Archives: Articles

By Nicola Nasser

In the Palestinian West Bank town of Birzeit early last February 27, the Israeli (IDF) Occupation Forces (IOF) acted determinedly, under the media spotlights, to feed Amnesty International with a show case study to vindicate the report it released only hours earlier, entitled “Trigger-happy: Israel’s use of excessive force in the West Bank,” and to refute the Israeli official diplomatic denial of the contents thereof.

Under the command of Col. Yossi Pinto, a Nahal infantry force of the Binyamin Territorial Brigade, joined by the Border Police’s elite Counterterrorism Unit, Yamam, according to Israeli The Jerusalem Post on the same day and “200 Israeli soldiers, dozens of jeeps, two (military) bulldozers and many Shin Bet [internal security] officers” according to Amira Hass of Haaretz on this March 3, including some 28 – more than thirty army patrol armored vehicles according to the count of Arab natives of Birzeit who spoke to this writer, were amassed in this Birzeit University town, raising a hell of explosives and gunfire and disrupting its peaceful countryside early spring morning.

Amira Hass was on the scene. Wondering what was all that military mobilization for, a former mayor of Birzeit told this writer that he heard her asking in repudiation, “Was it (the late al-Qaeda founder Osama) Bin Laden inside?!”

Their mission, according to Israeli military spokespeople, was to arrest a “wanted individual” who, according to the Shin Bet internal security agency, quoted by Hass, had “intended” to carry out an “aggressive operation” against Israeli targets. An Israeli army spokeswoman said the man was “suspected” of “terror activity.”

www.israelnationalnews.com on the same day quoted “the IDF Spokesman’s Unit” as saying that he was “a wanted man suspected of terror activity.” Gideon Levy in Haaretz on this March 2 quoted “the military correspondents” as repeating what the “IDF claimed” that the man “had the intention to carry out a terror attack in the near future.”

Hass wrote: “In the unofficial Israeli law code, unproved “terrorist intentions” are enough to be punishable by death. In Hebrew, “terror attack” is a magic phrase that exempts the Israelis from wondering why an arrest needs so many troops and fanfare, and has such a murderous end.”

Gideon Levy sarcastically repeating the self-described as “the most moral army in the world” wrote that the Israeli army “is also an army that reads intentions,” but Levy did not add that this army has had it as a rule to act accordingly as well.

An Israeli army spokeswoman said: “After the suspect was called to turn himself in, he barricaded himself inside his house, effectively resisting arrest. Under the premise that he had weapons in his possession, the forces used different means to complete the arrest, including live fire.”

The “suspect” was 24-year old Muatazz Abdul-Rahim Washaha, an unemployed Palestinian native of Birzeit.

 

Hass questioned the accuracy of this statement. Claiming that the victim had “barricaded himself” in would make people “think he built a fortress and surrounded himself with explosives. This is very inaccurate,” she wrote.

The IDF Spokesman’s Office said that the “troops forcibly entered the building and found his body.” Hass said that “this is a lie.” “The elite police unit had shot Washaha at point-blank range dozens of times, according to the pieces of brain that covered the room, not to mention his legs, arms and fingers that were nearly severed from his body,” she added. Washaha’s head was split open after being struck by a projectile, a doctor at the Palestinian Ramallah Hospital told AP on the same day.

It was left to Levy and others to specify the details of “live fire.”

Levy reported that “the most moral army in the world fired an (M72 LAW) anti-tank missile at the house in which a wanted young Palestinian was hiding … ran a bulldozer over the top of the house and destroyed it,” using “a drill it calls a ‘pressure cooker’ – a rather disgusting drill it invented for itself.”

When the tactic of “pressure cooker,” which involves shooting at the walls of the house that is surrounded, failed to persuade the suspect to come out and turn himself in, the IOF troops at around 7 AM bulldozed part of the outer wall of the house and fired projectiles into the building. Fire erupted in the house. At 11 AM, they issued an ultimatum, “giving Muatazz two minutes to surrender, without result. As the ultimatum expired, the army fired several artillery shells from close distance. They then stormed the burning house, killing Muatazz,” Jan Walraven reported in the Palestine Monitor on this March 3.

The four – apartment building was bulldozed and shelled out of use and its contents burned and vandalized. Four families suddenly found themselves on the street, waiting for charities.

Washaha did not “resist” his arrest; he simply refused to give himself in. Released from an IFO jail only a few months ago, he knew very well what being imprisoned by the IOF meant. “I will be free here. Leave and do not worry about me. I will stay here and not surrender. I will not return to prison,” he told a Palestinian civil defense worker who rushed in to extinguish the fire caused by the Israeli projectile. Those were his last words, quoted by The Electronic Intifada on last February 28.

“They could have taken him as a prisoner, but they did not want him as a prisoner they wanted to kill him,” his father Mr. Abdul – Rahim said. Similarly, his mother, Mrs. Eitzaaz Washaha, told Anadolu Agency: “Israeli forces could have arrested Washaha, but they were determined to kill him. My son wasn’t armed. He was killed after the house was bombed.”

An Israeli Shin Bet officer, who goes under the name of Alon, gave permission to kill Muatazz because he refused to appear for an interview with him, according to Hass. “This was regarded as a personal affront by Alon,” she wrote. The victim’s brother, Tha’er Washaha, told Haaretz he implored Alon for permission to go inside and convince his brother to come out; Alon refused.

However, despite the officially acknowledged “suspicion,” an official army tweet, quoted by Los Angeles Times on the same day, convicted him as a “terrorist who resisted arrest.”

Pro – Israeli media and Israeli media, the latter being subjected to well – known strict military censorship, echoed this unconfirmed conclusion; for example, www.algemeiner.com on the same day headlined its report to conclude that a “Wanted Terrorist (was) Shot Dead by Israel Defense Forces.”

Disinformation was demonstrated by Israel Hayom, reportedly close to prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office; on the same day Hayom reported that “a firefight broke out” between the holed in victim and the besieging army brigade, but the witnesses on the site confirmed the Reuters’ report that “no shots were heard from inside the home before the Israeli forces opened fire,” a fact that is confirmed by the other fact that the raiding Israeli forces did not suffer the slightest casualty, which also refutes the IOF’ claim that the man had an AK-47 rifle, another “story” that “Israel accepted … with a yawn,” according to Levy of Haaretz.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) in a statement condemned Washaha’s killing as an “assassination,” a “crime” and a “deliberate” killing. PA’s spokesman, Ihab Bsaiso, said it was an “example of the violence perpetrated on a daily basis against our population.” In a letter sent to the UN Secretary-General, the President of the UN Security Council and the President of the UN General Assembly, Palestinian Ambassador Feda Abdelhady – Nasser said Washaha’s killing indicates Israel’s “pre-meditated intention of killing him.”

Israeli journalist Hass agrees further that his killing was a “cold-blooded assassination”; “The Israeli army did this deliberately,” she wrote. “Israel’s goal” was “to embarrass the Palestinian Authority and undermine its status” among its own people and Israel was “successful” as the “Palestinian Authority officials were absent from Washaha’s funeral” the next day to avoid the angry crowds, estimated at more than five thousand, who were demanding an end to peace negotiations and to PA’s security coordination with Israel.

Gideon Levy had another interpretation for the motives of “The most moral army in the world,” which was the title of his opinion column in Haaretz; “The Israel Defense Forces has also created a heartwarming name for all this: the “Tool of Disruption” – storming a civilian community for the purpose of causing panic and fear, and to disrupt its life,” or “Sometimes these operations are conducted … as a training routine in order to preserve the readiness of the forces and a demonstration of sovereign power” toward the Palestinians living under the Israeli military occupation since 1967, he wrote.

Amnesty’s Report Vindicated

Washaha’s extrajudicial execution came on the same day the Amnesty International (AI) released its 87-page report recommending that the U.S., EU and the rest of the international community should suspend all transfers of military aid to Israel because “without pressure from the international community the situation is unlikely to change any time soon,” Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said. “Too much civilian blood has been spilled … (and Israel’s) unlawful killings and unnecessary use of force must stop now,” he added.

The AI reported it had documented the killings of 22 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank in 2013 and in all the cases the Palestinians did not appear to have been posing a direct and immediate threat to life: “The circumstances of all their deaths point to them having been victims of unlawful killings, including — in some cases — possible willful killings.”

