by a rash of poor decisions by Rite Aid officials across the country.”

“In Lancaster, California, Rite Aid executives stalled talks with 500 warehouse employees for nearly two years. Now officials are proposing to gouge employees by ‘marking-up’ the cost of health insurance 28 times over the increases charged by insurers. In Rome, New York, Rite Aid is closing a distribution facility that pays family-sustaining wages and benefits and provides workers with a voice on the job. Work is being shifted to a nearby location that pays low wages with few benefits and no job rights.”

Watch a video of the action in Oakland, California.

— On December 16, 131 veterans and their supporters were arrested after chaining themselves to the White House fence during a snowstorm to demand an end to the ongoing occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. According to Veterans for Peace, it was the largest veteran-led demonstration in recent years, but just like Winter Soldier, the action was completely ignored by the corporate media. Dave Lindorff reports that it was blacked out of the New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post.

“None of us expected that these illegal wars of aggression would immediately stop due to our simple action, but we did hope that we would send a message — a message that there are citizens who do not support our government’s illegal wars and occupations; a message to the world that we are shamed by the actions of our government and we will do everything we can to stop it,” writes veteran and peace activist Leah Bolger. “It is our sincere hope that this action will be a spark that ignites the consciousness of others; that our refusal to obey and willingness to put our liberty on the line will give them the courage of their own convictions and they will also begin to act in resistance as well.”

In New York City, 75 veterans, members of Grandmothers Against the War, including two in their 90s, the Green Party, and other groups stood in solidarity with the activists in DC. Eleven people were arrested for blocking an intersection near the military recruiting station in Times Square. Joan Wile, founder of Grandmothers Against the War, writes, “It is hoped that the New York protest along with the big one in Washington served as a wake-up call to the American people about the tragedy of this hopeless and destructive war. Wake up, America!”

At another solidarity action in San Francisco, 26 people were arrested for taking part in a die-in and blocking the doors of the Federal Building.

— On December 20, six people were arrested for trespassing after they locked arms and climbed the steps to the Bank of America entrance in Clayton, St. Louis. According to organizers, some 80 people gathered in front of the bank to raise awareness about a pending foreclosure facing Mary and Mike Boehm. Mary Boehm says after her husband lost his job in 2009, she applied for the mortgage modification program designed to keep people in their homes. On November 8, 2009, Bank of America told her she qualified, but she needed to turn in additional paperwork in order to be officially approved. Even though the Boehms never missed a payment, they received a notice in November 2010 saying they were in default. The foreclosure proceedings began on December 26. The action was organized by the grassroots group Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment.

Watch KMOV’s coverage here. A class action lawsuit has since been filed in St. Louis federal court against Bank of America for allegedly refusing to participate in foreclosure prevention programs despite taking $25 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program money, according to the Courthouse News Service.

Monday 17 January 2011

by: Rose Aguilar

Rose Aguilar is the host of Your Call, a daily call-in radio show on KALW 91.7 FM in San Francisco and KUSP 88.9 FM in Santa Cruz, and author of Red Highways: A Liberal’s Journey into the Heartland.