Archives: Articles

By Craig Aaron

27 November, 2012

@readersupportednews.org

 

Why Is the Obama FCC Plotting a Massive Giveaway to Rupert Murdoch?

What if I told you the Obama administration’s first major post-election policy move was a big, fat gift for Rupert Murdoch?

You might ask: The same Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News?

The same Rupert Murdoch who scandalized England with phone-hacking, influence peddling and bribery?

The same Rupert Murdoch who stays up late Saturday nights pondering things on Twitter like what to do about “the Jewish-owned press”?

Crikey.

Murdoch already owns the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Fox News Channel, Fox movie studios, 27 local TV stations and much, much more.

Word is that Murdoch now covets the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune – the bankrupt-but-still-dominant newspapers (and websites) in the second- and third-largest media markets, where Murdoch already owns TV stations.

Under current media ownership limits, he can’t buy them. It’s illegal … unless the Federal Communications Commission changes the rules.

But according to numerous reports, that’s exactly what FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski plans to do. He’s circulating an order at the FCC to lift the longstanding ban on one company owning both daily newspapers and TV stations in any of the 20 largest media markets.

And he wants to wrap up this massive giveaway just in time for the holidays.

Democracy Diversity Disaster

If these changes go through, Murdoch could own the Los Angeles Times, two TV stations and up to eight radio stations in L.A. alone. And he’s not the only potential beneficiary: These changes could mean more channels for Comcast-NBC, more deals for Disney and more stations for Sinclair.

 

For anyone who actually cares about media diversity and democracy, the gutting of media ownership limits will be a complete disaster.

These rules are one of the last barriers to local media monopolies. Without them, we will lose competing voices for local news. We will see the mainstream media get even more monotone, monochrome and monotonous.

The FCC’s own data show ownership of broadcast radio and television stations by women and minorities remains at abysmally low levels. Women own less than 7 percent of radio and TV stations; people of color control only 3.6 percent of TV stations and 8 percent of radio stations.

More media consolidation will push out smaller owners – who are disproportionately women and people of color. The more concentrated local media get, the harder it will be for underrepresented groups to compete.

That’s why groups like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Center for Media Justice and the National Hispanic Media Coalition have spoken out against any further relaxation of ownership limits.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Genachowski’s proposal is essentially indistinguishable from the failed Bush administration policies that millions rallied against in 2003 and 2007. Ninety-nine percent of the public comments received by the FCC opposed lifting these rules when the Republicans tried to do it.

Genachowski’s proposal is nearly identical to the one the Senate voted to overturn with a bipartisan “resolution of disapproval” back in 2008. Among the senators who co-sponsored that rebuke to runaway media concentration were Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

At the time, Obama blasted the FCC for having “failed to further the goals of diversity in the media and promote localism,” saying the agency was in “no position to justify allowing for increased consolidation.” Nothing has changed – except which party controls the White House.

The federal courts have repeatedly – and as recently as 2011 – struck down these same rules, noting the FCC’s failure to “consider the effect of its rules on minority and female ownership.” The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to study the impact of any rule changes before changing the rules. The FCC has done nothing of the kind.

When the Republicans were in power, they held at least seven public hearings on ownership rules in front of the full commission, where near-universal public opposition to these changes was evident.

Yet Genachowski himself has participated in zero public hearings on media ownership. Same goes for the two newest commissioners, Democrat Jessica Rosenworcel and Republican Ajit Pai. The senior Republican, Robert McDowell, did attend hearings … five years ago. Only Democrat Mignon Clyburn has attended a public hearing on media ownership during the Obama administration.

Yet if Genachowski gets his way, according to reports, the FCC will vote on this major overhaul “on circulation” – that is, in secret and behind closed doors – with no public participation or accountability. It’s shameful.

Now You Do Something?

Genachowski’s behavior is inexplicable because the clearest and easiest path on media ownership was to do nothing. After losing in court, he could have punted the issue and waited for the next review in 2014, when the diversity research could have been finished and the industry trends might have been clearer.

“Do nothing” is so ingrained at the FCC it could be the agency’s motto. And yet the one time inaction is called for, Genachowski is making every effort to side with Murdoch against the masses.

We can still stop this terrible plan from moving forward. The other members of the FCC can dissent and send this thing back to the drawing board. The dozens of senators who voted against this very policy less than five years ago can speak up again. The Obama administration can think about cross-examining Rupert Murdoch instead of appeasing him.

None of that will happen unless millions of people make some noise.

We should be breaking up these giant media conglomerates, not bolstering them. But right now we need to kill this policy for good – and remind the FCC that 99 percent of the public opposes media consolidation, no matter who’s in the White House or the FCC chairman’s seat.

By Shamus Cooke

26 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

The last Congo war that ended in 2003 killed 5.4 million people, the worst humanitarian disaster since World War II. The killing was directly enabled by international silence over the issue; the war was ignored and the causes obscured because governments were backing groups involved in the fighting. Now a new Congo war has begun and the silence is, again, deafening.

President Obama seems not to have noticed a new war has broken out in the war-scarred Congo; he appears blind to the refugee crisis and the war crimes committed by the invading M23 militia against the democratically elected government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

But appearances can be deceiving. The U.S. government has their bloody hands all over this conflict, just as they did during the last Congo war when Bill Clinton was President. President Obama’s inaction is a conscious act of encouragement for the invaders, just as Clinton’s was. Instead of Obama denouncing the invasion and the approaching overthrow of a democratically elected government, silence becomes a very powerful action of intentional complicity on the side of the invaders.

Why would Obama do this? The invaders are armed and financed by Rwanda, a “strong ally” and puppet of the United States. The United Nations released a report conclusively proving that the Rwandan government is backing the rebels, but the U.S. government and U.S. media cartoonishly pretend that the issue is debatable.

The last Congo War that killed 5.4 million people was also the result of the U.S.-backed invading armies of Rwanda and Uganda, as explained in the excellently researched book “Africa’s World War,” by French journalist Gerard Prunier.

In fact, many of the same Rwandan war criminals involved in the last Congo War, such as Bosco Ntaganda, are in charge of the M23 militia and wanted for war crimes by the U.N. international criminal court. The current Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, is a “good friend” of the U.S. government and one of the most notorious war criminals on the planet, due to his leading roles in the Rwandan genocide and consequent Congo War.

A group of Congolese and Rwandan activists have been demanding that Kagame be tried for his key role in the Rwandan genocide.

As Prunier’s book explains, the Rwandan genocide was sparked by Kagame’s invasion of Rwanda — from U.S. ally Uganda. After Kagame took power in post-genocide Rwanda, he then informed the U.S. — during a trip to Washington D.C. — that he would be invading the Congo. Prunier quotes Kagame in Africa’s World War:

“I delivered a veiled warning [to the U.S.]: the failure of the international community to take action [against the Congo] would mean that Rwanda would take action… But their [the Clinton Administration’s] response was really no response at all” (pg 68).