“Several victims were shot in the back suggesting that they were targeted as they tried to flee and posed no genuine threat to the lives of members of Israeli forces or others,” the report said. “In several cases, well-armored Israeli forces have resorted to lethal means to crack down on stone-throwing protesters causing needless loss of life” and “there is evidence that some individuals were victims of willful killings, which would amount to war crimes,” it added.

Since the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry succeeded in resuming the Palestinian – Israeli peace talks on last July 29, the IOF killed more than 42 Palestinian civilians; Washaha was among the latest.

Using “excessive force,” “arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters” and displaying “callous disregard” for human life, Israeli soldiers and police officers have been operating with “near total impunity,” in a “harrowing pattern of unlawful killings and unwarranted injuries,” “as a matter of policy,” while the Israeli investigative system is “woefully inadequate,” said Luther.

The AI report accused Israel of “war crimes and other serious violations of international law.”

Israel’s Ambassador to the UK, Daniel Taub, said that Amnesty was “obsessive” with a “focus on Israel” and accused the London – based rights organization of having “an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights.” His embassy in London told The Jewish Chronicle that the AI’s report was merely a “stunt” filled with “unverifiable and often contradictory accounts.”

In Birzeit on that sad morning of last February 27, the elite military disproportionate force which the IOF used to liquidate Washaha acted as if it was intentionally determined to undermine the credibility of Israel’s official diplomacy, represented this time by ambassador Taub, and to vindicate the contents of Amnesty’s report which he tried to deny or at least to question.

Ironically, Israeli PM Netanyahu, less than a week later, was in Washington D.C. lecturing a receptive American audience at the annual conference of AIPAC about drawing a “clear line … between life and death, between right and wrong” and about the “moral divide!”

Nicola Nasser is a veteran Arab journalist based in Bir Zeit, West Bank of the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

05 March, 2014

Countercurrents.org

 

 

By William A. Cook

“It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” : Mark Twain

Mark Twain died 104 years ago, but his truth goes marching on. Witness two of our exalted Congressmen who recently launched a resolution of such ineptitude that it twists facts inside out without batting an eyelash, indeed while fluttering their eyelashes like some street harlots beckoning the innocent to join them in their frolic. Well here are two that take the facts and figures that characterize the malevolent state of Israel, erase them as though they were chalk on a black board, and then apply their crimes to those desirous of justice and equity for those destroyed by the Israeli state.

“In December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) became the second major educational organization to adopt an academic boycott of Israel. This measure [H.R. 4009] would block federal funding for American universities engaging in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund bigoted attacks against Israel that undermine the fundamental principles of academic freedom,” thus spoke Congressman Peter Roskam introducer of the bill. “ Congress has a responsibility to fight back against these hateful campaigns, which contradict academic freedom and are designed to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel,”  Roskam continued.

Obviously Roskam and his co-legislator, Congressman Dan Lipinski, have not done their homework nor have they read the ASA arguments for promoting the boycott. ASA and all academic institutions and academics who agree to cite the Zionist state as acting illegitimately do so to ensure “academic freedom” not to undermine it, to guarantee access to higher education for all not only Israelis, and to secure open universities in Palestine not to accept forced closure and destruction of laboratories by massive military power. Should Roskam and Lipinski spend some time researching the truth of ASA’s boycott statement they would find that justice can only be achieved by a resolution that would require the United States to stop providing Israel with 8 million dollars a day each year to support a regime that has, since1967, calculatedly disrupted or prevented the indigenous people from gaining access to higher education, actions decidedly contrary to international law, anti-democratic since as occupiers they are obligated to provide for the people under occupation, and destructive to the educational well-being of the Palestinian people. Wouldn’t it be better to spend taxpayers’ dollars in support of freedom and not apartheid?

Fortunately, we have an international study our Congressmen could have considered if they did their homework before submitting their resolution that conclusively demonstrates the malevolent and illegal actions of the state of Israel against the Palestinian people, done in 2009, that specifically notes the crimes committed by that state as it prevents higher education opportunities in the occupied territories. How just and ironic that it draws the following conclusion just as our two representatives of the Israeli Knesset, Roskam and Lipinski, introduce their racist resolution justifying high crimes and misdemeanors by the Israeli government:

The study warns that states providing aid to Israel can be found complicit in this international crime and implies that individuals aiding Israel may bear criminal responsibility ( by  Human Sciences Research Center of South Africa , June 2009).

These representatives are in fact encouraging their colleagues and through them their constituents to defy international law and become complicit in the crimes committed by our best “democratic” (sic) ally in the mid-east as they and this country become recognized world-wide as supportive of genocidal acts against a people that seeks only justice.

Instead of appeasing the Israeli State for its defiance of international law regarding education, the Congressmen might consider a law that would bring Israel before the International Court of Justice if it does not implement policies that allow all Palestinians to exercise their rights to higher education. Perhaps a little interscholastic reflection might illuminate the desire of all to learn and work together rather than deposit white phosphorous and fleshette bombs on defenseless civilians, which appears to be the mode of behavior by the IDF.

I offer here some references the good Congressmen might consider before they force their colleagues to vote in favor of the poor Israeli institutions that might have to rethink their silence in light of an academic boycott as their government continues its genocide against the Palestinians, references any decent student might review should he or she wish to have the facts.

Before June 5, 1967, no universities existed in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Palestinian high school graduates, however, enjoyed easy and free access to university education in the Arab world. West Bank students, as Jordanian citizens, had direct access to the University of Jordan 1 and almost unrestricted admission to all universities in the Arab world – mainly Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Students in the Gaza Strip, which was under Egyptian administration, had complete access to Egyptian universities.

The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip changed this situation. For one thing, access to Arab universities for Palestinian students became increasingly difficult, due to the stiff Israeli measures imposed on border crossing (permits, a mandatory nine-month stay abroad, harassment on reentry). Secondly, admission to Arab universities became gradually limited for Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). Thirdly, the economic situation, both in the OPT and in the Arab countries, was not favorable.

Such circumstances, coupled with a heightened Palestinian national awareness, thrust Palestinian university education on top of the agenda.2 Private initiative, in most cases with the tacit coordination or approval of the PLO, started the ball running.

It was only natural to build on already existing structures: , Bir Zeit University, Bethlehem University followed in 1973 by expanding the Christian Brothers school campus, An-Najah National University was founded in 1977, Gaza Islamic University in 1978 and Hebron University in 1982.4 AI-Quds University started with four independent colleges: the Sharia College in Beit Hanina, 1978; the College of Nursing (later College of Medical Professions) in El-Bireh, 1979; the College of Science and Technology in Abu Dis, 1979; and the College of Arts for Women in Jerusalem, 1982. AI-Azhar University was installed in Gaza in 1992 on the same campus as the Islamic University and took, from the latter, part of the faculty and staff. 5 (“Education,” Vol.3, No. 1, Palestine-Israel Journal, 1996, Gabi Baramki ).

How did Israel react to this attempt by the Palestinian people to create their own educational system since the freedom of movement had soured access to institutions beyond their borders? Need you ask.

Throughout the period of development of the universities, the Israeli military authorities were not innocent bystanders. From the outset, they did not welcome the establishment of these institutions and placed hurdles at every point of their development. First, it was the licensing. All colleges were issued with a temporary license which needed annual renewal. In addition, the creation of a new faculty also needed approval, which was sometimes denied, as in the case of the Faculty of Agriculture at An-Najah University. Bir Zeit, in this connection, chose not to ask for approval and went ahead by establishing facts on the ground. This, however, was not always possible, especially when it came to building permits and zoning. After a protracted fight which had reached the Supreme Court, Bir Zeit won a zoning permit for a 300-dunum campus (Education, Baramki)

.But the malevolence of the Israeli government was not confined to licensing; illegal measures such as withholding tax exemption on construction, building material, laboratory equipment and books were employed, universities were forced to pay custom duties, VAT and luxury taxes were imposed on such material as kitchen equipment, on building material, both local or imported. “The conservative figure of six million dollars extorted from them in taxes on these items, constitutes a major breach of international law and UNESCO directives exempting books for educational purposes from any kind of taxation.”   Additionally, the Israeli mantra “security reasons” allowed the military to censor books and periodicals, withhold work permits deny access by international faculty, and most reprehensible of all, close universities making completion of degrees virtually impossible for many who had to drop education to grovel for any work to be had.

