Archives: Articles

12 March, 2011

Men who recently crossed into Tunisia from Libya walk through a United Nations displacement camp on March 10, 2011 in Ras Jdir, Tunisia

After a week of heavy fighting in the strategically oil-important town of Zawiyah rebels have finally been overthrown by Gaddafi’s forces.

At the same time, according to the local TV station reports, the port city of Ras Lanuf has been cleaned of Al-Qaeda supporters. For several days now Gaddafi’s forces have remained in control there too.

On the ground in Libya, while it certainly does seem as if Gaddafi’s men are pushing back and winning the battle there, on the international stage it is the rebels who are really coming in the front. The EU ministers in Brussels met on Friday for the second round of negotiations over the international response. Leaders of major powers discussed whether or not to go ahead with some kind of no-fly zone or foreign intervention.

The International Red Cross describes Libya as now being in the midst of a civil war. Ministers from the Gulf Co-operation Council – which represents six Arab states – have called the Libyan regime illegitimate.

However, Libyans themselves do not consider the situation being that serious. Many locals make the point that the global media’s tendency to put drama above reality is encouraging foreign intervention.

There is good deal more negotiating happening on the international stage over the merits of intervention and a no-fly zone than the bargaining taking place in the downtown Tripoli market. Shops here close early nowadays.

People are afraid and many of the Africans who used to work here have fled the country. And the argument that Libya is on the brink of civil war, so foreign intervention is needed, still seems to ring a little hollow.

“There have been several hundred people killed, but it is not a huge level of violence. It certainly is not a global level of violence that would normally merit intervention,” John Laughland from the Institute of Democracy and Co-operation.

Gaddafi has offered access to foreign media, but only if the camera lenses stay well away from any of the opposition. But it is a similar picture in the opposition strongholds.

Dr. Ramadan Breki, the director of the Quryna newspaper was forced to close the Benghazi office of his newspaper because of pressure from rebels. You have to print their version of events, he says, or nothing at all.

“The media is going to the hotspots and all these cities are controlled by the rebels and the independent people, they are afraid and they cannot tell the news what they think and what they believe,” explains Breki.

And many of Gaddafi’s supporters fear that while he may be winning the war with the rebels, he is losing the information war.

Schoolgirl Mona Jama Mohammed from Janzur, a town some 13km away from the capital Tripoli, says she is puzzled and angered by reports that mercenaries were shooting people in her town.

“It is normal: teachers come and we get the lessons, and we write the homework. Normal life,” she says.

And life certainly seems calm on the streets. As for conflicts elsewhere where the death count is climbing. There is little media coverage and even less foreign interest to intervene.

“There are events unfolding now in [Cote d’Ivoire], where there is also an armed conflict between rebels and the government, but nobody seems to be thinking of that. It is only because fashionable attention is focused on Libya,” says John Laughland from the Institute of Democracy and Co-operation.

“The only reason they are interested in Libya is about the oil. Think we will be in Iraq if the major export there was broccoli?” questions Gerald Celente, the director of the Trenda Research Institute

So as leaders met in Brussels to discuss the fate of a country hundreds of miles away, many Libyans are saying that it is their mess, and they will clean it up.

Indian air force’s Sukhoi jets India accounts for 9% of global arms imports

Continue reading the main story

US defence deals have become big business

India has overtaken China to become the world’s largest importer of arms, a Sweden-based think tank says.

A report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) says India accounted for 9% of all weapons imports between 2006 and 2010.

India will continue to be to the leading arms importer in the coming future, the report adds.

With a $32.5bn (£20.2bn) defence budget, India imports more than 70% of its arms.

It is looking to spend more than $50bn over the next five years to modernise its armed forces, including a $10bn deal to buy 126 new fighter jets.

India’s increased spending on arms also comes amid rising concerns about China’s growing power, and its traditional rivalry with neighbouring Pakistan, with which is has fought three wars.

‘Big boy’

“India has ambitions to become first a continental and [then] a regional power,” South Asian defence analyst Rahul Bedi told the Associated Press news agency.

“To become a big boy, you need to project your power.”

A senior fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said India would continue to be a top importer for the years to come.

“Just from what they have already ordered, we know that in the coming few years India will be the top importer,” said Siemon Wezeman.

He said China had dropped to second place with 6% of the global weapons as it develops its domestic arms industry.

The US remained the world’s largest weapons exporter, followed by Russia and Germany, the report says.

Last October, India announced that it would buy 250 to 300 advanced fifth-generation stealth fighter jets from Russia over the next 10 years.

The deal, which could be worth up to $30bn, is believed to be the largest in India’s military history.

14 March, 2011

Countercurrents.org

The people’s revolution is on its track; calling for the removal of the regime and performing various activities on the road to victory. In the past week several remarakable activities were undertaken with resounding success. First came the picketing of the financial harbour owned by the regime’s prime minister, Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa. It was conducted at night when hundreds of protesters moved from their base at the Pearl Square and took position near the main financial centre. Then came the massive demonstration and picketing of the main torture headquarters at Bahrain’s Fort where a human wave flooded to highlight the role that place had been playing in torturing Bahrainis over the years. It stands as a reminder of the most brutal periods of the Al Khalifa reign of terror. The revolutionaries then organised another qualitative demonstration outside the main TV station which is the mouthpiece of the repressive Al Khalifa regime. In addition to these there have been massive demonstrations nearer to the Pearl Square where hundreds of thousands took part chanting anti regime slogans and calling form a regime change. Today, one of the demonstrations was held outside the government offices in Qudhaibiya where participants called for the downfall of the regime.

Meanwhile, the mothers of the martyrs have appealed to political parties not to engage in dialogue with the regime. The mother of Ali Abdul Hadi Mushaime, the first of the martyrs of the revolution has vowed to spend her life to oppose the Al Khalifa until their downfall. Today, the mother of the martyr Mahmood Abu Taki confirmed that the family had received calls from the Al Khalifa who had killed their son offering to buy off their silence with money but they refused and insisted that we only accept the demands of the 14th February revolutionaries. Also, Nidhal the son of Karzakkan martyr Isa Abdul Hassan confirmed a similar move by the killers. He told them he has nothing to add to what the people want; the downfall of the regime and that the blood of the martyrs cannot be bought with money or promises. Similar statements have been attributed to the son of martyr Ali Khudhair who said that there is only one demand; the downfall of the regime. In light of these development s, it is now expected that the coming activities will be more serious and the regimes could use violence to suppress the people, in which case, that will be the needed fuel for the final push to oust this hereditary dictatorship.