In international diplomacy speak, such a lack of response — to a threat of military invasion — acts as a glaring diplomatic green light.

The same blinding green light is now being offered by Obama to the exact same war criminals as they again invade the Congo.

But why again? The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s current President, Joseph Kabila, helped lead the military invasion during the last Congo war. As a good stooge, he delivered Congo’s immense mining and oil wealth to multi-national corporations. But then his puppet strings started to fray.

Kabila later distanced himself from U.S. puppets Rwanda and Uganda, not to mention the U.S. dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. The IMF, for example, warned Kabila against a strategic infrastructural and development aid package with China, but Kabila shrugged them off. The Economist explains:

“…[The Congo] appears to have gained the upper hand in a row with foreign donors over a mining and infrastructure package worth $9 billion that was agreed a year ago with China. The IMF objected to it, on the ground that it would saddle Congo with a massive new debt, so [the IMF] is delaying forgiveness of most of the $10 billion-plus that Congo already owes.”

This act instantly transformed Kabila from an unreliable friend to an enemy. The U.S. and China have been madly scrambling for Africa’s immense wealth of raw materials, and Kabila’s new alliance with China was too much for the U.S. to bear.

Kabila further inflamed his former allies by demanding that the international corporations exploiting the Congo’s precious metals have their super-profit contracts re-negotiated, so that the country might actually receive some benefit from its riches.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo is home to 80 percent of the world’s cobalt, an extremely precious mineral needed to construct many modern technologies, including weaponry, cell phones, and computers. The DRC is possibly the most mineral/resource rich country in the world — overflowing with everything from diamonds to oil — though its people are among the world’s poorest, due to generations of corporate plunder of its wealth.

Now, a new war is underway and the U.N. is literally sitting on their hands. There are 17,500 U.N. peacekeepers in the DRC, not to mention U.S. Special Forces. The invading M23 militia has 3,000 fighters. What was the U.N.’s response to the invasion? The New York Times reports:

“United Nations officials have said that they did not have the numbers to beat back the rebels and that they were worried about collateral damage, but many Congolese have rendered their own verdict. On Wednesday, rioters in Bunia, north of Goma, ransacked the houses of United Nations’ personnel.”

If Obama and/or the U.N. made one public statement about militarily defending the elected Congolese government against invasion, the M23 militia would have never acted.

Human Rights Watch and other groups have correctly labeled the M23’s commanders as responsible for “ethnic massacres, recruitment of children, mass rape, killings, abductions and torture.”

But at the U.N. the Obama administration has been actively protecting this group. The New York Times continues:

“Some human rights groups say that Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations and a leading contender to be President Obama’s next secretary of state, has been far too soft on Rwanda, which is a close American ally and whose president, Paul Kagame, has known Ms. Rice for years. The activists have accused her of watering down language in a Security Council resolution that would have mentioned Rwanda’s links to the [M23] rebels and say she also tried to block the publication of part of a [U.N.] report that detailed Rwanda’s covert support for the M23.”

It’s likely that the Obama administration will jump into action as soon as his M23 allies complete their military objective of regime change, and re-open the Congo’s military wealth to U.S. corporations to profit from. There are currently talks occurring in U.S.-puppet Uganda between the M23 and the Congo government. It is unlikely that these talks will produce much of a result unless Kabila stands down and allows the M23 and its Rwandan backers to take over the country. The M23 knows it’s in an excellent bargaining position, given the silence of the U.N. and the United States government.

If the war drags on, expect more international silence. Expect more massacres and ethnic cleansing too, and expect the still-recovering people of the Congo to be re-tossed into massive refugee camps where they can again expect militia-sponsored killings, rape, starvation, and the various barbarisms that have accompanied this especially brutal war, a brutality that grows most viciously in environments of silence.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org) He can be reached at shamuscooke@gmail.com

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/08/17/opposition-

groups-want-rwandan-president-paul-kagame-investigated-for-war-crimes/

http://www.economist.com/node/13496903?zid=

309ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/22/world/africa/

congo-rebels-in-goma-vow-to-take-kinshasha.html

We have news of Samer Issawi, a Palestinian activist on a hunger strike is hospital, protesting against his detention by the Israeli authorities which illegally occupy the Palestinian Territories.

His story is no different than many others coming out of occupied Palestine.

Just a little bit different: For a starter, his name, Issawi, comes from his village name ISSAWIYYEH – unlike all Israeli/Jewish names which have no connection to the land. We say this to make a point: Belonging is not achieved by simply conquering a land or buying it on the open market. The Palestinians and their soil are one.

Samer, who was captured by the military authorities near Ramallah back in 2002 during the second Intifada, on charges of possessing weapons, was sentenced to 30 years in prison by the Israeli regime. Last year (10 years of Samer’s youthful life has gone down the drain), he was part of the prisoner exchange deal which set him ‘free’ along with 476 Palestinians, some of whom were deported outright or sent back to another large prison called Gaza. That deal, between Hamas and Israel, was brokered by Egypt.

As Issawiyeh sits near Mount Scopus – Jerusalem, all Jerusalem prisoners released in that exchange, were required by Israel to sign a pledge not to venture outside the city boundaries. If they do, they would be arrested and sent back to serve a new prison sentence PLUS the remaining years left before they were set ‘free’ as part of last year’s exchange. According to Samer’s father, the Egyptian Ambassador in Tel-Aviv had assured the families of these prisoners that these ‘restrictions’ (in the pledge they had to sign) are merely formalities and there will be no restrictions on anyone’s movements. The pledge was signed. Samer was arrested last July for venturing outside what Israel considers to be its Jerusalem borders.

Demonstrations took place infront of the Egyptian Representative Offices in Ramallah whose Head promised to look into the matter. A promise by the Egyptian Ambassador that a decision will be made after the Eid al-Fitr (last August) went by the by. Nothing. The Embassy claims now that it only mediated the prisoner deal and are not party to it.

A long story short, Samer is under arrest and on hunger strike in hospital. He will be tried by an Israeli military court since the West Bank military commander signed the prisoner swap deal, and not by a Jerusalem court which may look lightly at Samer’s offence of exercising his liberty in his homeland. According to Haaretz, the conviction rate in the West Bank is 99.74%. Thank you. Even if Samer was to be tried in a Jerusalem civilian court, it would indict him and send him back to the Military Court whose orders Samer had allegedly ‘disobeyed’!