Closures varied in length and nature. Those of one week or less were common, but not considered “serious” as the work could be made up. However, from 1979, the closures usually lasted for a minimum of two months. With time, three- to four-month closures became the norm. The worst case was the extended closure of all universities in January 8, 1988, for periods ranging from 33 to 51 months.

Lest anyone think that these measures have been curtailed, think no more Move forward to this new century, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2012 as illustrative examples. Our Congressmen have to realize that they wish to impose sanctions against those who want the true draconian harassment employed by Israel against academic institutions under their international control to stop; and since neither the Israeli government nor its United States puppets in our Congress will not force them to stop, it becomes the responsibility of the international community to bring boycotting to bear so that true democracy and academic freedom can be provided for all. Simple to do one would think since Israel can alter its policies and let the Palestinian institutions do their job. Indeed, the government could embrace interscholastic dialogue and cooperation between the higher education units in Palestine and Israel, a peaceful and truly academic pursuit.

Israeli forces closed an administration building of a Palestinian university in Jerusalem this week, confiscating files, academic documents and computers. The order to close the building at Al-Quds University came from the minister of the interior security, Uzi Landou ( theguardian.com , Friday 12 July 2002 11.51 EDT)

Where one might ask is the voice of the Israeli universities condemning such disruption of academic freedom? Shouldn’t our Congressmen seek the answers to such a question before condemning those who seek the answer? Perhaps our main stream newspapers might carry this information instead of getting it from the UK.

Consider the following study as it details more blatant disruption and destruction of Palestinian education. Consider as well how outraged we’d be if these tactics were employed against Israeli institutions. Yet we hear nothing from the academics at Israel’s institutions, just the weeping at the discomfort they’d endure if boycotts continued against them. How hypocritical when the punishment gets meted out to those real victims of the crimes against international law.

On Friday 16 January 2009, Israeli occupation forces bombed the headquarters of the University Teachers Association-Palestine (UTA), in Gaza, during their indiscriminate, willful destruction of the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City…

Israel’s total siege on Gaza has devastated the educational sector. Students in Gaza are systematically prevented from traveling to the West Bank or abroad to attend universities. Students already abroad are unable to return home to visit their families.

During the nonviolent Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation that began in 1987, Israel ordered the closure of all Palestinian universities, schools and kindergartens, ostensibly rendering the acts of teaching and learning illegal. Between 1988-92 Palestinian education was forced underground as classes were held in homes, mosques, churches and community centers which were repeatedly raided. Even after universities were allowed to reopen in 1992, Palestinians have faced an ever more difficult struggle to reach their places of learning as a result of curfews, closures, checkpoints.

Since Israel began its violent suppression of the second Palestinian uprising starting in 2000, eight universities and over three hundred schools have been shelled, shot at or raided by the Israeli army. Since 2004, the wall Israel is building on West Bank land, illegal according to a 2004 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, has made the work of educational institutions even more difficult.

While various unions in England and Canada have worked to endorse and support PACBI’s initial call since 2005, since the recent siege on Gaza Canadian and Scottish academics have mobilized to support the boycott campaign. In contradistinction, American academics have remained silent (“ Why American academics must join boycott of Israel,” ( Rania Masri  and  Marcy Newman , The Electronic Intifada , 18 January 2009).

There is need, I believe, to quote sections of the South Africa Human Rights Report mentioned above. Because the United States blocks all attempts to bring Israel before the international courts, the American people know little about Israeli genocidal actions. Israel claims that Palestinians are terrorists because they live under the authority of Hamas which they label as a terrorist organization. Most countries in the world include the state of Israel as a terrorist state yet the US does nothing about those allegations. This report has international significance since it is thorough and relies on approved and agreed upon definitions and evidence. All Americans should read it; certainly all our representatives should read it so that they can judge for themselves if Israel is or is not an apartheid state. If it is it is not democratic no matter how many times we are told it is. I’ve cut the report down to basic lines; the full report must be read and it is included as a footnote for readers’ reference. I’ve taken the liberty to cut a comprehensive review (written by Francis H. Remillard in March of 2010) down to essentials because space is limited.

Summary of a legal study by  Human Sciences Research Center of South Africa .

This fifteen-month collaborative study set out to examine legally the question:

Do Israel’s practices in occupied Palestinian territory, namely the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, amount to the crimes of colonialism and apartheid under international law?

Apartheid defined under international law

Apartheid is defined as an institutionalized form of racism in which states enact laws which function as the apparatus to commit inhuman acts for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.

Apartheid regimes rely on three “Pillars of Apartheid” to maintain their domination

•  Pillar 1:  The state codifies into law a preferred identity: (See full report for evidence that supports this statement; this further exploration of the full report is advised for all statements made in this reduced version).

•  Pillar 2:  The state segregates the population into geographic areas based on their identity.

•  Pillar 3:  The state establishes security laws and policies designed to suppress any opposition to the regime.

Using these criteria, the May 2009 South African study found that “Israel, since 1967, is the belligerent Occupying Power in occupied Palestinian territory, and that its occupation of these territories has become a colonial enterprise which implements a system of apartheid.”

Israel’s practices, Apartheid Pillar 1: A preferred identity; separate system privileging Jews

Israel’s domestic law codifies the Jewish identity as the preferred identity and establishes that collective rights extend to Jews only. All other people lack the right to a national life anywhere in Israel proper or occupied Palestinian territory. n

•  Israel’s state resources (including land in occupied Palestinian territory which Israel has declared ‘state land’) are specified as being for the exclusive benefit of Jews, administered under the World Zionist Organization, Jewish Agency, and Jewish National Fund.

•  Since 1967, Israel supplanted existing laws governing Palestinian territory with two separate sets of law: Israeli domestic law to apply to Jewish settlers and Israeli military law to apply to Palestinians. [Note: the report provides extensive evidence on each of the above Pillars. I can only provide reference to Right to Education here and that in précis form. The reader is encouraged to read the entire report to grasp the extent of Israeli malevolence against Palestininas.]

Right to an Education

– Israel denies Palestinians the right to an education through indirect measures such as creating obstacles to movement so Palestinian students cannot get to their schools; repeated closure of Palestinian schools; military attacks on schools and students; destroying educational infrastructure; and denying Palestinian students exit permits preventing them from studying abroad.

Since we are most concerned here with the destructive efforts of Israel to curtail freedom of education to the Palestinian people, we must ask readers to go to the full report for the last two practices that establish apartheid in Israel: Pillar 2: Segregation. Exploitation of resources; and Pillar 3: Matrix of security laws to suppress opposition. These two areas of concern ensure Israeli control not only of education, but of all measures of freedom that are enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The report ends with this comment on Israeli inhumane treatment of the Palestinians.

Cruel and inhumane treatment: Gaza

– From 2000 to 2004, Israel demolished over 2500 homes in the Gaza Strip leaving 16,000 Palestinians homeless.

 

– In 2006, Israel bombed the Gaza power plant destroying all six transformers and halting electricity production, leaving Gaza almost completely dependent on Israel as the sole provider of electricity, power, desalination, pumping sewage, and pumping water.

– After years of systematic bombing and destruction, which transformed Gaza into a dependent population, Israel isolated Gaza with an encircling ‘security wall.’ Then in October 2007, Israel initiated a blockade on Gaza limiting fuel, water, and electricity and cutting basic supplies to less than 1/5 their former levels. 95% of Gaza’s industries shut down; poverty levels reached 80%; hospitals experienced power cuts of 8 to 12 hours a day; thirty to forty million liters of raw sewage poured into the Mediterranean sea every day; 1.1 million Gazans were living below the poverty line.

– Gaza’s fishing grounds extend 20 miles off shore, yet Israel enforced a three-mile limit by opening fire on Palestinian fishing vessels beyond three miles, severely damaging Palestinian fishermen’s livelihood and denying a viable food source to Gaza.

– On December 27, 2008, Israel launched “Operation Cast Lead,” a three-week military attack on Gaza, killing 1380 Palestinians and injuring 5380. During this attack Israel prevented Palestinian civilians from leaving Gaza, “subjecting the entire population to the extreme physical and psychological hazards of modern warfare.”