While the revolutionary activities continue unabated, the Americans have entered the political arena forcefully. In the past week, Jeffrey Feltman , the Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East, has been lobbying the political societies to lure them to engage in what he calls “dialogue” in line with what the Al Khalifa crown prince had suggested. When these societies presented some conditions, he said that dialogue must be without conditions. There has been negative reaction to the American proposals which clearly aim at safeguarding the ruling family in the face of the collective popular decision calling for its downfall. The US is better advised not to stand again on the wrong side of history by supporting this dictatorial regime. The Al Khalifa system of government is unsustainable as has been proven by the events of the recent history. Bahrain has not been stable, and the apparent stability was only achieved with the use of violence against Bahrainis, torture , intimidation and dictatorship. If they are granted more time, the Al Khalifa will resort to the same style of dictatorship, repression and human rights violations. The US needs to fundamentally revise their strategy that has only led to regime changes at their expense.

Bahrain Freedom Movement

6th March 2011

14 March, 2011

AL MANAR

Half a century ago, during the late Senator Joseph McCarthy fueled “great red’ scare” that terrorized many in America, my kindergarten teacher at Milwaukie Grammar School in Oregon, Miss Kidd, used to instruct our class of five and six year olds how to prepare for the coming Atomic bomb attack from the communists in the Soviet Union, who she explained, “did not like our freedom and wanted to kill all Americans.”

As I recall, the twice weekly A-bomb practice sessions were actually sort of fun. Complete with squealing and sometimes trembling, pants wetting or crying classmates dropping to the floor as Miss Kidd, right in the middle of reading us a nice story like “Life on the Prairie”, from her chair in front of the class, would pause, remove her glasses, look toward the windows, slap shut the storybook on her lap, and shout “down!”

We approximately 25 or so tykes would scramble to take out the white sheet from our desks (it had to be a white Miss Kidd told us in order to reflect the ‘uranium radiation’ off of us-some of us told our Moms not to give us colored sheets or we might die). We would quickly lie down on the floor under the protection of the desk and facing away from the windows from which Miss Kidd told us glass would fly when the blast occurred and the mushroom cloud arrived over our nearby playground. We were to lay quiet, without even saying goodbye to our friends, until Miss Kidd would motherly intone: “All is clear!” as she resumed the story after we folded up our sheets and came to order with hands folded together on our desk tops.

When I asked my, Franklin Roosevelt devoted new dealer dad (hence my prenom) why we did not practice for the coming Atomic bomb at home he would say not to worry son, it’s just a Republican trick to scare us. After my dad’s comforting words, I never did worry much about the ‘Red menace’ or the soon to follow ‘Yellow menace’ of the Vietnam era, the Black Power menace, the Illegal Immigrant menace or the current menace du jour, the great “Islamic Terrorist menace.”

I have no idea what Republican Congressman Peter King’s dad told him but it was apparently something I was never told.

What is wrong with King’s Muslim scare hearings on “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and That Community’s Response” (he plans more every couple of months), is what was wrong with McCarthy’s House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings in the 1950’s and that they constitute an irresponsible overgeneralization under which patriotic Americans were irrationally targeted as state enemies.

Peter King, as with Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee among others, habitually grovels to Israel as he seeks higher office and his witch hunting “Muslim Terrorism” hearings suit the Israeli lobby just fine. Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), the highest-ranking Jewish member of Congress, is squarely behind King as he receives strong criticism from civil libertarians and religious groups over his decision to target one group in his ” fact finding investigation.”

Frankly, King is widely believed to have reached his conclusions long before he decided on holding a Congressional hearing. From a House committee room near King’s, Cantor is urging these days a near cut off of all American foreign aid except to Israel, for whom he has pledged to preserve the $8 million dollar per day-every day of the year- of borrowed US taxpayer money that most Americans do not realize is gifted to the occupiers of Palestine.

King comes across as a prejudiced lawmaker determined to demonize American Muslims as violent radicals. At a time when the U.S. needs the goodwill of domestic Muslim communities to safeguard homeland security, King is reinforcing fear and lack of trust and while potentially weakening mutual respect among Americans.

King has a long history of Islamophobic diatribes and he recently told the newly formed Manhattan Government Relations Committee of UJA-Federation of New York, about the need for constant vigilance to guard against the threat of Islamic terrorism worldwide.

The threat is real,” he said. “We can’t protect everyone everywhere, so we should go where the greatest threat is”, as he explained that his priority would be to make sure that security grants are allocated to those chosen and with the greatest need, including his state of New York and Jewish groups.

King consistently misrepresents the facts. As Middle Eas t specialist Mohamed Khodr instructs us, between 1980 and 2005, according to FBI statistics less than six percent of terrorist incidents during this fifteen year period were committed by Muslims, while 94% were committed by non-Muslims. Moreover, 23 of the 24 recorded terrorist incidents (2002-2005) were carried out by domestic terrorists The FBI claims that of the 83 terrorist attacks in the United States between 9/11 and the end of 2009, only three were clearly connected with the jihadist cause. (3.6% of total)

The picture is similar in Europe. Of a total of 1,571 terrorist attacks in the E.U. from 2006-2008 only 6 were committed by Islamist terrorists which translates to less than 0.4% of all attacks, which means 99.6% of all attacks were committed by Non-Muslims.

According to the FBI, with the exception of a white supremacist’s firebombing of a synagogue in Oklahoma City, all of the domestic terrorist incidents were committed by special interest extremists active in the animal rights and environmental movements

In the face of this research, King still insists that 85 percent of American mosques have “extremist leadership” are “the enemy within” and that ordinary American Muslims are not opposed to terrorism. Yet a 2004 survey of mosque congregations in greater Detroit conducted by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding found that the vast majority of mosque participants shun extremist views (92 percent) and are virtually unanimous (93 percent) in supporting community service and political involvement. Terrorists tend to hatch their plots via the Internet not in Mosques.

Kings, ‘Muslim Terrorism” hearings are the first and hopefully the last of its kind to focus on a single religious group. His false assumptions are being roundly rejected across America and Europe. Counterterrorism experts, veteran’s organizations, interfaith leaders, local leaders and editorial boards, and most importantly the American public are rejecting King’s racist calumny.

The reason is that his team’s hateful and reprehensible project represents the wrong approach to homeland security, arguably violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution which enjoins singling out a particular religion and the growing realization that his crusade is actually harmful to America’s anti-terrorism efforts both at home and abroad.