Now, if you are thinking what we are thinking, you will, at this point, be guessing where the hell are the boundaries of Jerusalem as of the day Samer crossed them. Since its illegal establishment in 1948, Israel’s borders have been shifting like the desert sand dunes. It does not matter where the boundaries are according to International Law. It only matters where Israel believes its boundaries are.

As of this writing, Samer is on the 115th day of his hunger strike. That’s nearly 4 months. God knows what happens to a normal human body at this point.Try and Google the medical websites on this question.The International Committee of the Red Cross was prevented from visiting him and reporting on his condition.

Samer’s sister Shireen, eloquently declares: “Samer is striking in order to come home”.

We all have the freedom to exercise the right to protest. We urge all of you, no matter where you are, to write to your local, regional or government representative NOW to force Israel to release Samer so that he can go home alive and not in a coffin. Harsh request?

To do so, you may cut and paste this letter, send it to your officials in your country, and to all those you know who believe is fairness and justice.

Antoine Raffoul

Coordinator

Source: 1948 – Lest we forget

http://www.1948.org.uk/

 

By Jim Wallis, Reader Supported News

24 November 12

@ readersupportednews.org

A lot of ink, pixels, and air have been used on the potential effects of the so-called “fiscal cliff.” While many experts say that “cliff” is a misnomer (it’s more of long slope in the wrong direction), there is at least broad agreement that it’s not the right direction for the country’s long-term health.

We’ve heard a lot about the potential effects on Wall Street, our nation’s credit rating, and even the military. But little has been said about the devastating consequences for our nation and the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people – or for the charities and non-profits that serve them.

This week, the Circle of Protection, released an open letter to the president and Congress with a simple message: during the holidays, please “advance policies that protect the poor – not ones that make them poorer.”

America, by many standards, is a generous nation. We give about 2 percent of our GDP to charity. While that doesn’t sound like much, it’s nearly double what Great Britain, the next most generous nation, gives.

This season is when many in our country give of their time and money to help those in need. These programs are important. But according to Bread for the World, all the food provided by churches and charities amounts to only 6 percent of what the federal government spends. And, unfortunately, a recent poll commissioned by World Vision, shows that while Americans plan to spend more this year on gifts, they are planning on giving less to charity.

After this election, the nation is hungry for some common ground. And the best way to find common ground is by moving to higher ground. There is a clear voice within the Christian community: the higher ground that should unite us is concern for vulnerable people and hardworking families and individuals still struggling to make ends meet.

The holiday letter, released by the Circle of Protection, and many other Christian leaders and heads of charitable organizations including the Salvation Army and Catholic Charities, outlines some common ground:

We see effective programs that meet the needs of the poor and vulnerable and help keep others from slipping into poverty: those programs and tax credits – such as Medicaid, SNAP (formerly food stamps) and the Earned Income Tax Credit – should be maintained. As our nation approaches a “fiscal showdown,” there are difficult decisions to be made, but we believe this can be done without putting the burdens on those who can least afford it.

During Thanksgiving and the Christmas season, there will be two kinds of holiday baskets sent by the faith community: baskets of food for the poor and baskets of letters to their elected officials with our message repeated over and over:

Don’t make the poor poorer – and our work harder – by the fiscal decisions and choices you will be making.

Yes, reducing large deficits is a moral issue; but how we do it is also a vital moral choice. The 65 national churches and faith-based organizations represent by the Circle of Protection believe we can address the challenges without putting the burden on those who need our help the most.

There are people of faith on both sides of the political aisle. Republicans and Democrats in Washington, D.C., share common faiths. Why not bring this faith factor, a commitment to protecting those who need it, to bear in our fiscal decision-making? This “fiscal cliff” and how we approach it is truly a debate about our fiscal soul as a nation. What kind of people and what kind of country do we want to be?

Sacrifices will have to be made to put us on a path to fiscal responsibility and sustainability. But making those who are most vulnerable to sacrifice the most is morally and religiously unacceptable. We need a bipartisan commitment to protect the poor and vulnerable in the fiscal decisions the nation is about to make.

The mutual decision to protect the poor and vulnerable, motivated by the faith on both sides of the political aisle, would provide the higher ground bipartisan commitment to finding common ground for the common good. And that principle would need to be tested by real policy choices that protect the sufficiency of a real safety net in tough economic times, help lift low-income families and children out of poverty, and save lives through effective international assistance around the world.

That kind of common cause and common commitment would be a positive and important sign for the health of our nation’s political and moral future.

By Johannes Stern

24 November, 2012

@ WSWS.org

Mass protests erupted throughout Egypt on Friday against the country’s president, Mohamed Mursi, and the ruling Muslim Brotherhood (MB). The day before, Mursi had issued a new Constitutional Declaration expanding his dictatorial powers, which he initially claimed by taking over the powers of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) junta in August.

In scenes reminiscent of the early days of the Egyptian Revolution, tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Tahrir Square in Cairo. Angry youth chanted slogans against Mursi and the MB and for the continuation of the revolution. Common chants were: “Down with the regime of the Brotherhood Supreme Guide”, “The people want to topple the Brothers” and “The people still want the downfall of the regime.”

Demonstrators were attacked by police with tear gas, rubber bullets and armored vehicles in the streets around Tahrir Square. Central Security Forces and army units cordoned off the Cabinet building and Parliament headquarters with barbed wire. Police trucks with anti-riot police were deployed in downtown Cairo.

Heavy clashes took place in Cairo’s Mohammad Mahmoud Street, where fighting between protesters and police forces has continued since Monday. Angry youth chanted against the Ministry of Interior while fighting the security forces. Since Monday hundreds of protesters have been injured and over one hundred arrested.

Anti-Brotherhood protests took place in various Egyptian cities. In the coastal city of Alexandria, thousands called for the “Fall of the Supreme Guide” after Friday prayers ended in Al-Qaed Ibrahim Mosque. A pro-Mursi crowd was also reportedly present at the Mosque, and clashes erupted between both sides.

Later in the day, protesters stormed three local headquarters of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the political arm of the MB. They chanted “Down with the rule of the Supreme Guide.” Alexandria’s security head, Abdel Meguid Lotfy, ordered security forces to secure the FJP’s main headquarters in the city.

Another FJP headquarters was stormed in Port Said. After clashes with Brotherhood members, protesters climbed the building and tore down the FJP’s sign. In the industrial city of Mahalla al-Kubra, street fights were reported between protesters and supporters of the Brotherhood. Anti-Brotherhood protests took also place in Ismailia, Assiut, Suez, Minya, Damietta and Aswan.

Mursi denounced protesters as “paid thugs.” Speaking before of a crowd of supporters in front of the Presidential Palace in Heliopolis, he claimed that protesters “were paid to throw rocks in Mohamed Mahmoud” and vowed not to accept any attack on state institutions.