–Since “Operation Cast Lead,” Israel has continued the blockade, preventing Palestinians from rebuilding, thus deepening the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

The State of Israel has the duty to:

•  Cease its unlawful activity

•  Dismantle the structures of colonialism and apartheid

•  Promote full rights and expression of the Palestinian people

•  Pay reparations and damages to the Palestinians people

Third party States are obligated to:

•  Not recognize the illegal situation as lawful

•  Not render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation

•  Cooperate to bring the illegal situation to an end

•  Not become complicit in the crimes by failing to fulfill the first three obligations

As a next step, the Human Sciences Research Council of South Africa strongly recommends that states take action to meet their legal obligations under international law and urgently request the International Court of Justice render an advisory opinion on the question of Israel’s practices in occupied Palestinian territory. (End of shortened version of Remillard’s review of the full report. All of those truly interested in justice must read the full report).

Now as a full professor at an American university, as a scholar and researcher, as a mentor of a Fulbright Scholar from Morocco, as a professional academic administrator at four institutions in four different states, public and private, and as a full time tenured professor at a private university for the past 14 years, with an aggregate of 52 years of experience from Instructor to Vice President for Academic Affairs, I believe I can speak with some authority relative to academic freedom, tenure, ethics and values appropriate to this profession.

The action threatened by Roskam and Lipinski through their H.R. 4009 seeks to curtail not just freedom of expression voiced against a political entity, the state of Israel, for perceived crimes against humanity in its destructive actions against Palestinian educational institutions and its students, but presents the American people, most particularly the faculty and administrators at American institutions, with obligations to support a state that has been found guilty of apartheid actions that require international legal action and could, at some time in the future, result in a finding that convicts this nation and its people of crimes against humanity. The evidence presented in truncated form in this article damns the state of Israel for crimes that are intolerable by any intellectual measure, crimes that cannot be supported by those committed to justice, human dignity, and respect for the rights inherent in all humans under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Accords, most especially the definition of Genocide as expressed in its charter.

Would it not be better for these two Congressmen and their peers to offer the American people a gift of peace, beginning with the withholding of the 8 million per day provided to Israel so it can maintain the horrendous conditions it imposes on those occupied, by suggesting that Israel’s institutions of higher learning demand of their government a commitment to open the gates of the walled in state of Israel to all of good will beginning with an interscholastic dialogue on equity for all, the citizens of Israel and the citizens entrusted to their care as occupiers under international law, that all may share the gifts of thoughtful interchange as citizens of the world.

After all, the purpose of higher education is to enhance the intellect, to promote the expansion of its capabilities, to recognize that all, all things both living and non-living, infuse the possibilities of life by providing richness in artistic expression, compassion in understanding of differences, creativeness in technical advancement to benefit all, to seek, in the realm of the unknown, what enriches us and lifts us beyond our limited selves because we see the joy of fulfillment in the multitude of faces among whom we live, and play, and work, and pray. The great wonder of higher education is in its freedom of thought, its openness to ideas and explorations of the mind, its quest to know, to seek answers, to thrive on speculation, to entertain paradoxes and mystery and fantasy and intuition yet know that all accept that journey of the mind and do so without threat to another, without fear of another, without anxiety or anger or hate.

There is no place in that purpose to criticize with vitriol, to lash out at perceived ignorance, to mock others, to devise weapons of destruction whether of military kind or of mental that binds some to hate, that creates ‘exceptionalism” that blossoms against another, that excludes others to enhance a few, as all of these are anathema to learning. And certainly, we might all learn from this exercise that the criminals in Congress should not be the ones responsible for how academia responds to its purpose.

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California.

05 March, 2014

Countercurrents.org

 

By Ali Abunimah

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday launched a frontal assault on the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

“One movement that’s definitely on the wrong side of the moral divide is the movement to boycott Israel, the so-called BDS,” Netanyahu told the cheering delegates, in his keynote speech to the annual gathering of the powerful Israel lobby group AIPAC in Washington, DC.

“That movement will fail,” Netanyahu predicted.

While claiming that people were “flocking to Israel” for its technology from all over the world, Netanyahu warned, “I don’t want you to get complacent – because the fact that they’re going to fail doesn’t mean that the BDS movement shouldn’t be vigorously opposed.”

“Anti-Semites”

Netanyahu proceeded to defame supporters of Palestinian human rights in the crudest terms: “Throughout history, people believed the most outrageously absurd things about the Jews, that we were using the blood of children to bake matzos, that we were spreading the plague throughout Europe.”

Those who support BDS today are just as bad, Netanyahu asserted: “Those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot. They should be exposed and condemned. The boycotters should be boycotted.”

This speech is Netanyahu’s highest profile attack on BDS, although last summer, he put responsibility for fighting against the movement for Palestinian rights into the hands of the “Ministry of Strategic Affairs.”

Israel is also placing dedicated anti-BDS operatives in its foreign embassies.

In recent months, top ministers in Netanyahu’s government have repeatedly declared that BDS is the “greatest threat” Israel faces.

Desperate

Responding to his remarks, Rafeef Ziadah, a spokesperson for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee, the Palestinian civil society coalition that leads the BDS movement, said in an emailed statement:

“Netanyahu’s desperate attack on the BDS movement comes as European pension funds are blacklisting Israeli companies and banks, as Israeli concert organizers find it increasingly difficult to persuade artists to perform in Israel and as governments begin to take action to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law.”

“At its core, the BDS movement is a movement against Israel’s systematic discrimination and apartheid policies. The BDS movement is opposed, as a matter of principle, to all forms of discrimination, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia. The world is growing increasingly weary of Israel’s attempts to conflate criticism of its violations of international law with anti-semitism.”

Ziadah is right. It’s hard to see how people who are not already on board with Netanyahu will be swayed by his invective.

If Israel’s only answer to people all over the world who are horrified by its oppression of Palestinians and ongoing theft of their land, is to call them “bigots,” then Netanyahu should fully expect the BDS movement to grow.

Ali Abunimah is the author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and a fellow with the Palestine Centre in Washington, DC. Abunimah is Executive Director of The Electronic Intifada.

05 March, 2014

Electronic Intifada

 

BY LAURA PHILOMIN

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – “God is here, God is here,” croons Singapore church official Sun Ho as she struts across a neon-lit stage and thousands of people in the congregation pump their hands and sing along.

Ho Kong Hee, the church’s founding pastor and Sun Ho’s husband, then takes the stage. In keeping with the electrifying mood, he invites his followers to speak “in tongues” and a pulsing murmur echoes through the auditorium of 8,000 people.

During the service, ushers hand out envelopes for donations, which consume at least a tenth of the salaries of most church members, going to fund different ministries, mission trips and special events.

Welcome to one of Asia’s most profitable churches: Singapore’s City Harvest.

With a “prosperity gospel” that blends the spiritual and the material, City Harvest and other Pentecostal megachurches in the wealthy Asian city-state have perfected a popular and lucrative model.

Now they are working to export it to the world and turn Singapore into a hub for evangelical Christianity.

“We want to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth,” said Pastor Bobby Chaw, City Harvest’s missions director.

Evangelising missions by City Harvest, including pop concerts by Sun Ho in China, Taiwan and the United States, have helped it gather followers across Asia and set up 49 affiliate churches in Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan and India.

City Harvest – whose founder faces trial, along with five others, on charges of criminal breach of trust and falsifying accounts over the use of nearly S$51 million ($40.2 million) in church funds – also has a bible college that trains church leaders from countries such as Norway, Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe.

Last year the founding pastor of another Singapore megachurch, New Creation’s Joseph Prince, toured the United States, preaching to a sell-out crowd at Long Beach Arena in Los Angeles and filling the country’s largest church, Lakewood in Texas.

Prince’s book “The Power of Right Believing” made it to number two on the New York Times’ bestseller list in the advice and “how to” category.

SUCCESS, SCANDAL AND CONTROVERSIES

Asia is a growth market for Christianity, with the religion estimated to be growing 10 times faster than in Europe, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts.

While the idea of megachurches originated in the United States, some of the largest are in Asia, notably South Korea’s Yoido Full Gospel Church, with about 1 million members.

