Archives: Articles

By Countercurrents.org

06 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Citing US press reports a BBC report (headline: “CIA operating drone base in Saudi Arabia, US media reveal”*) on February 6, 2013 said:

The US Central Intelligence Agency has been operating a secret airbase for unmanned drones in Saudi Arabia for the past two years.

The facility was established to hunt for members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is based in Yemen.

A drone flown from there was used in September 2011 to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born cleric who was alleged to be AQAP’s external operations chief.

US media have known of its existence since then, but have not reported it.

Citing senior government officials the report said they were concerned that disclosure would undermine operations against AQAP, as well as potentially damage counter-terrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia.

The report said:

The location of the secret drone base was not revealed in the US reports.

However, construction was ordered after a December 2009 cruise missile strike in Yemen, according to the New York Times.

It was the first strike ordered by the Obama administration, and ended in disaster, with dozens of civilians, including women and children, killed.

US officials told the newspaper that the first time the CIA used the secret facility was to kill Awlaki.

Since then, the CIA has been “given the mission of hunting and killing ‘high-value targets’ in Yemen” – the leaders of AQAP who government lawyers had determined posed a direct threat to the US – the officials added.

Three other Americans, including Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, have also been killed in US strikes in Yemen, which can reportedly be carried out without the permission of the country’s government.

Kristian Coates-Ulrichsen, an expert on Gulf politics at the London School of Economics, told the BBC that Saudi anxieties about the growing threat of AQAP would have been behind the government’s decision to allow the US to fly drones from inside the kingdom.

“The Saudis see AQAP as a very real threat to their domestic security,” he said. “They are worried about attacks on their energy infrastructure and on the royal family, so it fit their strategy to allow the drone attacks.”

The existence of the base was likely a “sensitive issue” for both Washington and Riyadh, Mr. Coates-Ulrichsen added.

A source close to the Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, declined to comment when contacted by the BBC.

The Washington Post reported that President Barak Obama’s counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan, a former CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia, played a key role in negotiations with the government in Riyadh over building the drone base.

Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam’s holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably the late leader of al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden.

It was one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born militant to justify violence against the US and its allies.

Leaked memo

The revelation of the drone base came shortly after the leaking of a US justice department memo detailing the Obama administration’s case for killing Americans abroad who are accused of being a “senior, operational leader” of al-Qaeda or its allies.

Lethal force is lawful if they are deemed to pose an “imminent threat” and their capture is not feasible, the memo says. The threat does not have to be based on intelligence about a specific attack, since such actions are being “continually” planned by al-Qaeda, it adds.

NBC News said it was given to members of the US Senate intelligence and judiciary committees as a summary of a classified memo on the targeted killings of US citizens prepared by the justice department.

The latter memo was written before the drone strike that killed Awlaki.

Under President Obama, the US has expanded its use of drones to kill hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen. It says it is acting in self-defense in accordance with international law.

Critics argue the drone strikes amount to execution without trial and cause many civilian casualties.

Senators are expected to ask Mr Brennan about drone strikes, the memo and the killing of Awlaki on Thursday when he faces a confirmation hearing on his nomination to become the new CIA director.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21350437

By Mazin Qumsiyeh

6 February 2013

@ http://popular-resistance.blogspot.com

The Israeli “investigation” of its own crimes exonerated itself, again.  In the first part of the so called Turkel report, in January 2011 the Israeli appointed commission (not independent but known apologists for the Israeli government) “found” that its attack on the Mavi Marmara and the Gaza freedom flotilla (Turkish and international-flagged civilian ships in International waters), was “kosher” by International law.  International legal experts, UN investigators, human rights organizations, the Turkish government, and most of the world governments and world public disagreed.  In fact, if the US has not blocked action by NATO (because decisions must have agreement of all NATO members), this is an actual attack on a NATO country.  But today (February 6, 2013 more than two years later) came the second even more shocking (though not unexpected) part of the Turkel report.  This is the most convoluted whitewash sophistry in jargon that one can see.  This part was supposed to look at the actions of the Israeli commandos as they pirated (and yes that is the proper term PIRACY) the ships but also in actions in the West Bank. Turkel concluded that Israel’s oversight and investigations procedures of war crimes in this incident and in actions in the West Bank “in general meet the requirements set by International law.”!  Ironically in another part of the report it says that Israel unlike other Western Countries had no definition or delineation of what constitutes war crimes! The commission thus could not really evaluate something they had no definition of and if they wanted the definitions that most countries ply it is available in International law (e.g. the Geneva conventions which were not brought up in this context by Turkel).  Israel is obliged to follow International law including refraining from war crimes.  I do not need to go through the rest of the lengthy report since it is mostly dealing with “operational improvements” in the actions of the Israeli forces and the Israeli government.  It actually regresses by making a recommendation to the government that such events as attack on Palestinians or Internationals should not be investigated by Israeli police or Israeli civilian legal system but by the “Israeli military advocate general”.   This is the same advocate general who received 240 well documented cases of abuse by the Israeli forces in 2012 but not a single case was brought to indictment/trials of the perpetrators (this is from Yesh Din, an Israeli human rights organization that looked into this).  And this was a relatively quiet year. In 2003 and 2004 there were hundreds of executions and other war crimes by the Israeli military.

 

The Turkel report assigned no responsibility and was clearly intended as a PR campaign to show that no International and truly independent investigation is needed since the occupation army and the colonial state do a “good job” investigating themselves though they can improve “operationally” in this good performance!  Even the Israeli investigation of the massacre of hundreds of civilians at Sabra and Shatila in 1982 (a massacre performed by Lebanese phalange paid mercenaries of the Israeli army with lighting and protection by Israeli forces) was a bit more nuanced.  That 1982 investigation at least assigned some responsibility to then defense minister Ariel Sharon who left political life briefly but returned to become prime minister instead of being sent to the Hague for war crimes.   And of course independent UN investigations are not allowed or if they happen are dismissed out of hand.  Even the killings of US citizens are not investigated independently (for example see the murder of Rachel Corrie).

 

I think this “Turkel report” should be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I think Turkey (a member of the International Criminal Court and a member of NATO) and Palestine (which can now apply for membership) should take Israel to the ICC.  I think Palestinian and Turkish officials meeting with President Obama next months should say to him: enough is enough.  It pained me to see Salam Fayyad meeting with Israeli Knesset members and pleading with them to release the Palestinian tax money that Israel stole.  After 20 years of “Oslo”, will they learn that pleading and begging colonizers/occupiers for our rights does not work?

If you want to waste a lot of time reading gibberish, here is the website of the Israeli commission that exonerated the Israeli actions: see http://www.turkel-committee.com  but for for real reports on what happened on the Mavi Marmara and the pirated ships people can read the reports below:

 

Two UN reports contradict the Israeli report.  See for example

http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.PDF

All human rights organizations who looked into this even wanted stronger actions (and of course these were not on the agenda of Mr. Turkel).  See for example Amnesty which first described the initial Israeli report of January 2011 as a whitewash

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=israeli-report-on-mavi-marmara-raid-a-whitewash-amnesty-claims-2011-01-29

and came up with a  strong report of its own

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/ngos/AI-4_Israel_HRC105.pdf

The Turkish government detailed report (though I coulf not find a direct link to the text, there are many new reports on the internet about it).