Mursi appealed to the liberal and pseudo-left forces from the political establishment who were active in the protests. “The Constitutional Declaration does not aim to exact revenge on anyone,” he declared, adding: “I stand by you, whoever you are or wherever you are…those who support me and those who oppose me. I would never be biased towards one camp against the other.”

As during last year’s mass revolutionary protests against President Hosni Mubarak, US imperialism stands firmly behind the Egyptian regime. While Mursi prepared his declaration, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a press conference in Cairo on Wednesday: “Egypt’s new government is assuming the responsibility and leadership that has long made this country a cornerstone of regional stability and peace.”

Washington has reacted to Mursi’s power grab by cynically calling for calm, and for the Egyptian people to engage in “democratic dialogue” with the latest dictator to function as their stooge in Cairo.

“The decisions and declarations announced on November 22 raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. “We call for calm and encourage all parties to work together and call for all Egyptians to resolve their differences over these important issues peacefully and through democratic dialogue.”

The protests reflect rising popular hostility to Mursi and the ruling MB—which is continuing Mubarak’s anti-working class and pro-imperialist policies—as well as rising tensions inside the Egyptian ruling elite.

The protests on Friday were initially called by a coalition of various liberal and pseudo-left parties—including the Socialist Alliance Party, the Revolutionary Socialists (RS), and the Free Egyptians Party of billionaire tycoon Nagib Sawiris—to protest against the Islamists’ control over the drafting of Egypt’s new constitution.

Since Monday, however, which marked the anniversary of last year’s Mohammad Mahmoud uprising protests against the military junta, youth have been fighting Mursi’s security forces in downtown Cairo.

During Israel’s brutal onslaught against Gaza, Mursi proved to be a stooge of Western imperialism. While hundreds of rockets rained down on the defenseless population of Gaza, Mursi collaborated closely with Israel and the US to isolate the Palestinians and put himself forward as the new figurehead of US imperialism in the region.

Inside Egypt itself, moreover, Mursi is preparing huge attacks on the working class. On Tuesday he secured a $4.8 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), based on plans to cut Egypt’s budget deficit and further liberalize its economy. On Wednesday his government approved gasoline subsidy cuts.

The final trigger for the protests was Mursi’s presidential declaration. In Article VI of his statement Mursi claims extraordinary powers, declaring that, “the president is authorized to take any measures he sees fit in order to preserve and safeguard the revolution, national unity or national security.”

The announcement made clear to broad sections of the Egyptian population that Mursi is an enemy of the working class. He is ready to use ruthless, dictatorial measures to try to crush the population and pursue the same basic policies pursued by Mubarak.

“Mursi said he will deal with protesters firmly, this is exactly what Mubarak said before,” explained Mahmoud El-Banna, who came from the Upper Egyptian city of Beni Suef to Tahrir Square in order to protest against Mursi.

Expecting opposition to his power grab, Mursi called upon MB members to come out and protest to show their support. Even though the MB bussed in their supporters from the countryside, and the Salafist Nur and Asala Parties and the ultra-Islamist Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiyya joined the protests, the crowds in Tahrir Square dwarfed the Islamist protesters.

By Shahid Tantray

24 November, 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

I have been thinking about writing the story since long time. The story is not about any disaster or any tragedy but one of the harsh experiences till now in my life. The experiences which I witnessed in Kashmir, where I live, which is my homeland, where I work, do my professional duty.

I am a Photo-Journalist from Indian administered Kashmir. It is a big deal here in Kashmir to be a journalist or a photo journalist. Photojournalists have worked in dangerous places of the world like war Torn Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Palestine and other countries and Kashmir is no different from them. Kashmir – which is one of the world’s heaviest military zone, which has witnessed an armed insurgency since late 1980s, the civil uprisings in 2008 and 2010. The media has remained affected in Kashmir every time whether it is armed insurgency period or mass civil uprising. Sometimes you are forced to report opposite of the facts, media and press is curbed and press personals which include photo journalists are beaten, assaulted, detained without any charge. This is the place, where I work.I have been telling stories of others through photographs, but here I won’t do that. I will tell my own story, but not through photographs’ will tell, how the forth pillar of democracy is kicked with boots, gun-butts, assaulted, thrashed, dragged, detained and then locked like a criminal in a lock up. This happened last year on this day of November when I came to know for whom laws and justice is.

It was a cloudy morning of winter. I left my home for Press Colony –in Lalchowk – for my daily routine work. It was a Friday and transport was off from roads because of a Strike called by pro freedom leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani against the detention of minors. People were observing strike with roads presenting deserted look, while few Vehicles were seen plying. I reached Press Colony.

Most of the offices of news and media organizations are located here. It is a favorite spot for people to register protest as they get good coverage here but today it was calm in Press colony. No protest by people or any organization. It was unusual calm. As the time arrived, I offered Friday prayers in mosque situated nearby, and after completing my prayers; I went to Maisuma and clicked some shots. Sky was full of clouds and rain was to be expected any time. I came back to Press Colony and was enjoying tea in a stall, located in Middle of Press colony which also serves a meeting point for journalists. After having tea, I left to SarafKadal- a downtown locality of Srinagar, famous and epicenter for Anti India clashes and protests. My friend Showkat Shafi – who is also a photojournalist, was accompanying me. We went on a motorcycle and reached there at 3:25 PM.There were heavy clashes going on between stone throwing youth and paramilitary CRPF and Jammu and Kashmir Police. We parked our motorcycle and started our professional duty. There was chaos. For a moment I was unable to understand. The police and paramilitary had surrounded the stone throwing youth from every side and they started to run for safety. I was from the side of forces.

 

Suddenly some CRPF personals came and started beating me with Bamboo sticks. They kicked me with their long leather boots, assaulted with gun butts. One of the men among them broke my head with a brick. In the meantime, my head started bleeding. As I was being thrashed and assaulted by CRPF men, top police officials who included North city Superintendent of Indian Police ShowkatHussain Shah, Station House Officer (SHO) Iqbal Shah of Nowhatta Police Station arrived and they started abusing photo-journalists.

“Now you will see what Nowhatta police station means,” said Iqbal Shah, in an angry voice. I was taken to Police Station Nowhatta in an armored police vehicle and we were accompanying with many Minor stone throwers in that police Vehicle. On that day 53 youths were arrested.

I was thinking within myself that what is the reason behind my detention? And instantly the answer came into my mind. Before a month I took photographs of minors, who were arrested by police on charges of stone throwing. They were presented in court and were handcuffed. I did my professional job by clicking there pictures, which irked police officials and from that day I was threatened of dire consequences.

When I reached police station Nowhatta, SHO asked, “What is your profession,” I answered, “I am a Photo journalist.”