Packaging the traditional biblical message into a more dynamic format of pop-rock music, lively services and social media has lured a new generation of followers and turned the churches into major enterprises.

New Creation, which says it has a congregation of 30,000, collected S$75.5 million in tithes in 2012, while City Harvest took in S$38.6 million in 2009, accounts filed with Singapore’s Commissioner of Charities show.

“Whatever method that can most effectively convey the message to our generation, we will do it,” said Chaw, who is also the vice chairman of City Harvest’s management board.

City Harvest, which says its congregation numbered nearly 20,000 in 2012, with about 62 percent single, ventured into the entertainment industry after seeing how enthusiastically Chinese-speaking youth in Asia responded to Mandarin pop music from Taiwan.

The church’s Crossover Project led Sun Ho to collaborate with Asian stars such as Jay Chou and she broke into the U.S. market under the guidance of producer David Foster, producer-songwriter Wyclef Jean and other veterans.

With a wealth-affirming model and efforts to engage the young, fast-growing Pentecostal megachurches have helped to dilute Buddhism as Singapore’s traditionally dominant religion.

The most recent census showed the proportion of Christians rose 18.3 percent in 2010 from 14.6 percent in 2000, while the number of Buddhists fell to 33.3 percent from 42.5 percent.

Rolland Teo, 25, whose family is Buddhist, said his view of religion as “very static” changed when he joined City Harvest.

“It was something more dynamic, more relational,” Teo said. “This was something I couldn’t find in my parents’ beliefs.”

But allegations of corruption have accompanied success.

City Harvest’s Crossover Project is at the centre of charges that Ho and five other officials financed his wife’s singing career by funneling church funds of S$24 million into sham investments and then used S$26.6 million more to cover up the deals.

Ho and the others deny the charges. Ho’s wife is not on trial and has resumed her executive duties at the church.

In South Korea, David Yong-gi Cho, Ho’s spiritual mentor and founder of Yoido Full Gospel Church, was recently found guilty of embezzling $14 million in church donations to buy stocks owned by his son, at four times their market value.

PROSPERITY GOSPEL

Megachurches dismiss accusations of being wealth-obsessed, although Chaw has said that “prosperity is a byproduct of obeying God’s commandments”.

Critics say wealth is not necessarily a bad thing but they decry selfish enrichment at the expense of helping others.

“The prosperity gospel is a very big movement, a very visible movement, that doesn’t represent what I believe to be biblical Christianity,” said Paul Choo, founding pastor at Gospel Light Christian Church.

But a growing number of people in Singapore have found an affinity with the megachurch doctrine of faith entwined with wealth and personal well-being.

“That’s quite attractive to many socially mobile Singaporeans who, in going up the class strata, do look for some moral bearings,” said Terence Chong, a researcher at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

Tithing – the donation of 10 percent of income to the church – is assumed by some to be a way of “buying” God’s love. But New Creation member Jared Asalli and others say it is a way of thanking God.

Either way, the practice helps swell megachurch coffers.

City Harvest raised S$22.7 million with its Building Fund Campaign, helping it to buy a stake of 39.2 percent in the venue for its services, Suntec Singapore Convention and Exhibition Centre, for S$97.8 million in 2012.

New Creation’s Miracle Seed event raised S$21 million in one day, contributing to the S$348 million it spent on building the 5,000-seat Star Performing Arts Centre, one of four venues where it holds services.

“I don’t think there’s been any era as materialistic as this one,” said Choo of Gospel Light Christian Church. “If it promises wealth, it will have some ready audience.”

($1=1.2690 Singapore dollars)

(Editing by Jason Szep, John O’Callaghan and Clarence Fernandez)

6 March, 2014

 

 

 

By Kourosh Ziabari

When the civil war broke out in Syria in March 2011, there were some people who tended to portray it as a continuation of the wave of revolutionary protests in the Arab world that started from Tunisia and swept Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, but as the time goes by, it becomes more and more evident that what’s happening in Syria is a foreign-plotted conspiracy aimed at bringing down the government of President Bashar al-Assad, not a popular movement nor a part of the Arab Spring.

As testified by several Western journalists who are currently reporting from Syria, including the prominent French journalist Thierry Meyssan to whom I was talking a few weeks ago, there’s no trace of a popular uprising against the national government in the ongoing unrest in Syria. It’s simply one of the covert regime change projects of the United States, in which several countries and role-players are taking part, including the Israeli regime.

Aside from the Al-Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda fighters, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant warriors, Turkish, Qatari and Saudi Arabian terrorists and extremists who are pouring into Syria from the Arab and European countries at the behest of the United States and contributing to the exacerbation of the crisis in Syria, Israel alone is playing the most destructive role in the Arab country and has virtually become one of the main belligerents of the civil war there.

It’s quite clear that unrest and violence in Syria would be in the best interests of Israel. Syria has long been a pivotal part of the axis of resistance against Israel; therefore, the destabilization of Syria means increased security on the Israeli borders and a giant step toward to a military confrontation with Iran.

There is credible evidence showing that Israel, throughout the past three years, has been closely working with Al-Qaeda bases in Syria, providing the terrorist cult with money, training and arms to help them fight the government of President Assad and the Syrian Army forces.

According to German author and the director of nsnbc.me news website Christof Lehmann, Israel provides direct military aid to Jabhat al-Nusrah, Liwa-al-Islam, and other Al-Qaeda brigades currently stationed in Syria. Lehmann cites the Zionist daily Jerusalem Post as acknowledging that Israel has established a field hospital in the Occupied Golan Heights which provides medical and remedial services to the Jihadists and terrorists fighting in Syria. Bibi Netanyahu has laughably described the hospital as the “true face of Israel” and a place where “the good in the world” are separated from “the evil in the world.” Perhaps he has made such a lunatic remark because he wishfully believes every force that resists Israeli oppression and occupation is an incarnation of evil in the world.

Just recently, an Austrian military officer working with the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Occupied Golan Heights who spoke to the media on the condition of anonymity confirmed that Israel has provided large-scale logistical and military support to the terrorists and rebels in different parts of Syria. The officer has confirmed that there’s a joint operation room between armed terrorist gangs and Israel which has the function to coordinate the delivery of assistance to the terrorists.

It’s even believed that the 21 August 2013 chemical attacks on the civilians of the Ghouta district near Damascus in which around 1,500 people were killed was an Israeli scheme to deceive the public around the world and make the Western powers believe that President Assad had ordered the use of chemical weapons against the rebels and eventually lay the groundwork for a UNSC-sanctioned military strike against Syria with the final objective of overthrowing the Syrian government.

It’s said that one day before the chemical attacks, the rebels and Al-Qaeda combatants had massacred Syrian citizens in the Ghouta suburbs of the Markaz Rif Dimashq and recorded videos of their killings and then uploaded the videos on the internet, pretending that the citizens were killed in the chemical attacks perpetrated by the government; however, their plan was carried out so frantically that they gave themselves up. It was then that the British MP George Galloway suggested that the Israelis provided the insurgents with chemical weapons.

“If there’s been any use of nerve gas, it’s the rebels that used it…If there has been use of chemical weapons, it was Al-Qaeda who used the chemical weapons”, said the Respect Party MP George Galloway.

“Who gave Al-Qaeda the chemical weapons? Here’s my theory. Israel gave them the chemical weapons”, Galloway MP added.

Obviously, Israel will be making a great achievement if it succeeds in bringing the government of President Assad to its knees. Then it can realize its vicious plans for the Middle East, including the plan of permanently annexing the Golan Heights, as the Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman has openly talked about. According to Liberman, the annexation of Golan Heights, which were illegally occupied by Israel in 1967, is an issue which should be resolved with the consent and agreement of Israel, the United States and the international community! The other plans which Israel can take action to realize are the annexation of the West Bank and parts of the Southern Lebanon which currently cannot turn into reality as a result of the presence of an opposing force that is the disobedient government of Syria.

For a long time, the German textbooks were referring to what had come to be known as the “Schiitischer Halbmond” (Shiite Halfmoon) to describe the Shiite populations that were experiencing a growth of dominance in the Middle East since early 2000s. However, when in 2004, King Abdullah II of Jordan used the term “Shiite Crescent” to refer to the perceived threat of Iran’s increasing influence in the Middle East, the epithet became more popular and widely used.