But if Israel is about transparency, why not release the hundreds of camera/video cameras that it confiscated from the hundreds of passengers on board?  Why not even mention them in the Turkel report (which did use the selective videos by Israeli military commandoes).  The few smuggled videos are rather damning and indeed show war crimes.

 

Here is a segment of execution by Israeli soldiers of a peace activist on board the Mavi Marmara http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi6c10ntFZk

And here is a far longer smuggled video that shown many other atrocities issues

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/10/exclusive_journalist_smuggles_out_video_of

And of course Mr. Turkel and company did not care about the testimony of hundreds of survivors.  Here is just one chilling testimony: http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/middle-east/kidnapped-israel-forsaken-britain

And the Turkel report does not allude to these Photos that show Mavi Marmara passengers protecting, aiding Israeli soldiers http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/blog-post-israel-hasbara-fails-again-pics-sho

Gideon Levy wrote an article that says “Israel does as it pleases: Until now it’s worked. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and, of course, the Palestinians wiped the saliva, said it was rain and restrained themselves, because they are weak and Israel is strong.” http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/israel-does-as-it-pleases.premium-1.501032

Well I say again this “Turkel report” could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back if Turkey (a member of the International Criminal Court and a member of NATO) and Palestine (which can now apply for membership) can get their act together. I do hope we will not have to wait for the next war crime to act.

Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD

http://qumsiyeh.org

By Countercurrents.org

06 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Tunisia is raging in protest after a progressive leader has been shot dead. Demonstrating people have set on fire and ransacked Islamist party’s offices.

An iafrica.co report headlined “Tunisians angry over killing” (Feb 6, 2013, http://news.iafrica.com/worldnews/841124.html) said:

Prominent Tunisian opposition leader Chokri Belaid was shot dead outside his home in Tunis on February 6, 2013, sparking angry protests by his supporters and attacks on offices of the ruling Islamist Ennahda party.

President Moncef Marzouki denounced the killing of Belaid, an outspoken critic of his government, as an “odious assassination”, while Ennahda chief Rached Ghannouchi told AFP the killers wanted a “bloodbath” in Tunisia.

The cold-blooded killing sparked outrage, with some 2000 people gathering outside the interior ministry in Tunis, shouting abuse at Ennahda, which they accuse of being behind the assassination of the 48-year-old leftist leader.

Protesters torched the Ennahda party office in Mezzouna, near the central town of Sidi Bouzid, and ransacked another in the mining town of Gafsa, where they tore up Ennahda flags, AFP journalists and witnesses said.

Some 2000 protesters also took to the streets of Sidi Bouzid itself, birthplace of the 2011 revolution that toppled ex-dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, where they were met by police tear gas, witnesses said.

Marzouki deplored the killing in an impassioned speech before the European Parliament in Strasbourg that brought tears to the eyes of politicians.

“This odious assassination of a political leader who I knew well and who was my friend … is a threat, it is a letter sent that will not be received,” the president said, insisting the murder would not tip Tunisia to unrest.

“We refuse this message and we will continue to unmask the enemies of the revolution,” he said, though Tunisia’s path was “paved with hurdles,” including “orchestrated verbal violence, burnt preachers” and the murder of Belaid.

A presidential aide said Marzouki had scrapped plans to head from Strasbourg to Cairo to join a summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and instead would fly home immediately to deal with the crisis.

 

The family of Belaid, who headed the opposition Democratic Patriots party and was a harsh critic of Tunisia’s Islamist-led government, was in no doubt as to who was behind the murder.

“My brother was assassinated. I am desperate and depressed,” said Abdelmajid Belaid.

“I accuse (Ennahda leader) Rached Ghannouchi of assassinating my brother,” he told AFP.

Ghannouchi rejected the accusations and said the killing was linked to the “settling of political scores”.

“(The killers) want a bloodbath but they won’t succeed” in creating one, Ghannouchi told AFP.

“We can only condemn this cowardly act, which is aimed at (undermining) the revolution and the stability of Tunisia,” he added.

Prime Minister Hamadi Jebali described the murder as “an act of terrorism”.

He said a gunman wearing the traditional hooded long burnous robe shot Belaid with three bullets fired at close range as he left his Tunis home February 6, 2013 morning.

Belaid’s wife gave a similar account of the killing in an interview with the private radio station Mosaique FM.

Jebali told the same radio station everything possible would be done to swiftly arrest the murderer.

“The Tunisian people are not used to such things. This is a serious turn … our duty to all, as a government, as a people, is to be wise and not fall into the criminal trap which seeks to push the country into chaos.”

France’s President Francois Hollande said the murder had robbed Tunisia of “one of its most courageous and free voices.”

The murder of Belaid comes at a time when Tunisia is witnessing a rise in violence fed by political and social discontent two years after the mass uprising that toppled Ben Ali.

Several opposition parties and trade unions have accused pro-Islamist groups of orchestrating clashes or attacks against them.

Belaid’s party forms part of the Popular Front coalition of leftist parties that has emerged in opposition to the Tunisia government

A TUNIS datelined Reuters report by Tarek Amara (“Tunisia protests after government critic shot dead”, Feb 6, 2013, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/uk-tunisia-politics-opponent-idUKBRE9150AO20130206?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews) said:

 

A Tunisian opposition politician was shot dead sending protesters onto the streets of cities nationwide.

The headquarters of the moderate Islamist Ennahda party, which rules in a fractious coalition with secularists, was set ablaze after Chokri Belaid, an outspoken critic of the government, was gunned down outside his home in the capital.

Despite calls for calm from the president, 8,000 protesters, massed outside the Interior Ministry, calling for the fall of the government, and thousands more demonstrated in cities including Mahdia, Sousse, Monastir and Sidi Bouzid, the cradle of the revolution, where police fired teargas and warning shots.

“This is a black day in the history of modern Tunisia … Today we say to the Islamists, ‘get out’ … enough is enough,” said Souad, a 40-year-old teacher outside the Interior Ministry in Tunis. “Tunisia will sink in the blood if you stay in power.”

The small North African state was the first Arab country to oust its leader and hold free elections as uprisings spread around the region.

But like in Egypt, many who campaigned for freedom from repression under autocratic rulers and better prospects for their future now feel their revolutions have been hijacked by Islamists they accuse of clamping down on personal freedoms, with no sign of new jobs or improvements in infrastructure.

Since the uprising, the government has faced a string of protests over economic hardship and Tunisia’s future path, with many complaining hardline Salafists were taking over the revolution in the former French colony dominated previously by a secular elite under the dictatorship of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali.

Last year, Salafist groups prevented several concerts and plays from taking place in Tunisian cities, saying they violated Islamic principles, worrying the secular-minded among the 11 million Tunisians, who fear freedom of expression is in danger.

Declining trade with the crisis-hit euro zone has also left Tunisians struggling to achieve the better living standards many had hoped for following Ben Ali’s departure. Any further signs of unrest could scare off tourists vital to an industry only just recovering from the revolution.