Franklin Lamb is reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com

U.S. Representative Peter King (R-NY), who once said 85% of American Muslim community leaders are “an enemy living amongst us,” is set to hold hearings today to investigate “the extent of radicalization of American Muslims.” The idea of hearings that single out one ethnic or religious group in the United States is profoundly offensive to me as a Jew, a Rabbi, an American, and a human being.   These hearings come on the heels of a string of shockingly racist attacks and campaigns against Muslims in the United States including:

Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly in Orange County, who called a fundraiser for womens’ shelters sponsored by the Islamic Circle of North America Relief USA(ICNA) “pure unadulterated evil” and said, “I know quite a few Marines who will be very happy to help these terrorists to an early meeting in paradise.”

Efforts to stop the building of mosques and Muslim community centers around the country.

The District Attorney’s unprecedented criminalization of Muslim students in Orange County for engaging in a garden-variety student protest.

It is painful to see some Jewish groups promoting this hatred and fear because they mistakenly believe it will help Israel. It is also deeply distressing to see this disturbing trend of scapegoating Muslim-Americans being echoed at the highest levels of our government.

Every fiber of our being, as Jews and people of good will, should vibrate with astonishment at these incidents. But if we view this spectacle with “old eyes,” as Rabbi Leo Baeck observed upon witnessing the events in 1930s Germany, we must acknowledge that we know this place and time in history from our own experience.

For Jews, viewing the creation of a national narrative about Muslims as “the harmful other” reminds us of our past in Europe in ancient Egypt, and even in early 20th Century America. By trying to assign Muslim-Americans and Islam to the role of the source of evil, they inflame

passions and add enmity not only to the American discourse but also to the Israeli-Palestinian

conflict.

In this season of change in the Middle East, as people call for freedom, democracy and equality– largely inspired by the promise of our own democracy– we should be seeking to build bridges of understanding, not separation.

Examples of work we continue to do to fight anti-Muslim bigotry:

• JewsonFirst.org produced a rebuttal of the “documentary” Obsession that sought to brand all Islam a continuation of Nazism.
• JewsOnFirst.org responded to the protests against mosques with its essay: A Muslim Community Center? Why Not?: Why Should Jews Care?” asking “What kind of society will the United States become if Muslims are denied their rights?”
• Jewish Voice for Peace stood up for the rights of Muslims to build the Park 51 community center while opposing a Museum of Tolerance built on a Muslim cemetery.
• Jewish Voice for Peace brought rabbis together in support of this Islamic community center in New Jersey
• Jewish Voice for Peace delivered signatures in support of the Irvine 11, the Muslim students facing prison time for protesting human rights violations at the speech of Israeli ambassador Michael Oren.

Member, Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinic Council

Founder, Jews On First

15 March, 2011

Countercurrents.org

Officially, Japan’s nuclear emergency is under control and contained. In fact, lies substitute for truths, denial for reality, and managed news for honest reporting.

Point of fact: Besides its catastrophic quake, tsunami, destructive aftershocks, and resulting humanitarian crisis, Japan is experiencing a developing nuclear catastrophe, the full extent not known until independent sources reveal it.

On March 12, a huge explosion rocked Fukushima’s Unit 1 reactor. Reports said its containment chamber was intact. Independent experts are skeptical, believing at least some damage occurred, perhaps a major breach now covered up. Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) blamed a core meltdown for the explosion, releasing hazardous atmospheric radioactive cesium-137 and iodine-131.

Greenpeace said:

“This proves once and for all that nuclear power cannot ever be safe. Japan’s nuclear plants were built….to withstand natural disasters, yet we still face potential meltdown” disaster.

Nuclear expert Helen Caldicott said atmospheric cesium-137 and iodine 131 releases pose grave human health risks. “All of these substances can cause cancer and genetic diseases either in the near or long term.” Why are “we mad enough to introduce this disastrous form of energy into our lives,” knowing major catastrophes are inevitable, especially in earthquake prone areas like Japan, California, and other vulnerable locations, many throughout the world.

Caldicott added in an email to this writer that the situation is “beyond terrifying!!!” Moreover, downplaying the potential severity is outrageous, irresponsible and criminal. Literally, millions of lives potentially are at risk. Further, nothing short of shutting down and dismantling all nuclear facilities is crucial. They’re all ticking time bombs waiting to explode, especially ones in seismically active areas.

On March 12, nuclear expert Karl Grossman’s CounterPunch article headlined, “Don’t Worry, It’s Just a Little Radiation,” saying:

Lies always follow major events like Fukushima. Saying modest atmospheric radiation levels won’t have long-term environmental and human health effects is deceitfully false. Grossman quoted the US Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI – the industry trade group) stating:

“The Japanese prime minister and the industry safety agency say all plants in the country are safe and that there has been no radiation release from any reactors,” when, in fact, NISA confirmed it with few details.

On March 13, NEI said there’s no danger of a Chernobyl-like event, when, in fact, the threat potential far exceeds it. “Japanese nuclear facilities are designed to withstand powerful seismic events,” it said. In fact, substantial damage occurred, its full extent not revealed.

Like Japan’s prime minister and other government officials, NEI is paid to lie to protect powerful member interests like General Electric. Its Nuclear Energy division is a major producer of “advanced reactor technologies” and related services.

Moreover, claiming failsafe systems prevent nuclear disasters is patently false, Grossman saying:

“In fact, like any machinery, nuclear plants can – and regularly do – undergo accidents. The big difference with atomic energy: the malfunctions can end up killing large numbers of people and impact other life as well.”

At worst, however, entire countries, regions or planet earth may be catastrophically harmed. Potentially, Japan’s meltdown triggered that type event. Full scale damage control is concealing it, or at least the possibility that it’s happening.

Chernobyl’s disaster, in fact, affected the entire Northern Hemisphere, killing almost a million people. Multiple Japanese reactor meltdowns may far exceed it, Grossman saying:

“Nuclear power plants are, in fact, life-threatening wherever they are – they represent the most dangerous way to boil water ever devised.” Readily available “(w)ind, solar and geothermal energy and other forms of safe, clean power would” prevent the deadly fallout from Japan’s catastrophe, threatening the entire Pacific rim and beyond, but using them would be bad for business. Companies like GE have plenty of clout to prevent it, placing bottom line priorities above humanity’s survival.

Second Nuclear Explosion Rocks Japan

On March 14, Reuters headlined, “Japan grapples with nuclear crisis,” saying:

A second explosion blew off a containment facility’s roof. A third reactor’s cooling system failed. Officials claimed no reactor’s been harmed. As explained above, independent experts are skeptical, believing powerful explosions damage or destroy everything nearby, what official reports won’t reveal.

As a result, “Japan scrambled to avert (multiple) meltdown(s) at a stricken nuclear reactor on Monday.”

Live NHK video showed the reactor facility’s skeletal remains, thick smoke rising and spreading. Multiple injuries were reported. Workers inside were exposed to extremely high radiation levels endangering their lives.