The Shiite Crescent is notionally consists of the Shiite populations in Bahrain, Iran, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Although Shiites comprise only 10-15% of the Muslim population of the world, the Shiite-dominant countries wield an influence and power which is growing steadily, and since the political Shiite mindset fundamentally rejects Zionism and Israeli expansionism, Israel finds it the best way to ensure its security to fight against the members of this hypothetical Shiite Crescent or blackmail them the other way.

Although Iran has never been a threat to Israel despite the claims of its leaders to the contrary, Tel Aviv considers defeating or at least damaging Iran one of its main foreign policy missions, and conquering Syria that is Iran’s main ally and defender in the region would pave the way for Israel to think about overpowering and overwhelming Iran. Iranian military officials and statesmen have always clearly indicated that the peaceful nature of the country means that Iran will never think of waging any wars or harming its neighbors or other countries, but at the same time they have strongly maintained that any Israeli aggression against Iran will be the final nail in Israel’s coffin and would be equivalent to the rainfall of Iranian rockets and missiles into the Israeli soil which will close the chapter of this apartheid regime forever.

Now Israel, whose leaders have explicitly confessed to providing ammunitions, missiles and other state-of-the-art weapons to the Syrian rebels and Al-Qaeda mercenaries, has found itself in an inextricable battle over its shivering security. It should continue providing the insurgents and mercenaries with dangerous weapons until President Assad is ousted from power, or concede to another big failure in the Middle East after the 2006 Lebanon War (also known as the 33-day War) and the Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead) and experience a serious security decline.

What is clear is that Israel is a big accomplice in the atrocities that are taking place in Syria. It’s playing a dirty role in the Arab country, but it doesn’t seem that it would be held accountable over its war crimes, like the past 66 years that it has been immune to accountability and responsibility before the international community by virtue of its “passionate attachment” with the United States.

Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian journalist, writer and media correspondent

www.KouroshZiabari.com

04 March, 2014

Countercurrents.org

 

By John Chuckman

Everywhere you look in the West, you find political pygmies rather than statesmen. In France, we see a pathetic man whose own people intensely dislike him, François Hollande, attempt to speak as though he were something other than a dry, pompous school teacher-like purveyor of American views. Almost forgotten are the strong, independent voices of a de Gaulle or a Chirac. In Britain, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, is wishy-washy man of little integrity and less ability, again a purveyor of American views, and I’m sure he goes to sleep every night fantasizing about the last Prime Minister who faithfully served American interests, Tony Blair, being showered with gold, resembling something from the Arabian Nights, every year since his retirement. The United States is represented by a man of not one achievement, unless you count instituting an industrial-scale system of extrajudicial killing, sending missiles against women and children and mere suspects, a man who serves the American military-intelligence complex as doggedly as George Bush, surely the most ignorant and cowardly man ever to be called President. Germany has a leader of considerable ability in Angela Merkel, but, as few people understand, Germany acts only under the most onerous secret agreements imposed by America after World War II, its independence still heavily constrained nearly three-quarters of a century later.

No, Putin stands out, for his independence of mind, keen intelligence, ability to make decisions, and his readiness to act in proportion to the threat of a situation. In Syria he blunted America’s effort to bomb its government into submission, a la Libya. In Ukraine, he has acted appropriately and without excess, quietly taking steps to secure a region whose population includes a majority of Russians and where Russia has a major naval base and longstanding interests and relationships. The bellowing we hear from the United States about “Russia is committing a breach of international law,” or “You just don’t invade a country on phony pretext in order to assert your interest!” should amuse the world rather than arouse it. These words come from the folks who slaughtered 3 million Vietnamese, precipitated the deaths of more than a million Cambodians through de-stabilizing secret invasions, killed a million Iraqis, killed tens of thousands in Afghanistan, invaded Grenada, invaded Haiti, invaded Panama, overturned democratic governments in Chile, Iran, and Guatemala, fought a years-long secret terror war against Cuba, supported the 1965 genocide in Indonesia with lists of names of communist suspects for killing after the fall of Sukarno, and today finds itself murdering strangers by the thousands in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It tolerates brutal suppression in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other places. The establishment in Washington, publically lecturing Russia despite its own blood-soaked record, apparently has utter contempt for the public’s intelligence, viewing them much as 1984’s Inner Party viewed Plebs.

Going back to that Russian naval base on the Black Sea, I am reminded of Guantanamo, Cuba. In case Americans forget, Guantanamo is Cuban territory. Decades ago, America’s long-term lease – extracted after the Spanish-American War, another American-engineered war used to grab desirable territory – ran out, and the government of Cuba asked that the territory be returned. America refused and still it keeps this military base against the wishes of the Cuban government, having used it over the last decade for its infamous torture camp for people captured after 9/11 and proved guilty of nothing.

To hear Obama and the droning, tiresome John Kerry talk, you’d think Putin had recklessly hurled the world into danger. Of course, what their strained rhetoric really is telling us is that, just after a round of champagne toasts and patting themselves on the back over the presumed success of having secretly de-stabilized Ukraine for Western interests, they are seriously annoyed by Putin acting swiftly and decisively to secure an insecure situation. Most people don’t like being shown up in public, but when you get to the level of a Kerry or an Obama, being shown up in public is plainly infuriating. And, of course, it makes so much sense to be cutting off avenues of discussion, such as Russia’s G-8 meeting, talking of “going to the hilt” as Kerry has foolishly done, and threatening serious reprisals if Russia fails to do as Washington wishes

The “revolution” in Ukraine is the product of years of effort by the CIA to exploit weaknesses there and gain a major foothold on Russia’s border. Whether you like the man’s views or not, Viktor Yanukovich, a democratically-elected president was ousted, and some extremely unpleasant people have re-entered the national spotlight, including Yulia Tymoshenko – a founder of the right wing outfit, The Fatherland Party, once one of the wealthiest people in Ukraine, someone who had charges of bribery and embezzlement swirling about her and her husband, and someone who served 3 years in prison for abuse of office. Tymoshenko’s public image, with heavy (bleached) blond braids wrapped around her head as a crown, reminds me of nothing so much as 1930s images of Germanic womanhood promoted by the Nazis in books and films. And then there’s Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the All Ukrainian Union Svoboda Party, an unapologetically fascist organization. There are still other extreme right wing groups at work too, including The Right Sector Party, again a genuinely fascist organization. There is, and has long been, a strong streak of fascism in Ukraine. Ukraine, much as Baltic states such as Latvia, was at the forefront of supporting Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union and violence against Jews, the infamous massacre at Babi Yar having been committed in part by Ukrainian police. Ukraine provided the infamous Galicia Division to serve as a unit of the Waffen-SS.

During “the revolution” right wingers provided most of the street thugs and snipers, and there is considerable evidence that they continue some of their violence against peaceful protesters. Already, many unpleasant legislative acts are being considered by those now running Ukraine, including a law offering a penalty of ten years in prison for dual-nationality Ukrainians who insist on holding Russian passports. One of the first acts of the new government was to repeal a law allowing minorities to conduct business and education in their own languages. The coup has thrown the country into serious economic uncertainty, leaving it unable to pay many sizeable debts. “We’ll regain our status as a nuclear power and that’ll change the conversation. Ukraine has all the technological means needed to create a nuclear arsenal – which would take us about three to six months,” threatened Svoboda Party MP, Mikhail Golovko. Can you just imagine the reaction in Washington were such activities underway in Mexico or Canada? An invasion in force with no pause for diplomatic niceties would be swift.

It is not the slightest exaggeration to say that Putin’s prompt and low-key action stands in sharp contrast to the shrill, hypocritical voices coming from Washington and being echoed in Paris and London. We all know that Washington’s readiness to threaten or bomb those who disagree with it is exceeded only by the monstrousness of its hypocrisy when speaking about law or rights or democratic values. It is perfectly represented by that genuine American Gothic, Senator John McCain, a fossilized, corrupt old reprobate who flies off here and there, sticking his nose into other people’s countries, trying to stoke up the fires of war in every difficult place he thinks an American advantage is to be had, a much diminished version of what he once did in Vietnam where he flew jets to bomb civilians.