“More than 4,000 are protesting now, burning tyres and throwing stones at the police,” Mehdi Horchani, a Sidi Bouzid resident, told Reuters. “There is great anger.”

President Moncef Marzouki, who last month warned the tension between secularists and Islamists might lead to “civil war”, cancelled a visit to Egypt scheduled for February 7, 2013 and cut short a trip to France, where he addressed the European Parliament.

 

“We will continue to fight the enemies of the revolution,” the secularist leader told European Union lawmakers in Strasbourg.

Belaid, who died in hospital, was a leading member of the opposition Popular Front party. A lawyer and human rights activist, he had been a constant critic of the government, accusing it of being a puppet of the rulers in the small but wealthy Gulf state of Qatar, which Tunisia denies.

“Chokri Belaid was killed today by four bullets to the head and chest,” Ziad Lakhader, a leader of the Popular Front, told Reuters. “Doctors told us that he has died. This is a sad day for Tunisia.”

Ennahda Party president Rached Ghannouchi denied any involvement in the killing. Belaid said earlier this week that dozens of people close to the government attacked a meeting of his party.

Riccardo Fabiani, Eurasia analyst on Tunisia, described it as a “major failure for Tunisian politics”.

“The question is now what is Ennahda going to do and what are its allies going to do?” he said. “They could be forced to withdraw from the government which would lead to a major crisis in the transition.”

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

6 February 13

@ readersupportednews.org

NBC’s Michael Isikoff has revealed the text of a white paper composed for Congress by the Department of Justice that sheds light on the legal arguments made by Eric Holder in justifying the killing by drone strike of Americans abroad, who are suspected of belonging to al-Qaeda. That the memo did not even require that the US know of a specific and imminent plot against the US, of which the al-Qaeda member was guilty, for it to kill him from the skies, alarmed all the country’s civil libertarians.

Here are five objections to the vision of the memo, which it seems to me is directly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the US constitution. It is contrary in profound ways to the ideals of the founding generation.

1. In the Western tradition of law, there can be no punishment without the commission of a specific crime defined by statute. The memo does not require that a specific crime have been committed, or that a planned criminal act be a clear and present danger, for an American citizen to be targeted for execution by drone.

2. To any extent that the president’s powers under the memo are alleged to derive from the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, i.e. from the legislature, they are a form of bill of attainder (the History Learning Site explains what that is here):

“A bill, act or writ of attainder was a piece of legislation that declared a person or persons guilty of a crime. A bill of attainder allowed for the guilty party to be punished without a trial. A bill of attainder was part of English common law. Whereas Habeus Corpus guaranteed a fair trial by jury, a bill of attainder bypassed this. The word ‘attainder’ meant tainted. A bill of attainder was mostly used for treason . . . and such a move suspended a person’s civil rights and guaranteed that the person would be found guilty of the crimes stated in the bill as long as the Royal Assent was gained. For serious crimes such as treason, the result was invariably execution.”

What, you might ask, is wrong with that? Only that it is unconstitutional. Tech Law Journal explains:

“The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” . . .

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

The form of the AUMF, in singling out all members of al-Qaeda wherever they are and regardless of nationality or of actual criminal action, as objects of legitimate lethal force, is that of a bill of attainder. Congress cannot declare war on small organizations – war is declared on states. Such a bill of attainder is inherently unconstitutional.

3. The memo’s vision violates the principle of the separation of powers. It makes the president judge, jury and executioner. Everything is done within the executive branch, with no judicial oversight whatsoever. The powers the memo grants the president are the same enjoyed by the absolute monarchs of the early modern period, against whom Montesquieu penned his Spirit of the Laws, which inspired most subsequent democracies, including the American. Montesquieu said:

“Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.

Most kingdoms in Europe enjoy a moderate government because the prince who is invested with the two first powers leaves the third to his subjects. In Turkey, where these three powers are united in the Sultan’s person, the subjects groan under the most dreadful oppression.

Ironically, given contemporary American Islamophobia, the Obama administration has made itself resemble not the Sun-King, Louis XIV, who at least did have a court system not completely under his thumb, but rather, as Montesquieu saw it, the Ottoman sultans, who he claimed combined in themselves executive, legislative and judicial power. (Actually the Muslim qadis or court judges who ruled according to Islamic law or sharia were also not completely subjugated to the monarch, so even the Ottomans were better than the drone memo).

3. The memo resurrects the medieval notion of “outlawry” – that an individual can be put outside the protection of the law by the sovereign for vague crimes such as “rebellion,” and merely by royal decree. A person declared an outlaw by the king was deprived of all rights and legal protections, and anyone could do anything to him that they wished, with no repercussions. (The slang use of “outlaw” to mean simply “habitual criminal” is an echo of this ancient practice, which was abolished in the UK and the US).

I wrote on another occasion that the problem with branding someone an “outlaw” by virtue of being a traitor or a terrorist is that this whole idea was abolished by the US constitution. Its framers insisted that you couldn’t just hang someone out to dry by decree. Rather, a person who was alleged to have committed a crime such as treason or terrorism had to be captured, brought to court, tried, and sentenced in accordance with a specific statute, and then punished by the state. If someone is arrested, they have the right to demand to be produced in court before a judge, a right known as habeas corpus (“bringing the body,” i.e. bringing the physical person in front of a judge).

The relevant text is the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

4. The memo asks us to trust the executive to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt the guilt of an individual in a distant land, to whom access is so limited that the US cannot hope to capture him or have local authorities capture him. But Andy Worthington has established that very large numbers of the prisoners the US sent to Guantanamo were innocent of the charges against them. If the executive arm of the government can imprison people mistakenly, it can blow them away by drone mistakenly. A US government official once told me the story of an Iraqi Shiite who had fled persecution under Saddam through Iran all the way to Afghanistan. In 2001, locals eager to make a buck turned him in as “Taliban” to the US military, which apparently did not realize that Iraqi Shiites would never ever support a hyper-Sunni movement like that. So the Iraqi Shiite was sent to Guantanamo and it could even be that Taliban themselves were paid by the US for turning him in. The official may have been speaking of Jowad Jabar. These American officials are way too ignorant to be given the power to simply execute human beings from the sky on the basis of their so-called ‘intelligence.’

5. The memo, as Glenn Greenwald points out, ratifies the Bush/Cheney theory that the whole world is a battlefield on which the US is continually at war. Treating the few hundred al-Qaeda, spread around the world in 60 small cells, as an enemy army, making them analogous to German troops in WW II, is insane on the face of it. Our current secretary of state, John Kerry, largely rejected the notion. Al-Qaeda consists of criminals, not soldiers, and they pose a police counter-terrorism problem, not a battlefield problem. The notion that the whole world is a battlefield violates basic legal conceptions of international law such as national sovereignty.

By Shepherd Bliss

06 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Groups of dancers in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as elsewhere around the planet, have been rehearsing and engaging in public Flash Mobs. They show up, unannounced, start the music on a portable system, and begin dancing. They are building toward a February 14, Valentine’s Day, One Billion Rising action, scheduled for over 190 countries.