“What is your name?” he questioned.

I replied “My name is Shahid Tantray”.

As I said Shahid Tantray, he became aghast. He went into his room and took out batons and started beating me. He broke my camera and its lenses.

“Now you will click the photographs of minors”, he said in a loud angry voice after breaking my camera. They snatched my mobile phone, wallet, belt and other articles. An officer of paramilitary CRPF came and said “You people want Azadi (Freedom)?”

I replied “yes I want Azadi in my work and profession’. He asked,“What do you do?

I replied “I am a photojournalist”

After my reply, he went back in a state of sadness.

My health condition was very bad .I was unable to stand on my legs because I was beaten ruthlessly. I had never experienced the kind of situation, which I faced that day. I was in a lock up along with other detainees, mainly minor stone throwers.

One of stone thrower brought tea for me, which his family had brought for him. I was taking sip from the tea but my ankle and neck was paining which was unbearable for me, blood was oozing from my head. I was amazed with the courage of minor boys who were detained there. They were in a same condition. They too were beaten and kicked by police and paramilitary personals. The blood was oozing from their different body parts. But these boys were encouraging me; they cleaned the blood which was on my face and head. They lifted me and put blankets on me. They all were serving me like a guest. I prayed for them and still I make Dua for them and their success.

At 8:15 P.M one of the police man came and said, “Whoever is injured, we will take them to hospital in Police Control Room,” while addressing boys who were in lock-up which included me as well.

A police officer came there who was Munshi, he was bearded and when Isaw him, I thought he is will be a good person and will offer sympathybut my entire guess was wrong.Munshi (Police official) ordered cops to handcuff us all.

They handcuffed, and I told the Munshi (police official), “MunshiJi –I am not a criminal. I am a journalist, I have not been booked under article 302 (under 302 one is booked for murder)”.But my words were unbearable. Police man slapped me and dragged me into a vehicle.He started abusing me and Syed Ali Shah Geelani. It was strange like Iwas an activist of Geelani’sparty. I was taken to Police control room for treatment. The doctors thereare also police personals. I was given medical treatment. DoctorsOrdered other cops to open the cuffs of mine. They said that he isinjured and have multiple injuries.

Then I was again handcuffed and took me back to police station Nowhatta.The minor boys were also taken to police control room for thetreatment. Their parents had come to see them, but they were detainedby police and minor boys were freed. I pleaded one of the father of minor boy to for cell phone so that Icouldcontact my friend as well my mentor – Danish Ismail. I told himthat I am detained.

He replied “Don’t worry I am coming”.

At 10:25, Danish Ismail came. Before his arrival, I was feeling alone,strange and helpless. But as I saw him, all these kind of feelings instantly went away. The SHO told him “you can take him”. TheMunshi came and I was taken out from lock up.I told to give my camera back. He brought my broken camera and lenses and said “you can take, this is your camera’. I told him that this isbroken and was broken by your people. He replied “Sahab (SHO) was angry and now take this”. I didn’t agree. I told them that when I was brought here my camera was fine. I want my camera. He replied back “If youwant your camera, then you must leave your phone, wallet and other articles here”.

Danish told me to leave these things here and let’s go.

Danish took directly me for treatment to Bone and Joint hospital,Barzulla and doctors X-rayed my body parts. The X – ray was showing fracture in my neck and ankle. An Iron nail was stuck in my right elbow. Compounder told doctor “Doctor saeb he has puncture “I said to him that what is this ‘puncture’?

He said “It is a medical term we use when there is a hole on some body’s body”. They treated me and then I was shifted for SKIMS hospital at about 11.30p.m. and my whole family was with me. Danish – whom I consider my mentor and a best friend was accompanying me continuously.

I was shifted to SKIMS. My father was weeping. Next day, I wasdischarged from the hospital but I was bed-ridden for a month.

When police broke my professional equipment’s and other articles. I approached the concerned Superintendent of Police ShowkatHussain Shahwho assured in return for due compensation and informed that the camera was seized under section 525 and would release after the orders of Tehsildar (magistrate). “You can also claim the benefits ofinsurance as well”, SP informed and I replied I don’t needcompensation I need my camera.

Earlier, Chief Minister had promised to probe the matter. He, in his speech at Jammu had asked media persons to adopt the uniform code as would help the security forces to differentiate between protesters and media persons. Police, when they attacked me they knew I was journalist but they still broke my professional equipment’s and used force against me.

After all what happened, only this thought kept revolving my mind,what am I? Why was I beaten? Hard to answer of all this for months after that incident, I now knowswhat am I? Only after getting thrashed by cops without any reason I amnow aware what my Job Is? I am now aware who I am?Yes, I am a Journalist because I believe there are people out there who have stories that the world needs to hear. Yes, I am a Journalistbecause I feel stories of war, injustice and cruelties that we wouldfind hard to believe and hard to hear would be reported and I am bornto do same. Yes, I am a Journalist because I know truth has been fedto people; to the people who are unaware of what Kashmir is? Yes, I ama journalist because I am one. Yes, I don’t tell stories but as they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Yes, I am a Photo Journalist from Indian administered Kashmir.

By Andrew Gavin Marshall, Occupy.Com

24 November 12

@ Readersupportednews.org

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the most secretive and “least transparent” trade negotiations in history.

Luckily for the populations and societies that will be affected by the agreement, there are public research organizations and alternative media outlets campaigning against it – and they’ve even released several leaks of draft agreement chapters. From these leaks, which are not covered by mainstream corporate-controlled news outlets, we are able to get a better understanding of what the Trans-Pacific Partnership actually encompasses.

For example, public interest groups have been warning that the TPP could result in millions of lost jobs. As a letter from Congress to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated, the TPP “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”

In other words, as promised, the TPP goes far beyond “trade.”

Dubbed by many as “NAFTA on steroids” and a “corporate coup,” only two of the TPP’s 26 chapters actually have anything to do with trade. Most of it grants far-reaching new rights and privileges to corporations, specifically related to intellectual property rights (copyright and patent laws), as well as constraints on government regulations.

The leaked documents revealed that the Obama administration “intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations,” as Obama and Kirk have emerged as strong advocates “for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.”

In other words, the already ineffective and mostly toothless environmental, financial, and labor regulations that exist are unacceptable to the Obama administration and the 600 corporations aligned with the TPP who are giving him his orders.

The agreement stipulates that foreign corporations operating in the United States would no longer be subject to domestic U.S. laws regarding protections for the environment, finance or labor rights, and could appeal to an “international tribunal” which would be given the power to overrule American law and impose sanctions on the U.S. for violating the new “rights” of corporations.