We cannot know what Ukraine is going to experience given America’s support of extremists and cutthroats to overturn an elected government, a situation somewhat resembling what was intended for Syria through support of extremists and terrorists there, including the supply even of small quantities of Sarin gas used to produce atrocities inviting American intervention. The Syrian effort has collapsed into a hellish situation for which the United States takes no responsibility. So too the situation in Libya, another American-manufactured disaster, but I am confident in the ability of Mr. Putin to outplay the current crop of uninspired politicians in the West at geopolitical chess, especially where Russia’s vital interests are at stake, and we should all wish him well to prevent anything like Syria or Libya being repeated in Ukraine.

The fact is that we will have a better world where there are independent actors able enough to thwart a world bully from kicking sand into everyone’s eyes, an activity which appears now to have become a favorite American pastime. How is a world dictator-nation any less contemptible and dangerous than a country dictator-leader? It’s not.

John Chuckman is former chief economist for a large Canadian oil company.

04 March, 2014

Countercurrents.org

 

By maannews.net

JERUSALEM (Ma’an) — Thousands of worshipers performed Friday noon prayers in front of police checkpoints after Israeli forces imposed restrictions on Palestinian worshipers seeking to access the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound.

The Al-Aqsa Waqf and Heritage Organization said that worshipers who had been unable to enter the area held prayer services in Bab al-Amoud, Wadi al-Joz and the Ras al-Amoud area near al-Aqsa.

Hundreds of Israeli soldiers were deployed in the vicinity of Al-Aqsa and dozens of checkpoints were erected while a helicopter hovered over the area, the waqf organization said.

Only a few thousand worshipers managed to enter the compound to pray due to Israeli restrictions announced on Thursday barring Palestinian men under the age of 50 from entering the Aqsa compound, which is a holy site for Muslims.

Israeli authorities said the restrictions were put in place to prevent “plans for unrest,” amid a debate on extending Israeli sovereignty over the compound that has provoked outrage across the region and led the Jordanian premier to call for the review of the country’s peace treaty with Israel.

The Al-Aqsa compound is located in East Jerusalem, which has been occupied by Israel since 1967. According to a 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan, the compound is under Jordanian custodianship.

February 28, 2014

By Nile Bowie

As divisions deepen between the eastern and western regions of Ukraine, the backers of the putsch regime in Kiev portray Russia as a reckless aggressor to absolve their own responsibility for engineering the crisis.

While denunciations of Moscow have streamed out of western capitals in recent days over the standoff in Crimea, it should be understood that the political crisis currently unfolding in Ukraine could have been wholly avoided. In attempts to defuse unrest and maintain legal and societal order, ousted President Yanukovich offered remarkable concessions in his proposal to install opposition leaders in top posts in a reshaped government, which was rejected. Russia expressed readiness to engage in tripartite negotiations with Ukraine and the European Union with the hope that both Moscow and Brussels could play a positive role in Ukraine’s economic recovery, but the EU was unwilling to accept such a proposal. The February 21st agreement mediated by Russia, France, Germany and Poland aimed at ending the bloodshed in Kiev, reducing presidential powers, and establishing a framework for a national unity government, electoral reform, constitutional changes, and early elections.

There was clearly no shortage of opportunities to ease the polarization of the Ukrainian state through an inclusive political solution, and yet the opposition failed to uphold its responsibilities, resulting in the ouster of Ukraine’s democratically elected leader to the detriment of the country’s political, economic, and societal stability. As the new self-appointed authorities in Kiev dictate terms and push legislation through a rump parliament, the reluctance of western capitals to address the clearly dubious legitimacy of the new regime suggests that the US and EU condone what is effectively a coup d’état with no constitutional validity. The leaked phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, is a testament to Washington’s proclivity for foreign meddling and its brazen disregard of Ukraine’s sovereignty. It is no coincidence that Arseniy Yatsenyuk – handpicked by Nuland for the role of prime minister – now occupies that position in Kiev’s new leadership, and much like the reckless agitation strategies employed by the US elsewhere, extremist groups were manipulated to allow the nominal moderates to seize power on Washington’s behalf.

A new dawn for the far-right

In order to maintain enough momentum to oust Yanukovich, Ukraine’s opposition leaders relied on allies in the radical camp such as fascist groups like Svoboda, Trizub, and the Right Sector. These organizations espouse ethnic hatred against Jews and Russians and promote neo-Nazi ideals. The foot soldiers of these movements laid the groundwork for the putsch by occupying the Maidan, storming government offices, and attacking riot police with Molotov cocktails, firearms, and other lethal weapons. Members of these far-right groups that have been integrated in so-called ‘self-defense forces’ that now patrol Kiev and other major cities, and have been seen wearing symbols that include the Celtic cross, which has replaced the swastika for many modern white-power groups, the wolf-hook SS insignia, and other occult symbols associated with the Third Reich. In his capacity as prime minister, Yatsenyuk has relinquished control of Ukraine’s national security forces to the heads of these radical organizations, who have openly used threatening and bigoted language to incite ethnic hostility, in addition to calls for Russians and Jews to be either destroyed or expelled from Ukraine.

The political ascent of radical forces that represent a minority of Ukrainian public opinion has alarmed minority communities, indicated by Ukrainian Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman’s calls for Kiev’s Jews to flee the country in light of recent political developments. Regions in the east and southeast of Ukraine, where many ethnic Russians and Russian speakers reside, are experiencing the Maidan protests in reverse, as protestors plant Russian flags atop government buildings in rejection of the new leadership in Kiev. Since seizing power, the putsch regime in Kiev has attempted to pass laws against the official use of Russian and other languages throughout the country, fueling social unrest and secessionist sentiment in some quarters who culturally and linguistically identify themselves as Russian. Fast-moving developments in Kiev and actions taken by the new regime have enflamed the crisis, and any Russian intervention should be seen against the backdrop of eastern and southeastern Ukraine’s rejection of an unconstitutional transfer of power that directly threatens the integrity of the state.

Russia as a stabilizing force

The request by the legitimate President Yanukovich, and the government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to bring a limited contingent of Russian forces into the region to ensure the safety of ethnic Russian citizens living within Crimean territory is a reasonable request in light of the chaotic socio-political situation currently facing Ukraine. It should be understood that the movements of Russian forces in Crimea have been entirely lawful, and within legal boundaries established by existing security pacts with Ukraine. For western capitals to threaten sanctions and accuse Russia of a belligerent ‘invasion’ of Ukraine is completely unjustifiable, and tinged with political bias. US Secretary of State John Kerry’s statements alluding to Russia behaving like a 19th century power by ‘invading’ Ukraine on a trumped up pretext encapsulates Washington’s infinite potential for hypocritical double standards and pathological dishonesty. The egregious violations of international law by the United States and its NATO allies are abundant and need not be evoked to rebut Kerry’s desperate and deceptive accusation.

The outrage expressed by western capitals over so-called ‘Russian aggression’ is in stark contrast to the restraint showed when Saudi Arabia militarily intervened in Bahrain in 2011 to put down peaceful protests. Recent interventions by France in its former colonies, Mali and the Central African Republic, have roused no international condemnation despite notable local sentiment in those countries that view Paris as an aggressive actor. The western stance on when intervention is and isn’t legitimate is highly selective, and for the interventionist countries to use their soft power monopoly to portray Russia as a meddler intent on aggressively undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty is truly a politically loaded and dangerous notion. The Obama administration, in an attempt to offer President Putin ‘a face-saving way out of the crisis,’ has proposed that European forces take the place of Russian forces in Crimea to guard against threats to the population, knowing full well that Moscow would never accept such an arrangement in a region like Crimea, which shares historic political, economic, cultural, and strategic military ties. The area in which Kiev’s new authorities need Washington and Brussels most is in dealing with Ukraine’s impending debt crisis, and indications suggest that any economic assistance from the West would come with punishing terms and conditions, structural adjustments and austerity measures that would generate widespread social discontent in the country, and threaten the already shaky legitimacy of the putsch authorities.