“Eve Ensler, the author of the play ‘The Vagina Monologues,’” explained Valerie Richman of Petaluma, “read a United Nations’ statistic that one of three women would be the victim of violence. So she got the idea of a billion women and those who love them standing up to strike, rise, and dance to end violence. A song was written, ‘Breaking the Chain,’ along with choreography by Debbie Allen.”

One billion women are raped, beaten or sexually abused during their lifetimes. This huge global gathering gives artistic expression to anger and grief to transform them into unifying, uplifting, and healing public events in order to “Break the Chain” of violence against women and girls.

“Strike | Dance | Rise!” is a planetary invitation. It will climax on the 15th anniversary of the annual V-Day that Ensler and others have organized in many different languages around the globe. “The ‘V’ in V-Day stands for Valentine’s Day, Victory over Violence, and Vaginas,” explained Petaluma organizer Trisha Almond.

“Dancing is an expression of the power we don’t always feel we have,” explained Diana Ellis of Petaluma. She supports “a vision of how men and women can work together in simple artistic ways to fight violence against the one billion. The problem of solving sexual violence can feel hopeless. But a billion minus one, minus one, minus one …. eventually equals zero.”

“I believe that men’s voices, feelings, experiences, suggestions and actions must be included in the dialogue about stopping violence against women,” added Richman. “It is a HUMAN issue!”

Some 400 dancers converged on downtown San Francisco on January 26. “One Billion Rising.org is a dancing revolution against the world-wide violence against women and girls on a daily basis,” reported Suzette Burrous, a mid-wife who participated in that event. “I joined this movement because I strongly support the work of VDay.org. Having performed in the ‘The Vagina Monologues’ seven times in the past, I was excited to be part of another global movement to protect and enhance the lives of women of the world.”

La Tierra community’s warm barn in the Sebastopol countryside in Sonoma County heated up on January 24. It became a hot site for an exciting dance rehearsal. Sebastopol’s lead dancer AnnMarie Ginella—a widow in her 50s with four sons—clad in a colorful One Billion Rising shirt against a black background, had expected four people to attend the rehearsal. Over a dozen came, including three men and an animated five-year-old girl with her mother and grandparents, who evoked smiles as the child watched carefully and learned the steps. By the February 3 public rehearsal in Sebastopol’s plaza some 35 dancers joined and were witnessed by many at the small town’s weekly farmers’ market.

Dominican University in San Rafael will be the site of Marin County’s February 14 action. Sister Patricia Dougherty, OP, Ph.D., chair of Dominican’s history department, sent out an invitation to faculty and staff to join the social justice effort. It will begin, appropriately enough, with a dance prayer performed by international women in the morning, directed by dance teacher Taira Restar.

“Noise at Noon” will climax the day with a march protesting violence against women and girls. It will go from the campus to downtown San Rafael. Participants are invited to “bring posters, noise makers, and high energy to protest local and global violence toward women and girls.” An afternoon teach-in described as “Breaking the Chain,” the name of the song to which participants dance, will conclude the day.

A group of six Petaluma dancers spoke to a communication class at Dominican and engaged in a Flash Mob outside the library on February 1, including a mother/daughter team. “The Flash Mobs we’ve been in have been fun,” noted Ronda Black. “You go in and dance without permission. When we went to a mall, a security guard came up and asked ‘Who is your leader?’ We responded that we don’t have a leader.”

“Violence is like climate change,” added Connie Madden. “People do not want to look at it. We need to shine a light on the violence and change what we do. Instead of the growing cultural clashes around the world, we need to find ways to come together as one human race, rather than warring tribes.”

“In Berlin over 5,000 people were involved in a Flash Mob,” noted Richman. She also explained that the group is male positive and includes men, noting that many men are also victims of violence. After the Petaluma group–mature women mainly in their 40s to 60s–demonstrated the dance, the college students jumped up to join them and learn the steps in 12 movements.

“On my knees I pray. I’m not afraid any more. I will walk through that door,” are words that open the dance. Then the dancers erupt in skillfully coordinated, crisp movements.

“We are mothers. We are teachers. We are beautiful creatures,” are other affirming words that are spoken and danced to. “I raise my hands to the sky. I’m no longer afraid” are more proud words that stimulate the dancing, as is “You don’t own me.”

“This is my body. My body is holy. In the middle of this madness, I know there is a better world. Break the rules. It’s time to break the chain,” are other words to which the dancers move.

“We can talk and talk and talk,” noted male dancer Dean LaCoe in the Sebastopol barn. “When you add music and dance, it goes to your heart.” Rehearsals help build community among its participants and are strengthening an international movement.

The Santa Rosa action is being organized “together with our Spanish speaking community,” writes julie rachanna chasen. “Undocumented Spanish speaking women who experience violence and oppression are in a doubly difficult situation in our country, as they face deportation and being separated from their children if they report to the police. We will subsequently dance to “Romper Las Cadenas” as well as “Break the Chains.”

“I am rising because I know, deep in my bones, that the systematic degradation and violation of women that is happening all over the world is linked to every other form of exploitation and oppression,” added chasen. “It’s about power over, be it power over the earth, power over immigrants, gays, power over anyone and anything that seems vulnerable, including other countries, as in war. As women and girls all over the world rise up in song and dance, with self-respect and love in our hearts, we will be part of a shift in consciousness on our planet that will lead us toward a more caring world.”

Watching the dynamic women and their male allies dance, at times I thought about my mother, Alice Miller Bliss. Her life was difficult, raising five children and dealing with a military husband who could be violent. This reporter was not the only person in the barn whose memories were evoked by the dancing. Tears could be seen on some dancers’ faces, perhaps feeling a pain, or perhaps the joy of direct action to deal with pain.

Negative memories of violence can be replaced by positive ones of togetherness, unity, and even love, as the dozen people rehearsing first in the barn and then in public began to coordinate their movements. They replaced some of their pain with the joy of being together in a vital connection against violence and for healing. When they left La Tierra’s barn–by then with its doors pushed open to the cold winter–they were highly animated by their time together creating an uplifting art form combining spoken words, music, and movement.

Feeder events are happening in Petaluma, including an art show extending from February 1 to March 3. Its call for art requested that which “is a positive expression of women; their resiliency, their sensuality; an expression of what the V-Day movement means to them; why they are RISING; or artwork relating to women’s empowerment and prevention of violence against women and girls.”

If February 14 draws anywhere near as many people as its ambitious goal, it would be the largest art event in history, including the already beautiful posters and videos available on numerous online resources. Rather than be “a shot heard around the world,” it would break silences and be a shout heard around the world, hard to ignore.

More information: www.OneBillionRising.org for video. www.HerRising.org for Bay Area Flash Mob details. www.VDay.org for material on the global movement to end violence against women and children. VDayPetaluma.org.

(Shepherd Bliss {3sb@comcast.net} teaches college part-time, has run the organic Kokopelli Farm for the last 20 years, and has contributed to two dozen books.)