Thousands of quake/tsunami-related deaths are confirmed. Tens of thousands are missing and unaccounted for. In Otsuchi, ICRC’s Patrick Fuller described “a scene from hell, absolutely nightmarish.” As many as 10,000 people, half the town’s population, may have perished, besides many others in Northern Japan.

Spreading Atmospheric Radiation

Massive atmospheric radiation is feared, frantic Fukushima engineers trying to contain it. Multiple reactors are affected. Full scale official and media damage control efforts are suppressing bad news. The IAEA said Japan added a third troubled plant, Onagawa, to others under a state of emergency because of failed cooling systems and radiation releases. Later reports suggested Onagawa experienced no leaks, whether or not true. Be skeptical.

On March 13, New York Times writers David Sanger and Matthew Wald headlined, “Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say,” stating:

Flooding two stricken reactors with corrosive seawater (rendering them henceforth inoperable) is “a desperate step to avoid a much bigger problem: a full meltdown,” perhaps ongoing but concealed. Japanese officials and media reports call it “partial.” Radioactive steam is being released to relieve pressure, spreading atmospheric poison.

A widening area is being contaminated. Tens of thousands evacuated “may not be able to return to their homes for a considerable period,” perhaps never, depending on contamination levels. “More steam releases also mean (spreading contamination) across the Pacific….” Discount America’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission saying:

“Hawaii, Alaska, the US Territories, and the US West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity.”

False! Atmospheric winds and rain potentially may contaminate planet earth, some areas more than others. A worried unnamed official said, “under the best scenarios, this isn’t going to end anytime soon,” or perhaps well.

Another concern affects some Japanese reactors plus others in France and Germany. They use mox (mixed oxide) fuel, containing reclaimed plutonium – the most hazardous known substance. When ingested, a tiny spec can kill. Larger inhaled atmospheric amounts could devastate whole cities. Two damaged Fukushima units use it, Nos. 2 and 3.

Sanger and Wald added:

“Inside the plant….there was deep concern that spent nuclear fuel that was kept in a ‘cooling pond’ (began) letting off potentially deadly gamma radiation. Then water levels inside the reactor cores began to fall. (An estimated) top four to nine feet of nuclear fuel in the core and control rods appear to have been exposed to the air – a condition that” caused melting, potentially a “full meltdown” that may, in fact, be happening.

Using corrosive seawater may, in fact, not work. Because of high containment vessel pressure, forcing it inside is like “trying to pour water into an inflated balloon,” according to one unnamed source. It’s not clear how much water is getting in and whether cores are covered. Damaged gauges make knowing it impossible, so doing it is seat-of-the-pants, a “Hail Mary” attempt at best.

Operating 55 nuclear facilities, Japan relies heavily on them for electricity, at present 30%, a figure expected to reach 50% by 2030 if planned additions are completed.

Tokyo Electric Power’s (TEPCO) Shoddy Maintenance and Safety Record

On March 12, Los Angeles Times writers Mark Magnier and Barbara Demick headlined, “Japanese fearful as nuclear crisis builds,” saying:

“(M)any Japanese don’t trust (what) authorities (tell) them” anymore. Moreover, they “have an uncomfortable relationship with nuclear power” and TEPCO, Fukushima’s operator.

“As many people (know, it) has a history of not being forthcoming about nuclear safety issues, particularly those surrounding earthquake-related dangers.”

In 2003, its 17 nuclear plants were temporarily shut for falsifying safety inspection reports. In 2006, it was learned that its coolant-water data at two plants were falsified in the 1980s. Critics have long expressed deep concern about safety at many of Japan’s nuclear facilities,” some dating from the 1970s and 1980s.

Fukushima especially “has long been on critics’ radar, but so has the Hamaoka plant,” 100 miles southwest of Toyko on an active fault line. In fact, Kobe University Professor Emeritus Katsuhiko Ishibashi said:

“I have been warning about Japan’s possibility of a genpatsu shinsai – a nuclear disaster,” explaining that many nuclear facilities are hazardously located in seismically unsafe locations. No one listened.

On March 13, Kyodo News said another cooling system failed at Tokai’s No. 2 facility, 120 km from Tokyo. Emergency measures were taken. Unreliable reports say a backup pump and cooling system are operating. Fukushima’s No. 1 and 3 reactors experienced meltdowns. Kyodo called its No. 2 “troubled,” raising fears of the worst there, besides what’s happening at Tokai No. 2 and perhaps other quake/tsunami affected reactors.

Third Reactor Explosion Rocks Japan

On March 14, New York Times writers Hiroko Tabuchi, David Sanger and Keith Bradsher headlined, “Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise,” saying:

“Japan’s nuclear crisis verged toward catastrophe” after a third explosion rocked another Fukushima reactor, “damag(ing) the vessel containing the nuclear core (spewing) large amounts of radioactive material into the air, according to the statements of Japanese government and industry officials.”

Even top officials who lie admitted “a very high risk” exists. In fact, it’s well beyond “risk.” It’s reality, affecting all Japan, the Pacific rim, and beyond. Clearly, a major catastrophe is unfolding.

What more is needed to demand an immediate shutdown and replacement of all nuclear facilities worldwide. Their continued use threatens all humanity.

A Final Comment

Of any magnitude, meltdowns aren’t minor, and no structures are earthquake or tsunami-proof. When most intense, Mother Nature prevails. Images of affected Japanese areas and damaged reactor facilities offer proof, besides the potentially massive, widespread human toll.

Sunday, March 13, on the Progressive Radio News Hour, Karl Grossman explained Japan’s “nuclear emergency,” discussed in detail on his blog site, accessed through the following link:

http://karlgrossman.blogspot.com/2011/03/japan-nuclear-emergency.html

Nuclear plants use radioactive material for heat to generate electricity. Huge amounts are needed. To prevent overheating, “vast amounts of coolant are required, up to a million gallons of water a minute.” Without it, meltdowns occur, because “in less than a minute,” temperatures can reach 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit – hot enough to “burn through the cement bottom of the nuclear plant” to earth beneath.

Nuclear scientists call it the “China syndrome,” meaning “it descends to the water table underlying a plant. Then, in a violent reaction, molten core and cold water combine, creating steam explosions and releasing a plume of radioactive poisons.”

Where it spreads depends on wind velocity, direction, and rain. Nuclear reactors are vulnerable, life-threatening, and “the most dangerous way to boil water ever devised.” Deactivating them is essential, especially when safe alternatives exist, so far spurned to pad bottom lines for companies like GE, concerned about profits, not human safety.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

wsws.org

15 March 2011

Representatives of the major imperialist powers initiated a flurry of meetings Monday to discuss proposals for military intervention in Libya.