The “international tribunal” that would dictate the laws of the countries would be staffed by corporate lawyers acting as “judges,” thus ensuring that cases taken before them have a “fair and balanced” hearing – fairly balanced in favor of corporate rights above anything else.

A public interest coalition known as Citizens Trade Campaign published a draft of the TPP chapter on “investment” revealing information about the “international tribunal” which would allow corporations to directly sue governments that have barriers to “potential profits.”

Arthur Stamoulis, the executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign, explained that the draft texts “clearly contain proposals designed to give transnational corporations special rights that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens… A proposal that could have such broad effects on environmental, consumer safety and other public interest regulations deserves public scrutiny and debate. It shouldn’t be crafted behind closed doors.”

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a public interest organization, undertook an analysis of the leaked document on investment and explained that the international corporate tribunal would allow corporations to overturn national laws and regulations or demand enormous sums in compensation, with the tribunal “empowered to order payment of unlimited government Treasury funds to foreign investors over TPP claims.”

Even under NAFTA, over $350 million has been paid by NAFTA-aligned governments to corporations for “barriers” to investment “rights,” including toxic waste dumps, logging rules, as well as bans on various toxic chemicals.

Because let’s be clear: for corporations, such regulations and concerns over health, safety and environmental issues are perceived solely as “barriers” to investment and profit. Thus their “government” would sue the foreign government on behalf of the corporation, on the premise that such regulations led to potential lost profits, for which the corporation should be compensated.

The TPP allows the corporations to directly sue the government in question. All of the TPP member countries, except for Australia, have agreed to adhere to the jurisdiction of this international tribunal, an unelected, anti-democratic and corporate-staffed kangaroo-court with legal authority over at least ten nations and their populations.

Further, TPP countries have not agreed on a set of obligations for corporations to meet in relation to health, labor or environmental standards, and thus a door is opened for corporations to obtain even more rights and privileges to plunder and exploit. Where corporate rights are extended, human and democratic rights are dismantled.

One of the most important areas in which the TPP has a profound effect is in relation to intellectual property rights, or copyright and patent laws. Corporations have been strong advocates of expanding intellectual property rights, namely, their intellectual property rights.

Pharmaceutical corporations are major proponents of these rights and are likely to be among the major beneficiaries of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. The pharmaceutical industry ensured that strong patent rules were included in the 1995 World Trade Organization agreement, but ultimately felt that those rules did not go far enough.

Dean Baker, writing in the Guardian, explained that stronger patent rules establish “a government-granted monopoly, often as long as 14 years, that prohibits generic competitors from entering a market based on another company’s test results that show a drug to be safe and effective.” Baker noted that such laws are actually “the opposite of free trade” since they “involve increased government intervention in the market” and “restrict competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.”

Essentially, what this means is that in poor countries where more people need access to life-saving drugs, and at cheaper cost, it would be impossible for companies or governments to manufacture and sell cheaper generic brands of successful drugs held by multinational corporate patents. Such an agreement would hand over a monopoly of price-controls to these corporations, allowing them to set the prices as they deem fit, thus making the drugs incredibly expensive and often inaccessible to the people who need them most.

As U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman correctly noted, “In many parts of the world, access to generic drugs means the difference between life and death.”

The TPP is expected to increase such corporate patent rights more than any other agreement in history. Generic drug manufacturers in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia would suffer. So would sales of larger generics manufacturers in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, which supply low-cost drugs to much of the world.

While the United States has given up the right to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical corporations (hence the exorbitant price for drugs purchased in the U.S.), countries like New Zealand and even Canada to a lesser extent negotiate drug prices in order to keep the costs down for consumers. The TPP will grant new negotiating privileges to corporations, allowing them to appeal decisions by governments to challenge the high cost of drugs or to go with cheap alternatives. Referring to these changes, the U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders’ Access to Medicines Campaign stated, “Bush was better than Obama on this.”

But that’s not all the TPP threatens: Internet freedom is also a major target.

The Council of Canadians and OpenMedia, major campaigners for Internet freedom, have warned that the TPP would “criminalize some everyday uses of the Internet,” including music downloads as well as the combining of different media works. OpenMedia warned that the TPP would “force service providers to collect and hand over your private data without privacy safeguards, and give media conglomerates more power to send you fines in the mail, remove online content – including entire websites – and even terminate your access to the Internet.”

Also advanced under the TPP chapter on intellectual property rights, new laws would have to be put in place by governments to regulate Internet usage. OpenMedia further warned that, from the leaked documents on intellectual property rights, “there can be heavy fines for average citizens online,” adding: “you could be fined for clicking on a link, people could be knocked off the Internet and web sites could be locked off.”

The TPP, warned OpenMedia founder Steve Anderson, “will limit innovation and free expression.” Under the TPP, there is no distinction between commercial and non-commercial copyright infringement. Thus, users who download music for personal use would face the same penalties as those who sell pirated music for profit.

Information that is created or shared on social networking sites could have Internet users fined, have their computers seized, their Internet usage terminated, or even get them a jail sentence. The TPP imposes a “three strikes” system for copyright infringement, where three violations would result in the termination of a household’s Internet access.

So, why all the secrecy? Corporate and political decision-makers study public opinion very closely; they know how to manipulate the public based upon what the majority think and believe. When it comes to “free trade” agreements, public opinion has forced negotiators into the darkness of back-room deals and unaccountable secrecy precisely because populations are so overwhelmingly against such agreements.

An opinion poll from 2011 revealed that the American public has – just over the previous few years – moved from “broad opposition” to “overwhelming opposition” toward NAFTA-style trade deals.

A major NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll from September of 2010 revealed that “the impact of trade and outsourcing is one of the only issues on which Americans of different classes, occupations and political persuasions agree,” with 86% saying that outsourcing jobs by U.S. companies to poor countries was “a top cause of our economic woes,” with 69% thinking that “free trade agreements between the United States and other countries cost the U.S. jobs.” Only 17% of Americans in 2010 felt that “free trade agreements” benefit the U.S., compared to 28% in 2007.

Because public opinion is strongly – and increasingly – against “free trade agreements,” secrecy is required in order to prevent the public from even knowing about, let alone actively opposing, agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And this, as U.S. Trade Representative Kirk explained, is a very “practical” reason for all the secrecy.

Part III of Marshall’s investigative series on the Trans-Pacific Partnership will appear Monday.

By Alan Hart

23 November, 2012

Alanhart.net

It’s too soon to know whether the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas will be more than a sticking plaster to be ripped off by more violence whether provoked by Israel or not, but while we wait for events to give us the answer, there is a good case for saying that under Netanyahu’s leadership the Zionist (not Jewish) state has suffered a significant defeat.