By Paul Rogers

5 February 2013

@ New Internationalist

Tuareg militants, seen driving near Timbuktu on May 7, 2012, share control of northern Mali with Islamist groups and al-Qaeda fighters. Magharebia under a CC Licence

The war in Mali and the recent attack in Algeria are being seen as the start of a new phase of the war on terror across North and West Africa – an existential threat that could last decades. This is a dangerous simplification of a much more complex problem and risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, writes Paul Rogers of the Oxford Research Group.

Context

With the transformative developments in Mali in the past three weeks, and the worrying attack in Algeria , this special briefing updates and synthesizes previous analyses from Oxford Research Group during 2012, including briefings in April – Nigeria , May – al-Qaeda, June – Mali and November – al-Qaeda.

The briefing on Mali was written in June, when the expectations were of an intervention by ECOWAS troops, supported and trained by French and other Western forces, but with direct Western combat intervention, likely to be limited primarily to a few hundred Special Forces. Even with that limited Western involvement the briefing argued that:

From the point of view of the leadership of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in North Africa, and Boko Haram in Nigeria , military intervention would actually be welcome as further evidence of external interference, especially if there was French and US  involvement.

and:

there needs to be a far greater focus on negotiations… This is a matter of some urgency. Negotiations, though, must be undertaken while recognizing that the relative underdevelopment of northern Mali and the marginalization of the Tuareg people must be addressed.

The briefing on al Qaeda argued in November that:

Radical Islamist movements do not yet have transcontinental coherence across northern Africa , yet they form part of a phenomenon that is essentially a post-9/11 development and is increasing in intensity and geographical distribution. There appear to be many informal linkages, made far easier by modern communications and new social media, and they therefore connect informally with developments across the Middle East and South West Asia.

The concluding policy recommendation was that:

Military intervention in Mali should be avoided. It will inevitably involve Western military units, and this will enable Islamist propagandists to concentrate more on their message of repression of Islam by outside forces. The old concept of ‘the far enemy’ of the early 2000s could well get a new and unifying lease of life.

Key parts of the briefing on Nigeria (April) were:

• Boko Haram has some links with the al-Qaeda movement, is increasing in its impact on Nigerian society and is facing tough suppression by the Nigerian security forces.

• his use of force may be counterproductive unless underlying issues of socio-economic and other disparities within Nigeria are addressed.

Developments in 2013

At the start of this year, the EU was slowly planning its training mission for the Malian Army with the expectation that this would be a 12- to 18-month endeavor. It was also recognized that contingents from Niger , Burkina Faso , Nigeria and other ECOWAS states would have very limited capability for expeditionary land warfare and would serve primarily as garrison forces. Serious action to regain control of northern Mali was not possible before the end of the hot rainy season in September. What Western and other intelligence missed, or at least seriously underestimated, were two key factors.

• Firstly, opposition to the Mali government and separatist aspirations in northern Mali are not solely rooted in Islamist ideology but have a far greater historical context stemming from an enduring sense of marginalization that has led to many past rebellions, especially by the Tuaregs. To see what is now happening in purely Islamist/terrorist terms is a widespread yet dangerous simplification.

• Secondly, between April and December last year the rebels in northern Mali greatly consolidated their control, including the development of underground bunkers and dispersed facilities. They were anticipating air strikes as soon as they started the advance in early January, and it is possible that the recent advance was partly to incite an immediate French reaction, knowing that this would increase support for their cause, including greater potential for financial aid from private sources in western Gulf States .

From a French perspective, though, intervention was essential, given the unexpected speed of the rebel advances in early January, which may have even surprised the rebels themselves. Moreover, France had broad international support, especially among Western allies, as well as strong support from Malians in Bamako and elsewhere in the more populated south of the country. French military intervention developed rapidly, and by mid-February, there will be 2,500 French military personnel in Mali , quite possibly backed up by a similar number from ECOWAS states.

Even so, and whatever the strength of the arguments for intervention, it must be recognized that this will be hugely welcomed by the wider jihadi movement and its propagandists. What should under no circumstances be underestimated is the impact of the air strikes, in particular. Coverage is much greater in the Arab media than in the West and coverage by jihadist propagandists through the new social media will be far more graphic.

Images of Mirage and Rafael strike aircraft and of the casualties and damage will form part of a much wider narrative, joining a decade of innumerable air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Gaza and Sudan (widely seen as attacks by US aircraft in Israeli markings).

The Mali intervention may now be primarily French, but will be seen as more broadly Western, with UK and Canadian logistics aid, UK provision of reconnaissance aircraft and reports of US offers of drone deployments supporting this.

Furthermore, clear linkages will be made between Mali and the consistent attempts of the Nigerian government to suppress the Boko Haram and Ansaru movements even as it contributes troops to the war in Mali . This element too should not be under-estimated.

 

Three developments are likely:

• For planning purposes the Western intervention in Mali should be expected to last years rather than weeks. Recent military advances and the re-taking of northern towns are likely to lead on to a bitter guerrilla war, and reports of Malian Army atrocities against Tuareg communities will further fuel opposition.

• Just as with Syria , as the war develops, it should be expected to attract dedicated and fervent young paramilitaries, including young men with combat experience.

• As Western forces become more committed, and especially as there is graphic footage of the impact of airstrikes, Mali will be seen in more radical circles across North Africa, the Middle East and parts of South Asia as yet one more example of a Western assault on Islam.

Long-term sustainable stability for Mali will not be possible without serious efforts to address the longstanding and deep grievances that stem from marginalization of the northern territories and its peoples, especially the Tuaregs. The French together with the Malian military and authorities will need to address this issue, because there will be no unified Mali , if no solution is found to accommodate the interests of the Tuaregs and other northern populations. Socio-economic and political marginalization of the North has deep-seated roots, and the ethnic/cultural dimensions (Tuaregs historically enslaved black Africans) of this issue cannot be ignored. There is a significant and well-documented history of rebellion and resistance by Malian Tuaregs towards the colonizers (France) and later the central government.

The Malian government remained unwilling or unable to implement development projects necessary to alleviate Tuareg poverty and marginalization, failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of peace agreements reached under the Tamanrasset Accords (1991) and National Pact (1992) and the Algiers Accords (2006). A new talks process facilitated by the President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaoré, on behalf of ECOWAS, began in Ouagadougou on December 4, 2012 engaging the Malian government, Ansar Dine and MNLA. The talks, which had been due to resume on 10 January, have been postponed. Further engagement is essential.

It is the population’s resentment towards the central government over the marginalization of the northern territories , which has helped Islamists gain support there. The chances of finding a solution to combating Islamic extremism in northern Mali would have been significantly better had the Malian government looked at ways of collaborating with the Tuaregs. The only viable long-term solution is co-operation and economic development for the region.

Policy options

There are three immediate policy implications:

• Counsel against the use of air power in attacking targets deep in rebel-held areas. The rebels are prepared for this, it will have minimal effect whatever the military claim, and it is the greatest single aspect of Western action that incites wider support for the rebels.

• Recommend that the short-term function of French and other Western forces should be defensive, ensuring solely that rebel forces make no further advances.

• Frame all policy in terms of a willingness to negotiate while recognizing the underlying problem of long-term marginalization. Islamists have latched on to deep and long-standing resentment and will best be undermined by fully recognizing this.