Foreign ministers from the Group of Eight countries—the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia—began a two-day conference in France hosted by President Sarkozy, who has been among the most vocal supporters of exploiting the revolt in Libya as a pretext for direct military action.

A United Nations Security Council meeting also convened on Monday and NATO is reportedly set to discuss possible action in the North African country on Tuesday.

Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Cameron have both publicly called for the imposition of a no-fly zone, an act of war that would begin with the heavy bombardment of Libya’s airports, air defense systems and other targets.

A French government spokesman said that France would attempt to persuade the rest of the G8 that such military action was necessary “in the face of the terrible violence suffered by the Libyan population.” These “humanitarian” sensibilities are recently acquired—the Elysee Palace saw no need for such action to protect the peoples of Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan against the “terrible violence” wrought by Israeli and US bombardments over the past several years.

The Sarkozy government became the first to formally recognize the so-called transitional government, which is dominated by former functionaries in the dictatorship of Col. Muammar Gaddafi. These elements have openly demanded foreign military intervention and could serve as a cat’s paw for a US-NATO intervention, unsanctioned by the United Nations.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, representing Washington at the G8 meeting, is also scheduled to hold talks with representatives of the National Transitional Council, which is headed by Gaddafi’s former justice minister, Mustafa Abd al-Jalil. The meeting was scheduled for Monday night and was to include Mahmoud Jibril, the former head of Gaddafi’s National Economic Development Board. In a classified cable released by WikiLeaks, Jibril was described by the US embassy in Tripoli as “a serious interlocutor who ‘gets’ the US perspective.”

Aljazeera reported that sources on the National Transitional Council claimed they had received promises from Washington as well as London and Paris of support for a no-fly zone in the United Nations Security Council. But, according to the British Guardian, the Libyan delegation was prepared to ask Clinton not only for US backing of the no-fly zone, but for “tactical” air strikes aimed at destroying pro-Gaddafi ground forces and assassinating the Libyan dictator himself.

Speaking in Washington Monday, President Barack Obama echoed previous comments, declaring that Gaddafi “has lost his legitimacy and he needs to leave.” While he said that the US and its allies would continue seeking ways to “tighten the noose” around the Gaddafi regime, he made no mention of the proposed no-fly zone.

The UN Security Council finished a first day of discussions on Libya Monday without reaching any consensus among its 15 members on a course of action beyond economic sanctions agreed to last month.

The French and British representatives pressed for the imposition of the no-fly zone. Before going into the closed-door session, French UN Ambassador Gerard Araud praised the resolution passed by the 22-member Arab League—over the opposition of Algeria and Syria—urging the Security Council to authorize the no-fly zone. “Now that there is this Arab League statement, we do hope that it’s a game changer for the other members of the council,” said Araud.

The purpose of the Arab League statement—which drew a nonsensical distinction between the use of military force to establish and enforce the no-fly zone and “military intervention”—was to provide a fig leaf for the imperialist powers to intervene in Libya, a former Italian colony.

The resolution, adopted by such champions of democracy and human rights as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait and Iraq, was praised by Obama and European leaders and received widespread media coverage. It supposedly proved the existence of “regional support” for imperialist intervention.

Virtually ignored, however, was a contrary resolution adopted Monday by the African Union opposing “any form of foreign intervention” in Libya and establishing a commission to “engage with all parties in Libya, facilitate an inclusive dialogue among them, and engage the African Union partners… for the speedy resolution of the crisis in Libya.”

The African Union resolution cited particular regional concerns in Africa, of which Libya is a part, including the plight of African migrant workers fleeing the violence and the “alleged use of mercenaries by the Libyan government.”

It likewise declared its support for the “territorial integrity” of Libya and said that it would make every effort to halt secession by any part of the country. Until 1951, Libya existed only as three autonomous provinces—Tripolitania, Fezzan and Cyrenica. There are concerns within Africa’s ruling elites that the crisis and any imperialist intervention could hasten the country’s fracturing along these lines, creating a precedent that could be repeated elsewhere on the continent.

After Monday’s Security Council session, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said that while Moscow remained “open-minded” about the proposed no-fly zone, “fundamental questions need to be answered,” particularly how such a military action was to be implemented and by whom.

Similarly, German Ambassador Peter Wittig said that his government preferred to tighten economic sanctions adopted by the council on February 26 and that “questions are still unanswered” about the no-fly zone proposal. The previous day, Germany’s foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, voiced reservations about military action, declaring, “We do not want to get involved in a civil war in North Africa.”

Among the unanswered questions was apparently what precise role the Obama administration and the Pentagon are prepared to play in establishing and enforcing the no-fly zone. Washington has already sent five warships to the Libyan coast for purportedly “humanitarian” purposes. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other officials have warned that creating a no-fly zone would involve intensive bombing and a major commitment of US forces.

Reuters cited a diplomatic official on the Security Council as reporting that US Ambassador Susan Rice had stated that while Washington was “open” to discussing the no-fly zone proposal, it would not in and of itself halt the violence in Libya. She also said that the US “would only participate in a no-fly zone if the Arab countries in the region support it in a meaningful way.”

Diplomatic sources also said that Germany indicated it was open to proposals to arm the anti-Gaddafi forces. Earlier on Monday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said that providing arms to those opposing the Gaddafi regime should be considered. Prime Minister David Cameron, however, rejected the idea, pointing out that it would violate an arms embargo imposed against Libya and that it was doubtful that anything could be done quickly enough to change the balance of forces.

Dominating the international discussions is mounting fear in the major imperialist capitals that a window of opportunity is closing, largely because of the advances made by forces loyal to the Gaddafi regime in suppressing the revolt.

Speaking before parliament, Cameron warned that “time is of the essence” in getting the no-fly zone in place.

“We would prefer to act as quickly as possible, and we want that our partners on the council have the same sense of urgency that we have,” France’s ambassador Araud declared after Monday’s session at the UN.

The concern expressed here is not over the shedding of Libyan blood, but rather over losing the pretext for initiating a direct imperialist intervention with the aim of installing an even more pliant regime in Tripoli and securing even more unfettered access to the country’s energy supplies. The fear among the major powers is that Gaddafi may succeed in reestablishing control over the country, depriving them of the pretense of intervening to halt bloodshed.

Military forces loyal to Gaddafi have reportedly advanced 125 miles eastward in the last several days, with the regime in Tripoli claiming to have re-captured the strategic oil towns of Brega and Ras Lanuf on Sunday.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the advance has triggered “spreading panic” in the eastern city of Benghazi, the stronghold of the revolt against the Gaddafi regime. The newspaper reported that rebel forces have “begun rounding up Gaddafi supporters,” and that Western aid groups and news organizations have begun pulling their staff out of the city to Tobruk, near the Egyptian border. Their fear is that Gaddafi’s troops might encircle Benghazi.