One small clue that Netanyahu and his leadership colleagues know this was a statement to the BBC this morning by Mark Regev, the prime minister’s Goebbels-like spin doctor. He said, “We didn’t want this escalation.” Even by Regev’s own standards that was a big, fat propaganda lie. It was to trigger the escalation that Netanyahu ordered the assassination of Hamas’s military chief. (It now seems more than reasonably clear that he was within an hour or so of signing an Egyptian-sponsored agreement for a prolonged truce when he was murdered).

The three main reasons for believing that Israel has suffered a significant defeat are these:

1. Israel did not get what it wanted and was demanding – an unconditional and unilateral ceasefire by Hamas.

2. Hamas’s isolation is over, ended. The Obama administration and European governments may still refuse to recognise Hamas and talk directly and openly to it, but they are as good as doing so when they engage with Egypt’s President Morsi.

3. President Obama had the good sense to realise that he can do business with the pragmatic Morsi.

In today’s Ha-aretz there is a fascinating and revealing account by Barak Ravid of what happened behind Netanyahu’s closed doors. The essence of it was that Defense Minister Barak “wanted it” (the truce on more or less Egypt’s terms); Foreign Minister Lieberman (who subsequently changed his mind) started out “demanding a ground invasion”; and Netanyahu “vacillated”.

My own speculation is that Netanyahu finally decided that it would be too costly for Israel in diplomatic and political terms to say “No” to Obama and many other leaders who insisted that Israel had to agree to a ceasefire on more or less Egypt and Hamas’s terms in order to prevent further de-stabilization in the region. (The extent to which Netanyahu was worried about the possible consequences for Israel of saying “No” was indicated by the fact that a few rockets were fired into Israel after the ceasefire came into effect, and Netanyahu did not allow himself to be provoked into responding with more bombs and missiles).

That said it is also the case that Netanyahu’s negotiators did create some wriggle room for their master. How so? The ceasefire document is not a binding agreement. It is a list of undertakings which are still to be worked out in detail and agreed. (It has to be acknowledged that Zionism is without equal in the business of finding ways not to honour commitments it makes in agreements).

There are three main and related questions arising.

The first is to what extent will Israel actually lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip?

The second is to what extent will Egypt succeed in preventing Hamas being re-armed by smuggling even if President Morsi has the will to succeed on this front where Mubarak failed? (The nuclear-armed Zionist state insists that it must be allowed to go on expanding its arsenal with the latest weapons, actually for offensive purposes, but Hamas must not have any weapons for defensive purposes).

The third is does Hamas have the ability to prevent violent Islamic fringe groups firing rockets into Israel? (It has to be said that its ability to do so has not been helped by the assassination of its military chief).

Another interesting question is this: What impact if any will Netanyahu’s acceptance of a ceasefire on more or less Egypt and Hamas’s terms have on his chances of emerging from Israel’s January election with a stronger than ever and unchallengeable coalition majority? According to a snap poll taken very soon after the ceasefire announcement, 70 per cent of Israel’s Jews said they were opposed to the deal, meaning, presumably, that Netanyahu was wrong to agree to it. If that is and remains the view of a majority, we can expect to see Netanyahu aligning himself even more closely with the forces of the truly fascist right between now and the election.

In a best case scenario the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas will last and life for the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip will improve, but the fundamental problem will remain – Israel’s on-going colonization and ethnic cleansing by stealth of the occupied West Bank, the proof that Zionism is not remotely interested in peace on terms the Palestinians could accept.

Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent. He is author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. He blogs at http://www.alanhart.net and tweets via http://twitter.com/alanauthor

By John Pilger

23 November, 2012

@ JohnPilger.com

In Peter Watkins’ remarkable BBC film, The War Game,which foresaw the aftermath of an attack on London with a one-megaton nuclear bomb, the narrator says: “On almost the entire subject of thermo-clear weapons, there is now practically total silence in the press, official publications and on TV. Is there hope to be found in this silence?”

The truth of this statement was equal to its irony. On 24 November, 1965, the BBC banned The War Game as “too horrifying for the medium of broadcasting”. This was false. The real reason was spelt out by the chairman of the BBC Board of Governors, Lord Normanbrook, in a secret letter to the Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Burke Trend.

“[The War Game] is not designed as propaganda,” he wrote, “it is intended as a purely factual statement and is based on careful research into official material… But the showing of the film on television might have a significant effect on public attitudes towards the policy of the nuclear deterrent.” Following a screening attended by senior Whitehall officials, the film was banned because it told an intolerable truth. Sixteen years later, the then BBC director-general, Sir Ian Trethowan, renewed the ban, saying that he feared for the film’s effect on people of “limited mental intelligence”. Watkins’ brilliant work was eventually shown in 1985 to a late-night minority audience. It was introduced by Ludovic Kennedy who repeated the official lie.

What happened to The War Game is the function of the state broadcaster as a cornerstone of Britain’s ruling elite. With its outstanding production values, often fine popular drama, natural history and sporting coverage, the BBC enjoys wide appeal and, according to its managers and beneficiaries, “trust”. This “trust” may well apply to Springwatch and Sir David Attenborough, but there is no demonstrable basis for it in much of the news and so-called current affairs that claim to make sense of the world, especially the machinations of rampant power. There are honourable individual exceptions, but watch how these are tamed the longer they remain in the institution: a “defenestration”, as one senior BBC journalist describes it.

This is notably true in the Middle East where the Israeli state has successfully intimidated the BBC into presenting the theft of Palestinian land and the caging, torturing and killing of its people as an intractable “conflict” between equals. Standing in the rubble from an Israeli attack, one BBC journalist went further and referred to “Gaza’s strong culture of martyrdom”. So great is this distortion that young viewers of BBC News have told Glasgow University researchers they are left with the impression that Palestinians are the illegal colonisers of their own country. The current BBC “coverage” of Gaza’s genocidal misery reinforces this.

The BBC’s “Reithian values” of impartiality and independence are almost scriptural in their mythology. Soon after the corporation was founded in the 1920s by Lord John Reith, Britain was consumed by the General Strike. “Reith emerged as a kind of hero,” wrote the historian Patrick Renshaw, “who had acted responsibly and yet preserved the precious independence of the BBC. But though this myth persisted it has little basis in reality… the price of that independence was in fact doing what the government wanted done. [Prime Minister Stanley] Baldwin… saw that if they preserved the BBC’s independence, it would be much easier for them to get their way on important questions and use it to broadcast Government propaganda.”