There is no pretence that this will be easy, especially as it is clear that Western political opinion has moved a long way towards a simplistic view of this as part of an anti-jihadi war. The more it sees Mali in this light, the more it will become just that, with dangerous long-term consequences. Indeed, if Western leaders speak in terms of an existential and generational conflict across North and West Africa and act accordingly, that is precisely what they will get.

Paul Rogers is Global Security Consultant to Oxford Research Group (ORG) and Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford . Anna Alissa Hitzemann, Project Officer and Peace worker on our Sustainable Security program, contributed analysis of the Tuareg dimension to this briefing.

This article originally appeared on the Oxford Research Group’s website on January 28. Crossposted under a CC Licence.

http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2013/01/31/mail-consequences-of-a-war/

By Asma Firdous

05 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Every newspaper, flared -up with news of ‘Band’ of three girls, who took part in singing and formed a ‘Band’ Pragaash to give vent to their expressions through singing, but, unfortunately it took an ugly turn and became a controversial for them, which later got a decree from a grand cleric of Kashmir. In fact, music is a powerful tool of expressing one’s feelings, and highlight the sufferings of people. The Band of teenaged girls who came to limelight in late December last year after their scintillating performance at the annual ‘Battle of the Bands’ competition have received online threats and absurd comments on facebook, although, as per the reports suggest they have decided to quit but Omar Abdullah assured them his full support. Also, the Indian media highlighted and debated the issue with full coverage and proper follow up, urged the girls to shun the decree and continue their Band Pragaash.

As I am a student and according to me, it’s an act of peculiarity and utter shame for those who posed threat to them, it may be wrong in accordance to Islam, but the history of Kashmiri culture bears testimony and has produced best singers, composers, who have had expressed their heart via singing and music. What wrong if these girls have defied their conventional, and have opted to use their way of expressing themselves. There are dozens of bands currently playing popular music of different genres in the valley. But, why targeted this band, because it comprises girls, who are always [mis]understood as slaves of men, who could remain confined to four walls and men dictate to them.

I am not a preacher, but as a teenager asking my beloved leaders (who oppose them), is it worth appreciable to muzzle the voice of these girls who attempted to voice their concern through singing? What about the cases where domestic violence is eminent and no decree is proclaimed? What about the hartal calls, rapes and crimes against women? Aren’t they invalidated by Islam? Don’t they require, reform! Our CM has done always a lip service to bring culprits to justice, and everytime justice denied, he fails to meet his promises! Shame.

I want to ask those Clerics and Leaders who always dictate terms over acts of womenfolk and never provide a solution which acceptable to all. If music is controversial, what about the DOWRY, which is undoubtedly Haraam, unlawful in Islam, and by this reason there are thousands of girls who are over aged but still waiting for their marriage proposals, the reason behind their late marriages is DOWRY which their parents cannot afford, pomp and show. Moreover, the Islamic leaders should also pronounce their verdict upon those who steal electricity, by way of hooking and tempering electric meters. Moreover, we also have in Kashmir banks which are based on interest, if they have much love to Islam, why they have not even initiated to establish an Islamic banking system in Kashmir .

I therefore, request my leaders to first deal with these issues then thinks of banning the band of girls.

Asma Firdous is a student Emailed at : ktehrika@gmail.com

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

05 February 13

@ readersupportednews.org

When our founders were drafting the Constitution, they went out of their way to give warmaking powers to Congress, not the President.

They understood that if the President could make war on his own, he’d be no different than a king.

And they also understood, as James Madison said, that such power “would be too much temptation” for one man.

And so they vested that power in Congress.

But since World War II, one President after another has usurped that power.

The latest usurper is President Obama, who did so in Libya, and with drones, and now is prepared to do so in cyberspace.

According to The New York Times, the Obama Administration has concluded that the President has the authority to launch preemptive cyberattacks.

This is a very dangerous, and very undemocratic power grab.

There are no checks or balances when the President, alone, decides when to engage in an act of war.

And this new aggressive stance will lead to a cyber arms race. The United States has evidently already used cyber weapons against Iran, and so many other countries will assume that cyber warfare is an acceptable tool and will try to use it themselves.

Most troubling, U.S. cybersupremacy – and that is Pentagon doctrine – will also raise fears among nuclear powers like Russia, China, and North Korea that the United States may use a cyberattack as the opening move in a nuclear attack.

For if the United States can knock out the command and control structure of an enemy’s nuclear arsenal, it can then launch an all-out nuclear attack on that enemy with impunity. This would make such nuclear powers more ready to launch their nuclear weapons preemptively for fear that they would be rendered useless. So we’ve just moved a little closer to midnight.

Now, I don’t think Obama would use cyberwafare as a first strike in a nuclear war. But our adversaries may not be so sure, either about Obama or his successors.

They, too, worry about the temptations of a President.

By Joseph Kishore

05 February, 2013

@ WSWS.org

The Obama administration has concluded that the president can authorize pre-emptive cyberwar attacks, according to a secret legal review prepared by the US government. The move is part of efforts to expand the ability of the American military to use new technologies to carry out acts of aggression—with Iran and China the most immediate targets.

The discussions within the administration were reported by the New York Times in an article published on Monday.

While invariably couched in the language of “defense,” the Pentagon’s cyberwarfare plans are part of an array of offensive capabilities—in addition to and alongside economic sanctions, global spying, drone assassination strikes and more traditional military actions.

According to the Times, the administration’s legal review concludes that the president “has the broad power to order a pre-emptive strike if the United States detects credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad.” The newspaper also reports on new policies “that will govern how intelligence agencies can carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs of potential attack on the United States and, if the president approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code—even if there is no declared war.”

The doctrine of pre-emptive war was adopted by the Bush administration for the purpose of justifying military aggression against any country deemed an existent or even potential threat to the United States. The Times notes in an aside, “Pre-emption has always been a disputed legal concept,” citing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the fraudulent pretext of that country’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.” Such disputes have evidently been swept aside by the Obama administration.

The importance of cyberwarfare has expanded with the increasing reliance on computer networks for the delivery of basic services. A cyber attack could take down power plants, hospitals, transportation systems or other critical infrastructure, potentially leading to economic devastation and widespread casualties.

According to the Times, decisions to authorize cyberwarfare will generally be made by the president himself. “One senior American official said that officials quickly determined that the cyberweapons were so powerful that—like nuclear weapons—they should be unleashed only on the direct orders of the commander in chief.”

China is a particular target of current or potential cyberwarfare carried out by the US. Seeing China as a principal economic and geopolitical competitor, the Obama administration has organized a “pivot” to Asia and the Pacific to focus military resources in the region.

The Times quotes Richard Falkenrath of the Council on Foreign Relations: “While this is all described in neutral terms—what are we going to do about cyber attacks—the underlying question is, ‘What are we going to do about China?’”

The report comes only days after a number of newspapers—including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Times itself—announced that they had been the target of hacking attacks by individuals in China, which the Times, in particular, sought to link to the Chinese government.