In a propaganda move aimed at taunting and threatening the Western powers, Gaddafi called in the Chinese, Russian and Indian ambassadors Sunday to offer an “invitation to firms from these countries to exploit Libyan oil,” according to the Libyan state news agency Jana.

Gaddafi’s right-wing dictatorship previously granted lucrative operating deals to such energy giants as US-based ConocoPhillips, Hess and Marathon; Italy’s ENI; France’s Total; and BASF-Wintershall of Germany, leaving much of the country’s oil and gas production under the direct control of foreign corporations.

Oil shipments from Libya have been cut off since February 19 as ports and large areas of oil production fell under rebel control.

  15 March 2011 commondreams.org

Our hearts go out to the people of Japan, who are suffering the horrendous effects of a massive earthquake and devastating tsunami.  Watching the news clips of the natural disasters in Japan makes us realize yet again the enormous power of nature and the limits of our capacities to control such power.  Large buildings, roadways and bridges buckled before the shockwaves of the earthquake.  Cars and trucks, even houses, seemed like small toys when they were swept away by the tsunami wave hitting the Japanese coastline.

In Japan, electric power has been knocked out for millions of people.  But the dangers are far greater than those associated with the temporary loss of power.  Some of Japan’s 55 nuclear reactors lost primary and backup power, which in turn led to core cooling problems, partial meltdowns and radiation releases within the reactor control rooms and into the atmosphere, with possibly far worse radiation releases still ahead.  Three of Japan’s nuclear power reactors have reportedly experienced explosions.  Some 200,000 people have been evacuated from around the damaged nuclear power plants.

So far, there has not been much reporting on problems with spent fuel storage pools, but these pools that hold used fuel rods could prove to be the most dangerous of all facets of the disaster.  They contain vast amounts of radiation, several times the amount in a reactor core.  If these spent fuel pools lose their cooling source, they could spew radiation into the atmosphere, creating a tragedy of even greater proportions than did the 1986 nuclear accident at Chernobyl in the Ukraine.

The major lessons to be drawn from the tragedy in Japan are: first, nature’s power is far beyond our ability to control; second, the nuclear industry, in Japan and elsewhere, has arrogantly pushed ahead with their dangerous technology, assuring the public there is no reason for concern; third, the reassurances of self-interested nuclear “experts” are not to be trusted; and fourth, the nuclear power plant failures in Japan are a final wake-up call to replace nuclear power with safe, sustainable and renewable forms of energy.

There are 440 commercial nuclear power plants in the world.  Of these, the US has 104, nearly twice as many as Japan.  Many of the US plants are of the same design as those that are failing in Japan.  President Obama’s 2012 budget calls for $36 billion in loan guarantees to subsidize new nuclear power plants.

California, known for its propensity for earthquakes, has two nuclear power plants, one at Avila Beach, north of Santa Barbara, and one at San Onofre, between Los Angeles and San Diego.  Both plants are located near major fault lines.  The Diablo Canyon power plant at Avila Beach is situated near the San Andreas and Hosgri fault lines.  The San Onofre plant is located less than a mile from the Cristianitos fault line.  Diablo Canyon is designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude earthquake and San Onofre to withstand a 7.0 magnitude earthquake, but as Japan has shown us earthquakes can come in larger sizes.

We know that we humans cannot control earthquakes.  Nor can we control tsunamis or other natural disasters.  What we can control is our own technologies and we can say “No” to technologies that are catastrophically dangerous.  Natural disasters and nuclear power plants are a deadly mix.  Disasters intentionally caused by terrorists could also result in the release of radiation from nuclear power plants.

Mother Nature has given us a deadly warning that it is past time to end our reliance on nuclear power and invest instead in solar power, the only safe nuclear reactor that exists – 93 million miles from Earth.  The question is: Will the disaster in Japan open our eyes to the need for change, or will we be content to continue to tempt fate and simply hope that we do not become the next place on the planet where nuclear power fails catastrophically?

David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), an organization that has worked since 1982 to educate and advocate for a world free of nuclear weapons.

Since 2001, Americans have been living with a nightmare Arab, a Muslim monster threatening us to the core, chilling our souls with the cry, “God is great!” Yet after two months of world-historic protest and rebellion in streets and squares across the Arab world, we are finally waking up to another reality: that this was our bad dream, significantly a creation of our own fevered imaginations.

For years, vestigial colonial contempt for Arabs combined with rank prejudice against the Islamic religion, exacerbated by an obsession with oil, proved a blinding combination. Then 9/11 pulled its shroud across the sun. But like the night yielding to dawn, all of this now appears in a new light. Americans are seeing Arabs and Muslims as if for the first time, and we are, despite ourselves, impressed and moved. In this regard, too, the Arab revolution has been, well, revolutionary.

The Absence of Arab Perfidy, the Presence of God

For those same two months, jihadists who think nothing of slaughtering innocents in the name of Allah have been nowhere in sight, as millions of ordinary Arabs launched demonstration after demonstration with a non-violent discipline worthy of Mohandas Gandhi. True, rebels in Libya took up arms, but defensively, in order to throw back the murderous assaults of Moammar Gadhafi’s men.

In the meantime, across North Africa and the Middle East, none of the usual American saws about Islamic perfidy have been evident. The demonizing of Israel, anti-Semitic sloganeering, the burning of American flags, outcries against “Crusaders and Jews”—all have been absent from nearly every instance of revolt. Osama bin Laden—to whom, many Americans became convinced in these last years, Muslims are supposed to have all but sworn allegiance—has been appealed to not at all. Where are the fatwas?

Perhaps the two biggest surprises of all here: out of a culture that has notoriously disempowered women has sprung a protest movement rife with female leadership, while a religion regarded as inherently incompatible with democratic ideals has been the context from which comes an unprecedented outbreak of democratic hope. And make no mistake: the Muslim religion is essential to what has been happening across the Middle East, even without Islamic “fanatics” chanting hate-filled slogans.

Without such fanatics, who in the West knows what this religion actually looks like?

In fact, its clearest image has been there on our television screens again and again. In this period of transformation, every week has been punctuated with the poignant formality of Friday prayers, including broadcast scenes of masses of Muslims prostrate in orderly rows across vast squares in every contested Arab capital. Young and old, illiterate and tech-savvy, those in flowing robes and those in tight blue jeans have been alike in such observances. From mosque pulpits have come fiery denunciations of despotism and corruption, but no blood-thirst and none of the malicious imams who so haunt the nightmares of Europeans and Americans.