Internal divisions within the defense sector and the bureaucracy of Ukraine, such as the prominent defection of the newly appointed head of Ukraine’s navy, admiral Denis Berezovsky, and other significant figures in support of Crimea’s pro-Russian stance suggests that the anti-Kiev sentiment is deepening, and showing no signs of abating. Residents of the Crimea will take part in a referendum on March 30 to revaluate the status of the peninsula, which is widely expected to opt for de facto independence from Ukraine and move towards full integration with Russia, to which it once belonged. If Russian authorities feel that all possibilities for dialogue have been exhausted, and a peacekeeping mission must be launched in earnest, there is every indication that Moscow will act within international law and show maximum restraint. Just as radical forces have become empowered as a result of western policy elsewhere, the result of the illegitimate putsch in Kiev is that those countries who claim to defend the post-World War II international order have empowered forces that sympathize with, and seek to propagate, fanatical prejudice and extremism on the false notion that such radical groups will move aside peacefully to allow nominal western-aligned moderates and neoliberals to rule. It hasn’t worked elsewhere, and it won’t work in Ukraine.

Nile Bowie is a political analyst and photographer currently residing in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He is also a Just member.

March 4, 2014

 

 

By Bruce K. Gagnon

There is disagreement about the Latin phrase in the logo.  Does it mean liberator or oppressor?  I guess that’s why they keep it darkly hidden. 

Notice the arrows through the head above – a throwback to the killing of the Native Americans.  These are the crazy killers.

Secretary of War Chuck Hagel yesterday announced the Obama administration’s Pentagon budget proposal for the coming year.  Despite mandates for cuts in military spending after agreements with Congress under sequestration, Hagel actually calls for an increase of more than $115 billion for war making.

The Hagel budget basically calls for cuts in Army ground forces and cutbacks in military pay, housing and commissary facilities on bases.  Life for the enlisted will become more difficult.  The Pentagon is also calling for the closing of a few National Guard posts in some states.

Hagel calls for ‘sustaining’ the Pentagon’s nuclear triad – air, ground, and sea delivery systems of nuclear weapons.  Also called for is an increase in drones and robotic forces as well as significant expansion in cyber warfare capabilities.

Wall Street immediately reacted by joyfully giving Lockheed-Martin all-time high stock gains.  The writing on the wall is clear – cuts in troop levels and increase in high-tech space directed war-making capability.

We will see an expansion of US “hidden” wars in the near future and the Obama budget reflects this reality.  While Hagel wants to pare back the size of the active-duty military by 13% and the reserves by 5% in coming years he would boost the size of Special Operations forces by about 6%.  The plan is to add more than 3,000 personnel to the kinds of special ops forces teams that reportedly killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

These same clandestine forces now operate in more than 75 countries around the world.  In his film “Dirty Wars” investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill reports on the largely unaccountable Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) that is now doing targeted assassinations, destabilization, and training of right-wing and terrorist forces used by the US in places like Ukraine, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and beyond. The corporate oligarchy is moving rapidly to consolidate their total control of the people around the world and the US is playing its role of “security export” rather well.

Mainstream media reports of the Hagel announcement also tag two key places on the planet that will receive special emphasis from this new budget.  Those are the African continent and the Asia-Pacific.  This is where the long-range military operations planning and funding are heading.

Our organizing (no matter whether it is local, regional, national or international) needs to take into account this very fundamental direction the Obama supported military complex is tacking toward.

In addition it is important that we all talk more about jobs.  It will be hard to cut military spending because of the local jobs issue.  We must speak to this fundamental concern that is wrapped in fear, as everyone knows that jobs are scarce these days.

The growing conversion movement across the nation indicates that more and more groups are making these job connections.  Imagine if military production workers and the peace movement were to stand hand-in-hand calling for conversion of the military industrial complex.  In the early 1990’s that was indeed happening across the nation when William Winpisinger served as President of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.  He vigorously took on the responsibility to link military production workers with peace groups in order to successfully demand conversion after the end of the Cold War.  That promised “peace dividend” though never came to be as new “enemies” were created in the Middle East and Central Asia.  The conversion issue was deflated….. but not defeated.

Many of us across the nation have stayed on message during these darker years.  We’ve kept talking about conversion and linking jobs.  We are eternally grateful to the Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.  They’ve continued to give us the empirical evidence that proves military production was the very worst way to create jobs.  In every other case – rail, wind, solar, conservation, teachers, hospitals, or even tax cuts create more jobs.

The jobs issue is the long-sought buried treasure that we’ve been looking for…. right before our eyes.  Pick it up.

 

February 25, 2014

 

 

Ukraine’s unity is at stake as Russia resists the country’s drift towards the West.

By Alexander Kekrassov

Talk about a fluid situation? I am talking about the crisis in Ukraine, obviously, where every day brings news of some dramatic developments. Just a day ago, everyone was wondering where the ousted President Viktor Yanukovych was and now it turns out that he is in Russia, insisting that he remains Ukraine’s head of state and is planning to take a stand against the interim regime in Kiev.

So what was the thinking in Moscow behind giving Yanukovych a safe haven? What’s going to happen next? These were the questions I asked a friend of mine with good connections in the Kremlin.

“Yanukovych is still technically president of Ukraine,” my well informed friend told me. “The people who have ousted him are not really accepted by Moscow as legitimate. So Yanukovych has still everything to play for.”

In other words, what my source in Moscow was implying was that Russian President Vladimir Putin has reckoned that there is still enough support for Yanukovych in Ukraine to make him a serious player in the event the country splits into two parts, with the west drifting towards Europe and the south and east remaining in the Russian sphere of influence.

The biggest mistake that so many commentators on all sides make is to say that Ukraine’s splitting up into two will have disastrous implication for its neighbours and even regional stability. Well, maybe for the western part of Ukraine that would be the case. It is totally dependent on the industrial base in the east and will have to rely on financial support from the European Union, which, it has to be said, is not at all keen on parting with substantial amounts to help out the new people in charge in Kiev.

Meanwhile the pro-Russian east will actually survive that split, using its close economic and political links with its big neighbour. Not that it would be a great scenario, as everyone accepts at the moment, but if the worst came to the worst, it would not be the end of the world for the mostly Russian-speaking south and east.

The main problem with the new interim regime in Kiev, run by people closely linked to the recently released from prison former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko – not the most popular figure in the land by all accounts – is that they have been making all the wrong choices. This has been the case ever since they came to power as a result of violent protests which pushed Yanukovych and his government out of power. The new people in Kiev were openly hostile to Russia from the beginning and that was bound to encounter opposition in the south-east of the country. This is exactly what is happening in Crimea and other regions.

The new interim government of national unity which has now emerged in Kiev, headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, a close ally of Tymoshenko, does not really come across as a uniting force. Not to mention that it suddenly encountered serious problems with finding the money to keep Ukraine going, as neither the EU or the US are keen on providing financial help at a time when  the country’s future is in serious doubt.

Some people in Ukraine might be forgiven for thinking that the $15bn loan that had been offered by Russia as a stabilising injection into Ukraine under Yanukovych might not have been such a bad thing after all.

 

The West at the moment is warning Russia about its possible military involvement in Ukraine to influence the developments there. But would the Kremlin, which sees the overthrow of the regime in Kiev as illegal and supported by the West, be really troubled by these threats?

It cannot afford to have a Western dominated Ukraine, with a possibility of it becoming a member of NATO, not to mention that it would be political suicide for Putin not to be seen in his own country as taking a tough stance against attempts to drag Ukraine away from Russia. And what can the West do anyway, if Moscow offers protection to ethnic Russians living in the south and east in Ukraine?

At the moment the Russian government is telling the world that it is up to the new interim regime in Kiev to sort out the extremist elements in Crimea and other places who are turning against the new authorities. Of course, Western governments see that as an attempt to cover up Moscow’s interference in Ukraine’s affairs.

The situation in Ukraine remains very dangerous, with a significant possibility of a civil war breaking out and engulfing the whole of the region. It’s a good time for all sides to choose their words carefully and tread cautiously. But Western leaders should not kid themselves about Moscow’s determination to protect its interests in Ukraine and even to allow a split of the country into two, if the situation gets out of control.

Grave mistake or not, as the US Secretary of State John Kerry has said about a possible Russian military involvement in Ukraine, this is not going to stop Moscow from taking drastic steps if needed. For the stakes are much too high for the Kremlin to just watch idly as its neighbour drifts into the sphere of influence of the West.

Alexander Nekrassov is a former presidential and government advisor.

28 February, 2013

Al-Jazeera