The most significant act of cyberwar to date, however, came not from China, but from the United States and Israel, and was directed at Iran’s nuclear program. It was revealed last year that the two countries were behind the creation of the Stuxnet virus, which infected Iranian networks in June 2010. The US military operation, dubbed Operation Olympic Games, began under Bush and was continued under Obama.

As with drone assassinations, Obama personally directed the cyber attack on Iran from the Situation Room, receiving updates on a regular basis.

Stuxnet was accompanied by the release of the Flame malware virus, also jointly developed by the US and Israel, first discovered in 2012. While originally produced to monitor Iranian government computers, the Flame virus escaped into the general population, infecting thousands of computers.

What has been disclosed publicly is only a small indication of what is already being carried out. “This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” one former high-ranking US intelligence official told the Washington Post in June 2012, around the time that the Flame virus was first discovered. “Cyber-collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.”

The Times quotes one administration official as declaring, “There are levels of cyberwarfare that are far more aggressive than anything that has been used or recommended to be done.”

Cyber actions are being coordinated by Cyber Command, originally set up under the authority of the Obama administration in 2010. It is led by General Keith Alexander, who is also the head of the National Security Agency, the military’s main spy agency. The NSA maintains vast databases of communications, foreign and domestic.

According to an article in the Washington Post last week, the military recently approved a fivefold increase in the number of personnel in the Cyber Command, from 900 to 4,900. The newspaper writes that the move is “part of an effort to turn an organization that has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force.”

Heavily involved in developing the Obama administration’s policy on cyberwarfare is John Brennan. Obama’s pick to head the CIA, Brennan has played a central role in defending and institutionalizing the administration’s policy of extra-judicial drone assassination, including of American citizens.

The recent actions are part of a broader campaign. In mid-October of last year, Obama signed an executive order expanding military authority to carry out cyber attacks and redefine as “defensive” actions that would previously have been considered acts of aggression—such as the cutting off of computer networks.

Around the same time, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave a bellicose speech in which he warned of a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” A cyber attack on the US could “cause physical destruction and the loss of life” and “paralyze and shock the nation and create a new profound sense of vulnerability,” he said.

Panetta’s speech aimed both at justifying an expansion of cyberwar capabilities and preparing the ground for military action using the pretext of a cyber attack on the US.

In addition to plans for aggressive war abroad, the expansion of military cyberwarfare poses immense dangers to the democratic rights of the American people, as the administration moves to expand government control over the Internet and create the basis for military intervention and oversight within the United States.

The cyberwar plans include procedures for military action within the United States. According to the Times, the military “would become involved in cases of a major cyberattack within the United States” under certain conditions, with Panetta describing “the ‘red line’ [to justify such actions] in the vaguest of terms—as a ‘cyber 9/11.’”

By William A. Cook

04 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

“The world is ruled by neither justice nor morality; crime is not punished nor virtue rewarded, one is forgotten as quickly as the other. The world is ruled by power and power is obtained with money. To work is senseless, because money cannot be obtained through work, but through exploitation of others. And if we cannot exploit as much as we wish, at least let us work as little as we can. Moral duty? We believe neither in the morality of man nor in the morality of systems.” 

?   TadeuszBorowski ,   This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen

This hideous and degrading picture of the human animal Borowski painted at Auschwitz : humankind without benevolence, without compassion; lacking empathy, lacking mercy; inexorable, ruthless, and malevolent; a savage, brutal animal devoid of morals but obedient to laws. Borowski believed there was no crime a man would not commit to save himself. That belief, salvation for self at the expense of justice, precludes moral virtue. Borowski, a poet and a writer, labored at Auschwitz from 1942 until the liberation of the camps; he was not a homosexual, or a Roma or a Jew; he was an observer of human nature in a place where it was bared to the bone. But if his life there brought him to the realization of the barbarity of humans, devoid of morals, then he also understood what we lost as a result of that void:

“There can be no beauty if it is paid for by human injustice, nor truth that passes over injustice in silence, nor moral virtue that condones it.”

Until and unless we eradicate injustice, we have no reason to know beauty, for all that we create is tainted by that injustice pretending all is well with our world. Truth does not exist if injustice surrounds us and we are silent in our complicity. Proclaiming moral virtue in a world awash in crimes against humanity is condoning the crimes unless we act to eradicate the crimes.

Borowski’s work came to mind during these days of Holocaust remembrance because I used his words in a commencement address to our law school some years ago. His thoughts permeate this day of remembrance. On January 29 th , Nick Cumming-Bruce writing from Geneva for the New York Times, reported that “ Israel became the first country to withhold cooperation from a United Nations review of its human rights practices on Tuesday, shunning efforts by the United States and others to encourage it to participate.”

How strange that a people who endured the horrendous human betrayal of their inalienable rights to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should become the next perpetrators of evil against another people denied their rights of recognition of equal justice and dignity and respect and honor as neighbors in this world where all should enjoy the fruits of this earth. How can one understand the state of Israel, the state declared to be the “Jewish State,” the state that rang the rafters of the United Nations with cries against Iraq and Iranfor discrimination, for anti-Semitism, for existential threats of death to Israel, running to the UNHRC to survey nations to find those antagonistic to Israel and bring them before the Human Rights Council for public punishment and admonishment to correct their criminal behavior, indeed, to levy fines and threaten sanctions should they not relent,only to become the state that defies the same UNHRC when it is their turn for review.

Did they not find the United Nations an institution designed to protect the weak against the strong, to provide conventions that protected all peoples regardless of color, ethnic background, religious beliefs, political and economic systems, a means of regress for themselves, a small nation set in the middle of their perceived enemies,or did they understand that they could manipulate the system when convenient to gain their ends and defy it when they should be condemned. Did not the Neo-Cons and their allies damn the UN for inaction against Saddam Hussein for defying 16 UN Resolutions thus establishing the justice of an invasion of Iraq even though Israel had defied over 160 like resolutions? Have they not been vociferous in their demands that Iran be placed under sanctions and indeed invaded to prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction even as they have 100s of such weapons and refuse to admit that publically or to sign the Mid-East Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, yet demand action be taken against the existential threat that Iran places against their state? Why then do they defy the UNHRC?

Let’s be as blunt as Borowski: the world is not ruled by justice or morality, it is ruled by power. Israel knows this. They have taken control of the greatest military machine the world has ever known, the United States . They control our President, our Senate, and our Congress, and they did this just as Borowski had declared, with money. If one needs proof of these assertions consider this photo of Senator Lindsay Graham as he interrogates Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, with some help from our masters.

C:UserswcookAppDataLocalMicrosoftWindowsTemporary Internet FilesLowContent.IE5MBSZ3W9Glindsay-graham-aipac[1].jpg

Neither AIPAC nor Israel fear retribution—they disdain the opinions of the peoples of this earth, they ridicule the organizations that have been established to guide nations in peaceful ways, and they laugh at the morals taught by the religions of the world, because they have no respect for those bound by a moral order. They act by sheer hutzpah, through the vetting of those who occupy an office, those who intend to run for office, and where necessary who should run for office. It is Israel ‘s agenda that our representatives attend to, not the agenda of the American people. Unending wars benefit the wealthy, they destroy the average citizen.