Yet sacrosanct Fridays have consistently seen decisive social action, with resistant regimes typically getting the picture on subsequent weekends. (The Tunisian prime minister, a holdover from the toppled regime of autocrat Zine Ben Ali, for example, resigned on the last Sunday in February.) These outcomes have been sparked not only by preaching, but by the mosque-inspired cohesion of a collectivity that finds no contradiction between piety and political purpose; religion, that is, has been a source of resolve.

It’s an irony, then, that Western journalists, always so quick to tie bad Muslim behaviour to religion, have rushed to term this good Muslim behaviour “secular.” In a word wielded by the New York Times, Islam is now considered little but an “afterthought” to the revolution. In this, the media is simply wrong. The protests, demonstrations, and uprisings that have swept across the Middle East have visibly built their foundations on the irreducible sense of self-worth that, for believers, comes from a felt closeness to God, who is as near to each person—as the Qur’an says—as his or her own jugular vein. The call to prayer is a five-times-daily reminder of that infinite individual dignity.

A Rejection Not Only of Violence, but of the Old Lies

The new Arab condition is not nirvana, nor has some political utopia been achieved. In no Arab state is the endgame in sight, much less played out. History warns that revolutions have a tendency to devour their children, just as it warns that every religion can sponsor violence and war as easily and naturally as nonviolence and peace.

History warns as well that, in times of social upheaval, Jews are the preferred and perennial scapegoat, and the state of Israel is a ready target for that hatred. Arab bigotry has not magically gone away, nor has the human temptation to drown fear with blood. But few, if any, revolutions have been launched with such wily commitment to the force of popular will, not arms. When it comes to “people power,” Arabs have given the concept several new twists.

Because so many people have believed in themselves—protecting one another simply by standing together—they have been able to reject not only violence, but any further belief in the lies of their despotic rulers. The stark absence of Israel as a major flashpoint of protest in these last weeks, to take a telling example, stands in marked contrast to the way in which the challenged or overthrown despots of various Middle Eastern lands habitually exploited both anti-Semitism (sponsoring, for instance, the dissemination through Arab newsstands of the long-discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion) and the plight of Palestinians (feigning sympathy for the dispossessed victims of Israeli occupation while doing nothing to help them, precisely because Arab dictators needed suffering Palestinians to distract from the suffering of their own citizens).

Not surprisingly, if always sadly, the Arab revolution has brought incidents of Jew-baiting in its wake—in late February in Tunis, for example, by a mob outside the city’s main synagogue. That display was, however, quickly denounced and repudiated by the leadership of the Free Tunisia movement. When a group of Cairo thugs assaulted CBS correspondent Lara Logan, they reportedly hurled the word “Jew” at her as an epithet. So, yes, such incidents happened, but what makes them remarkable is their rarity on such a sprawling landscape.

To be sure, Arabs broadly identify with the humiliated Palestinians, readily identify Israel as an enemy, and resent the American alliance with Israel, but something different is unfolding now. When the United States vetoed the U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the very thick of February’s revolutionary protests, to flag one signal, the issue was largely ignored by Arab protesters. In Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza, the spirit of Arab revolt showed itself mainly in a youth-driven and resolutely non-violent movement to overcome the intra-Palestinian divisions between Fatah and Hamas. Again and again, that is, the Arab Muslim population has refused to behave as Americans have been conditioned to expect.

The Mainstreaming of Anti-Muslim Prejudice

Conditioned by whom? Prejudice against Arabs generally and Islam in particular is an old, old story. A few months ago, the widespread nature of the knee-jerk suspicion that all Muslims are potentially violent was confirmed by National Public Radio commentator Juan Williams, who said, “I get worried. I get nervous” around those “in Muslim garb,” those who identify themselves “first and foremost as Muslims.”

Williams was fired by NPR, but the commentariat rallied to him for simply speaking a universal truth, one which, as Williams himself acknowledged, was to be regretted: Muslims are scary. When NPR then effectively reversed itself by forcing the resignation of the executive who had fired him, anti-Muslim bigotry was resoundingly vindicated in America, no matter the intentions of the various players.

Scary, indeed—but no surprise. Such prejudice had been woven into every fibre of American foreign and military policy across the previous decade, a period when the overheated watchword was “Islamofascism.” In 2002, scholar Bernard Lewis’s book What Went Wrong? draped a cloak of intellectual respectability around anti-Muslim contempt. It seemed not to have occurred to Lewis that, if such an insulting question in a book title deserves an answer at all, in the Arab context it should be: “we” did—with that “we” defined as Western civilization.

Whether the historical marker is 1099 for Crusader mayhem; 1417 for the Portuguese capture of Ceuta, the first permanent European outpost in North Africa; 1492 for the expulsion from Spain of Muslims (along with Jews); 1798 for Napoleon’s arrival as a would-be conqueror in Cairo; 1869 for the opening of the Suez Canal by the French Empress Eugenie; 1917 for the British conquest of Palestine, which would start a British-spawned contest between Jews and Arabs; or the 1930s, when vast oil reserves were discovered in the Arabian peninsula—all such Western antecedents for trouble in Arab lands are routinely ignored or downplayed in our world in favour of a preoccupation with a religion deemed to be irrational, anti-modern, and inherently hostile to democracy.

How deep-seated is such a prejudice? European Christians made expert pronouncements about the built-in violence of Islam almost from the start, although the 7th-century Qur’an was not translated into Latin until the 12th century. When a relatively objective European account of Islam’s origins and meaning finally appeared in the 18th century, it was quickly added to the Roman Catholic Index of forbidden books. Western culture is still at the mercy of such self-elevating ignorance. That’s readily apparent in the fact that a 14th-century slander against Islam—that it was only “spread by the sword”—was reiterated in 2006 (on the 5th anniversary of 9/11) by Pope Benedict XVI. He did apologize, but by then the Muslim-haters had been encouraged.

Western contempt for Islam is related to a post-Enlightenment distrust of all religion. In modern historiography, for instance, the brutal violence that killed millions during paroxysms of conflict across Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries is remembered as the “religious wars,” even though religion was only part of a history that included the birth of nations and nationalism, as well as of industrial capitalism, and the opening of the “age of exploration,” also known as the age of colonial exploitation.

“Secular” sources of violence have always been played down in favour of sacred causes, whether the Reformation, Puritan fanaticism, or Catholic anti-modernism. “Enlightened” nation-states were all too ready to smugly denounce primitive and irrational religious violence as a way of asserting that their own expressly non-religious campaigns against rival states and aboriginal peoples were necessary and therefore just. In this tale, secular violence is as rational as religious violence is irrational. That schema holds to this day and is operative in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the United States and its NATO allies pursue dogmatically ideological and oil-driven wars that are nonetheless virtuous simply by not being “religious.”

No fatwas for us. Never mind that these wars were declared to be “against evil,” with God “not neutral,” as George W. Bush blithely put it. And never mind that U.S. forces (both the military and the private contractors) are strongly influenced by a certain kind of fervent Christian evangelicalism that defines the American enemy as the “infidel”—the Muslim monster unleashed. In any case, ask the families of the countless dead of America’s wars if ancient rites of human sacrifice are not being re-enacted in them? The drone airplane and its Hellfire missile are weapons out of the Book of the Apocalypse.

The Revolution of Hope

The new Arab revolution, with its Muslim underpinnings, is an occasion of great hope. At the very least, “we” in the West must reckon with this overturning of the premises of our prejudice.

Yes, dangers remain, as Arab regimes resist and revolutionaries prepare to erect new political structures. Fanatics wait in the wings for the democrats to falter, while violence, even undertaken in self-defence, can open onto vistas of vengeance and cyclic retribution. Old hatreds can reignite, and the never-vanquished forces of white supremacist colonial dominance can re-emerge. But that one of the world’s great religions is essential to what is unfolding across North Africa and the Middle East offers the promise that this momentous change can lead, despite the dangers, to humane new structures of justice and mercy, which remain pillars of the Islamic faith. For us, in our world, this means we, too, will have been purged of something malicious—an ancient hatred of Muslims and Arabs that now lies exposed for what it always was.

James Carroll, bestselling author of Constantine’s Sword, is a columnist for the Boston Globe and a distinguished scholar-in-residence at Suffolk University in Boston. His newest book, Jerusalem, Jerusalem: How the Ancient City Ignited Our Modern World (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt), has just been published. To listen to Timothy MacBain’s latest TomCast audio interview in which Carroll discusses just how the Arab revolutions, the last acts of the post-colonial drama, punctured American myths, click here, or download it to your iPod here.

Copyright 2011 James Carroll

16 March, 2011

Rachelcorriefoundation.org

On Wednesday, March 16th, we mark the eighth anniversary of our daughter Rachel’s stand in Rafah, Gaza, to protect the right of a Gazan family to be safe and secure in their home and the rights of all Palestinians to self-determination, freedom, equality, and security in the same measure as their Israeli neighbors.

Here in Olympia, Washington – our hometown and Rachel’s – our family, the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, and our community will mark this anniversary with an event that emphasizes three components: community-building, education, and action. Strengthening community connections was important to Rachel when she lived and worked here in Olympia, but, also, beyond, as she embraced the world as her community. As we pursue a more just global community, we must arm ourselves with solid information and knowledge. Rachel believed this profoundly and emphasized in her writing from Gaza the importance of seeking and communicating the facts and doing so without exaggeration. And it is not enough for us to think and talk. We must, also, act. Indeed, it is because of Rachel’s action on March 16, 2003, that we pause to mark this day.

As we consider where Rachel would want us to focus now, Gaza still remains high on the list. The UN Office of Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reports that the number of weekly civilian injuries in Gaza was recently higher than it has been for any week since May 2010. The number includes injuries to five children. During the week of February 20-26, imports from Israel into Gaza were only 36 percent of the average amount that entered weekly before Israel imposed its blockade of Gaza in 2007. Exports and movement of people in and out of the Strip remain severely restricted. Collective punishment of the 1.7 million residents of Gaza by the Israeli government and military continues. We must, therefore, continue to focus on improving their situation and ending the blockade and siege under which they have suffered for so many years.

Rachel Corrie

Rachel would want us to remember the courageous activists whose lives were claimed this past year in nonviolent actions against Israeli policies and those who have found themselves in prison because of their nonviolent resistance. They are American, Palestinian, Turkish, Israeli, and from elsewhere. We had the privilege recently of meeting Ahmet Dogan, the father of Furkan Dogan, the 18-year-old American citizen executed by the Israeli military aboard the Mavi Marmara in international waters. We spent an evening in Istanbul with the wives, children, and grandchildren of others struck down on the same ship. We have followed the stories of Jawaher Abu Rahma. fatally injured by teargas during protest in the Palestinian village of Bil’in and of Ahmad Suliman Salem Deeb, the 19-year-old Gazan shot and killed as he participated in a demonstration against the no-go zone east of Gaza. We have read of the fishermen and farmers injured and killed while grazing their sheep and plying the waters just off the shore of Gaza. We have followed the Israeli court actions against our friends Abdullah Abu Rahma of Bil’in and Jonathan Pollack of Tel Aviv, imprisoned in Israel because of their leadership and nonviolent actions to resist Israeli confiscation of land and the continuing presence of the wall in West Bank villages. With admiration, we have watched the courageous pursuit of freedom and democracy unfold and spread throughout the Middle East. We have celebrated the victories and mourned the losses. In keeping with our memory of Rachel, we are listening to the voices of young people as they struggle worldwide to assert their visions for a democratic, free, and peaceful future – in Gaza, the West Bank, in the Sheik Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem, in Kabul, Cairo, and beyond. We call on U.S. officials to listen, too. We ask for them to be consistent and strong in their demands that foreign governments and militaries be accountable for their actions, that they respect the right of people to assemble and protest, and that they respond only nonviolently to such protests.

On March 10, 2010, our family’s civil lawsuit against the State of Israel and its Ministry of Defense opened in Haifa District Court. In sessions spread over the course of the past year, we have heard from four of the internationals who stood with Rachel in Gaza in 2003 and, also, from state’s witnesses who include the bulldozer driver, commander, and the lead investigator in the military police inquiry into Rachel’s case. The testimony has often been disturbing. We have recently learned that the case will resume on April 3rd. Six state’s witnesses remain to testify, including commanders who were in charge on March 16, 2003. As our family continues our quest for truth and accountability for Rachel, we demand it for all the others, as well. We know that for there ever to be peace, there must be an airing and resolution of the grievances.

Some of you – in Madison, Wisconsin, Marin County, California, in Turkey, in the U.K. and elsewhere – have told us that you, too, plan commemorative events for March 16th or during the upcoming weeks. Thank you for remembering Rachel with us. As you do, we hope you will, keep in mind the community-building, education, and action so important to her. We hope, too, that you will recall those others who have stood and been struck down, those imprisoned for their nonviolent action, and those who carry on the work – and that you will do what you can to support them all. With events this week and beyond that keep compassion, humility, and love at their core, together, we will honor Rachel’s commitment and spirit.

With appreciation always and in solidarity with all who pursue justice,

Cindy and Craig Corrie