Unknown to the public, Reith had been the prime minister’s speech writer. Ambitious to become Viceroy of India, he ensured the BBC became an evangelist of imperial power, with “impartiality” duly suspended whenever that power was threatened. This “principle” has applied to the BBC’s coverage of every colonial war of the modern era: from the covered-up genocide in Indonesia and suppression of eyewitness film of the American bombing of North Vietnam to support for the illegal Blair/Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the now familiar echo of Israeli propaganda whenever that lawless state abuses its captive, Palestine. This reached a nadir in 2009 when, terrified of Israeli reaction, the BBC refused to broadcast a combined charities appeal for the people of Gaza, half of whom are children, most of them malnourished and traumatised by Israeli attacks. The United Nations Rapporteur, Richard Falk, has likened Israel’s blockade of Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto under siege by the Nazis. Yet, to the BBC, Gaza – like the 2010 humanitarian relief flotilla murderously attacked by Israeli commandos – largely presents a public relations problem for Israel and its US sponsor.

Mark Regev, Israel’s chief propagandist, seemingly has a place reserved for him near the top of BBC news bulletins. In 2010, when I pointed this out to Fran Unsworth, now elevated to director of news, she strongly objected to the description of Regev as a propagandist, adding, “It’s not our job to go out and appoint the Palestinean spokesperson”.

With similar logic, Unsworth’s predecessor, Helen Boaden, described the BBC’s reporting of the criminal carnage in Iraq as based on the “fact that Bush has tried to export democracy and human rights to Iraq”. To prove her point, Boaden supplied six A4 pages of verifiable lies from Bush and Tony Blair. That ventriloquism is not journalism seemed not to occur to either woman.

What has changed at the BBC is the arrival of the cult of the corporate manager. George Entwistle, the briefly-appointed director general who said he knew nothing about Newsnight’s false accusations of child abuse against a Tory grandee, is to receive £450,000 of public money for agreeing to resign before he was sacked: the corporate way. This and the preceding Jimmy Savile scandal might have been scripted for the Daily Mail and the Murdoch press whose self-serving hatred of the BBC has long provided the corporation with its “embattled” façade as the guardian of “public service broadcasting”. Understanding the BBC as a pre-eminent state propagandist and censor by omission – more often than not in tune with its right-wing enemies – is on no public agenda and it ought to be.

John Richard Pilger is an Australian journalist and documentary maker, based in London. He has twice won Britain’s Journalist of the Year Award, and his documentaries have received academy awards in Britain and the US

 

 

 

By Nour Samaha

22 November, 2012

@ Aljazeera.com

House of Hijazi family was hit and wiped out by Israeli missile, killing three members and seriously wounding the rest.

Palestinian mourners gather around the bodies of Foud Hijazi, 45, and his sons Suhaib, 2, and Mohammed, 4, killed in an Israeli strike, during their funeral at a mosque in the Jebaliya refugee camp, in Gaza Strip, Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012.

Gaza Strip: Fouad Hejazi Family Massacre

JABALIYA REFUGEE CAMP: “For a split second I thought it had struck our neighbour’s home. The next thing I know, I’m waking up in hospital,” said 19-year-old Nour Hijazi, lying in a hospital bed in Jabaliya’s Kamal Edwan Hospital with a shattered spine.

The Hijazi family, consisting of six boys and two girls, were sitting with their parents watching television on Monday evening when the Israeli missile hit their home, killing three of them, and seriously wounding the rest.

“I’m really angry and upset that my whole family were injured in this,” she said.

Nour, in her final year at school, has yet to be told that her two brothers, four-year-old Mohammad and two-year-old Suhaib, and her father Fouad, were killed in the air strike.

Suhaib’s identical twin Mosaab, sustained injuries but survived the attack. The other children; Sondoss, Osama, and Mustapha, all sustained serious injuries, and are currently undergoing treatment in various hospitals across Gaza City.

Nour’s younger brother, 17-year-old Ashraf, remembers when the missile struck the house.

“There was no warning, we just felt the entire house collapse around us,” he said from his hospital bed.

“I was stuck under the rubble. I heard the voices of our neighbours trying to pull us out,” he said. “There is no reason for them to have targeted us. We’re just normal residents.”

A statement released on Tuesday morning by the Israeli army summarising the attacks they perpetrated throughout the evening said: “The sites that were targeted have been positively identified by precise intelligence over the course of months.”

 

Nothing but sand and rubble

On Tuesday, there was nothing but sand and rubble left in the area where their home once stood.

Neighbours and other camp residents spent the day clearing up the debris and salvaging what few belongings were still lying around to give back to the remaining Hijazis once they come out of hospital.

As crowds of people continued to gather around the explosion site, Israeli drones could still be heard buzzing in the skies.

Every so often, the sounds of explosions in different parts of the city resonated through the streets, as children discussed among themselves whether they came from the Israeli navy ships or from the Israeli airplanes.

“Why is there a war on Gaza? It’s because the Israelis want our lands, right?” asked 14-year-old Hamza Abu Gamsar, a friend of the Hijazi boys. “Every year there is a war on Gaza.”

“These people are just civilians. Fouad worked as a security guard for a school, he had nothing to do with politics,” decried Hisham Salem, a neighbour whose front-door was blasted off its hinges because of the explosion.

Hisham and his family were in their own living room when the missile hit their neighbours. Two of his children, 11 years old and 12 years old, ran screaming to the corner of the room, almost trampling their two-month-old brother in panic.

“We never heard any bomb coming. We only heard the front door explode, and then saw a rush of flames come through the opening,” he said, pointing to the gaping entrance.

‘We will continue to resist’

They tried to get out, but were forced to retreat back to the room because the smoke was too strong. After a few minutes they forced their way through the smoke to reach outside. “We didn’t see any of the family. We just saw a pile of rubbish.”

He spent Tuesday with other neighbours piling up the Hijazis belongings in his home. “These are all we could find,” he said, about the pile of dusty clothing and ornaments.

When asked why his neighbour’s house was targeted, Hisham said, “Everyone in Gaza is a target. This is not about Hamas,” he said, adding this was not the first time the Hijazi family had been affected by Israeli attacks. In 2008, their eldest son was also killed by Israeli air strikes.

Pointing to where the Hijazi house once stood, Hisham went on to say, “You can see with your own eyes, there are no words. Just look.”

The death-toll continued to mount on Tuesday, bringing the total since it began a week ago to at least 131 killed, and several hundred more wounded. While the streets in Gaza City are now relatively empty, with most storefronts closed, residents remain resilient.

Moaqassim Al Digis, 10 years old, was a friend of the Hijazi boys. He described how they would play football together on the street next to the house, how the Hijazi children were friendly and sociable.

“Yet, we are not afraid of this war. Why not? Because we exist,” he said, standing atop the rubble of his friend’s house.

“We will be patient, but we will continue to resist. We will not give up, and we will not raise the white flag.”

From his hospital bed, Ashraf remained defiant. “God will take revenge for this, and we are asking for the resistance to keep going.”