Unfortunately American democracy is a bidding war, an auction of offices able to be purchased by the pound. The American people no longer run the government; the forces that pay the puppet run the country. Consider the reality that the UN faces today. On November 29 they invited Palestine in as a member nation; that was anathema to the Zionist government of Israel that denied that recognition even though they are a signatory of that organization. They simply impose their law and their political determinations on all the peoples of the earth. In short, they determine what the UN will do or they will reject the world body. They can do this because they can tell the U.S. how they will vote in the Security Council. Thus the impunity. Understand that 5% of the world’s population runs the UN; 95% of the world’s population becomes mute in the oligarchical power structure that the U.S combined with Israel asserts over the wishes of the peoples of the world.

How then achieve not only peace in Palestine , but any possible justice for the people of Palestine ? The answer rests with the people of the world, not with their governments which are held beneath the gold bricks of the U.S. and Israel ; but the people are represented in the UNHRC (Human Rights Council) that has been crippled by the United States ‘ refusal to pay for operations because it admitted Palestine to participation without the US ‘ permission. Thus do the few cripple the many while denying justice to the oppressed and the occupied. It should be obvious to all that the US does not have a moral base from which it operates. It operates only for money, for the 1%, and it uses its citizens as collateral damage against those who question or attack its control. That’s AIPAC’s way, that’s PINAC’s way, that’s the way of the Neo-Cons; it’s what the Zionists learned from Nazi Germany, it’s the answer to MP David Ward’s question, “What did they learn at Auschwitz ?” They learned what Borowski learned: “The world is ruled by power and power is obtained by money.” There is no moral virtue that determines justice for people.

But for those who believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the opposite, the road to peace must be throughthe UNHRC and the International Court of Justice. The people of the world have spoken for 64 years through resolutions voicing in clear and bold language the crimes against humanity inflicted on the Palestinian people.The laws of the UN Conventions and the obligations of the nations of the world that have signed to be members of that organization are clear, the alleged crimes must be brought before these bodies to face justice and to bring justice. Should this not be done, both Israel and the US will recreate the laws of war so that their crimes are washed away as easily as Pilate washed his hands of the sentencing of Jesus. “The world is ruled by power”; it is happening as I write this piece.

Let’s continue the bluntness of Borowski. The UNHRC has prepared a comprehensive document to be used when Israel comes before it, a document that itemizes its crimes against humanity with focus on the Settlements and the devastation they have brought to the Palestinian people. Israel knows of this report. It will not be brought before the world court of public opinion and certainly will not be brought before a court of justice. It will not just defy the UN, it will castigate the 188 nation states that allowed Palestine to become a member state as biased and discriminatory against the Jewish State; they will flaunt the Holocaust as it represented anti-Semitism that necessitated the creation of a state for Jews as protection for their people; and it will build its case for its actions on grounds that only their military can defend their people and hence the constant cry of self-defense. Israel has no compunctions about being the sole nation to not adhere to the UN’s human rights reviews of all member states; Israel cares nothing about the UN or its purpose. It will act unilaterally because it can undo anything the UN desires to do.

Let’s understand the actions of this amoral nation. It has just attacked Syria , a recognized member of the United Nations. Syria has executed no actions against Israel that can be justified under the Geneva Conventions; the Israeli government has invaded a nation without provocation regardless of the innocent citizens that are hurt or killed, indeed oblivious of such consequences because in fact they have no conscience that questions such behavior. What would impel the government of Israel to such an act? The answer is simple: how can they force an alliance between the US and Israel that can eliminate any chance that the American government might not support Israel’s defiance of the UN, especially since the US had admonished Israel along with all the other member states about defying the call from the UNHRC. They know that the UN must condemn this act; they care not to obey any laws that restrict their drive to control all of Palestine , and if necessary, expand Eretz Israel beyond even these borders. Their end determines their actions; their laws supersede all others. Here are the words Weizmann and Ben-Gurion promised the Mandate Government:

“if further action was taken against them (by the British Mandate Government) to destroy Zionism, then there would be a blood bath. Nothing could prevent it. Nobody would be safe in Palestine  (July 12, 1946, Rhodes Archive Documents). If need be, we shall take the country by force. If Palestine proves too small, her frontiers will have to be extended” (Ben Gurion, Appendix LVc).

The announcement of the UNHRC’s review of Israel ‘s record forced Israel to yoke America to its needs and bury the defiance of the UN so that the US cannot abstain should the vote come before the UNSC. These actions foretell the response Israel would take if brought before the International Court of Justice. First, it will damn the resolution as anti-Semitic; second it will argue that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over their state as it has its own laws in place and is not beholden to laws that can supersede their own thus denying the sovereignty of Israel; and third, they will present arguments that will delay action knowing time erases memory and, as they have experienced for 64 years, the world will forget. One need only remember the abandonment of the Goldstone Report.

Borowski believed there was no crime a man would not commit to save himself. That belief, salvation for self at the expense of justice, precludes moral virtue. These are men who have traded their soul to the state in exchange for the consequences of confronting the all-powerful state. They are as Henry David Thoreau once stated, so many wooden soldiers marching to another’s tune. But for those of us who accept the transcendent reality of moral righteousness, selling of the soul cannot be an option. We bear the responsibility to act as the arbiter for the state of our soul.No educated person can escape responsibility for his or her actions. No educated person can escape the ethical obligations of a free mind. We are responsible to ourselves if we bear responsibility to meaning and truth.

The world is not bound by borders ultimately; it is bound by a moral order. No nation has the right to impose by violence its will on another by exorcising the universal principle that there exists a basic, fundamental, and inalienable right that is premised on freedom and justice, humanity and truth. If we do not lead by moral force, we are by acquiescence the followers of those who fail to act and subjects of those who impose their will. There comes a time when everyone must cry for justice, to cry for those who cannot cry for themselves.

This is the only answer to Borowski’s sorrowful lament as he witnessed the inhumanity of those in power over the weak and helpless Romas, Communists, homosexuals, the abnormal, and the Jews, a horrid mixture of calculated humiliation, degradation of spirit, physical abuse, slaughter and disregard of civilized behavior in favor of laws created by the conqueror in a raw display of arrogance against the beliefs of all other nations. Today, the nations of the world are faced with a similar power that has determined to subjugate the nations of the world by arrogance, coercion, fraud, invasion, and financial strategies that cripple nations, while undermining the one agency that has brought a semblance of civilized behavior to crisis’s around the world, the United Nations. The United Nations alone can and must take control of these two renegade states or their Nazi like behavior made possible over a prolonged period of years will negate all International laws in favor of those who will impose their power on the weak thus justifying the criminal against the victim. Should that happen, we will have allowed Borowski’s horrid picture of humanity to be the epitaph of our destroyed world.

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. He writes frequently for Internet publications including The Palestine Chronicle, MWC News, Atlantic Free Press, Pacific Free Press, Countercurrents, Counterpunch, World Prout Assembly, Dissident Voice, and Information Clearing House among others. His books include Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East policy, The Rape of Palestine, The Chronicles of Nefaria, a novella, and the forthcoming The Plight of the Palestinians. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated