Archives: Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Rifat Odeh Kassis

January 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Yoginder Sikand

20 January 2011
NewAgeIslam.com

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

-Martin Luther King Jr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress is expected to vote on the deal in February.

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

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

Watch a video of the action in Oakland, California.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday 17 January 2011

by: Rose Aguilar

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

It’s not impossible that Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah was right when he described the tribunal investigating the assassination of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005 as “an American and Israeli tool”. Though I myself see Israel’s military and political leaders as those with most to gain – I mean thinking they have most to gain – from a successful attempt to pin the blame on Hezbollah.

When their unopposed air force devastated large parts of Lebanon’s infrastructure (as well as Hezbollah’s headquarters area of Beirut) in 2006, Israel’s leaders thought that by doing so they would turn the Lebanese army and Christian and Sunni militias against Hezbollah. In other words, by massively punishing all of Lebanon, Israel’s leaders believed they could push the Lebanese army and Christian and Sunni militias into doing the Zionist state’s dirty work.

But once again Israeli strategy (state terrorism pure and simple) backfired. Israel’s 2006 war united the Lebanese (more or less) and Hezbollah came out of it stronger not weaker. (It’s worth remembering that Hezbollah would not have come into existence if Israel had not invaded Lebanon all the way to Beirut in 1982 and remained in occupation of the south. Just as Hamas would not have come into existence if Israel had been prepared to do the two-state business with Arafat).

Fast forward to today.

Israel’s leaders are itching to have another go at Hezbollah and hopefully destroy it. But there’s a problem. Hezbollah today is much better armed than it was in 2006. It has rockets and (some say) missiles, primarily for defense, but which could do a great deal of damage to and in Israel’s cities including Tel Aviv.

The soft underbelly of Israeli public opinion would not like that. For most Israeli Jews, wars are only great if they are relatively cost free in terms of casualties on their side. So if Hezbollah succeeded in making Israel pay a high price in terms of IDF forces and civilians killed and wounded, it’s by no means impossible that, for the first time ever, many Israeli Jews would seriously question their government’s policy of living by the sword.

From an Israeli leader’s perspective, that must not happen.

So before they go to war again, Israel’s leaders (and their unquestioning American allies) know they need to discredit Hezbollah in order to greatly improve the prospects of other Lebanese forces making effective common cause with Zionism to destroy Nasrallah and all he and his movement represent.

I must confess, and do so cheerfully, that one thing above all others has always puzzled me about the circumstances of the explosion that killed Rafik Hariri and 22 others. His wealth and contacts would have ensured the he had state of the art electronic protection when he was on the move. Taking it out or in some way neutralizing it surely had to be an inside job? (That’s a question not a statement). Who could have had the necessary access?

A Mossad agent? Very possible.

A CIA agent? Again, very possible.

A Hezbollah agent? Unlikely, or so it seems to me.

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

Investigating acts of terrorism have multiple complex issues as things are mired in secrecy. To add to the problem is the mindset of investigating authorities and those in power. The acts of terror, which have been inflicted on the country, have been mainly attributed to the “Jehadi Terror” and mostly the theory which has been guiding the police authorities has been to work on this understanding. The result has been; immediately after the attacks of terror the investigating authorities, right from day one, have been naming some Muslim groups, situated across the border, the infamous word of ‘cross border terrorism’ became a sort of buzz word. The link of those from across the border were easy enough to be sewed up with the local Muslim youth and according to the police some Muslims have been caught, arrested, ‘they have confessed’ to their crime, and the puzzle is solved, has been the oft repeated line from last few years.

Contrary to the common sense even when the terror attack took place in Muslim majority area, at times when Muslims congregate at particular times, the police very ‘competently’ would go in to arrest few Muslim youth and start building up their case implicating them in the act of terror. Those in political power, even in non-BJP states, and at center kept quietly approving this biased investigation and any doubts raised by social activists, victims of the police arrests were brushed aside.

The first major crack in this pattern occurred when in the aftermath of Malegaon blast, Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare meticulously showed the connection of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and many others from the Hindutva combine, associated with one or the other offshoot of RSS or inspired by the RSS ideology of Hindu nation, trained in the communal ideology of looking at people through the prism of their religion, and religion alone. Karkare’s efforts brought out enough skeletons from the cupboard of Hindutva stable and somewhere the stubborn police and the political authorities also started looking the other way leading to the plethora of organizations, broadly known as Sangh parivar. It is also a matter of great concern that same Hemant Karkare started being abused by Hindutva elements, intimidation and threat to his life began.

Incidentally Karkare was killed on the fateful night of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.

Karkar’s efforts did initiate a process of bringing the terror investigation on proper track. There were many a top RSS functionaries like Indresh Kumar, many an associates, the major one being Swami Aseemanand of VHP, Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram who started being investigated. Swami Aseemanand was known for his work in Adivasi areas in Dangs, where he whipped up the anti-Christian hysteria leading to anti Christian violence in the district. Same Aseemanand went on to organize a Shabri Kumbh in the area, for this Kumbh intimidation of Adivasis was in the air, they were terrorized to attend Kumbh and some were subjected to ‘Ghar Vapasi’, (return home, conversion to Hinduism). The highlight of the Kumbh was that the top RSS and associates leadership attended it along with the Swami. This Kumbh was also a sign of times, the part of anti Minority agenda of the Sangh.

Swami Aseemanand is in news again for having confessed to the metropolitan magistrate on 18th December 2010 about his and his colleague’s involvement in the acts of terror. As per him while the Jihad attack on Akshardham temple in 2002 created the feeling of revenge, this got crystallsed after the terrorist attack on Sankat mochan temple in Varanasi in 2006. After this tragic incident the Swami contacted the others from associated organizations and in a well planned move organized the terror attacks. Swami stated “We held a meeting at the Valsad residence of Bharat Bhai (Bharat Riteshwar) in June 2006. We planned to carry out blasts at places of worship for Muslims. Sandeep Dange, Bharat Bhai, Sadhvi Pragya, Sunil Joshi, Lokesh Sharma (arrested for Ajmer dargah blast), Ramji Kalsangra and one Amit attended the meeting. We decided to bomb Malegaon, Ajmer dargah, Mecca Masjid and the Samjhauta Express train. Joshi took the responsibility of doing areconnaissance of all these place.” (Times of India, 13 Jan 2011)

Now the detailed police investigation showed the involvement of Hindutva combine from Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur (ex- ABVP activist), Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, and Ret. Major. Upadhyay (was chief of BJPs ex-serviceman’s cell In Mumbai),, Swami Dayanand Pandey (RSS connection, mentor of Abhinav Bharat), Indresh Kumar (Member of RSS National executive) Sunil Joshi (RSS Prachark(later killed), Devender Gupta (RSS pracharak with Abhinav Bharat), Ramchndra Kalsangra and Sandeep Pandey and many others.

The confessions of swami have made many a points very clear. The first is that, right from the Nanded blast which took place in the house of RSS worker Rajkondawar, in which two Bajrang Dal workers died, the social activist raised the issue of involvement of Hindutva elements. On Nanded issue, a citizens committee also investigated the blast and raised serious issues related to the direction of investigation. Later in most of the blasts in Pabhani, Beed, Jalna another places in Maharashtra same pattern was observed. Social activists kept drawing the attention of Government and media, but their voices remained unheard for a long time. In addition to the attitude of police, the political leadership, even in non BJP states and at Center refused to take cognizance of the pattern of the blasts and the glaring fallacies in the line of investigation.

Large section of media kept quiet and underplayed the involvement of Hindutva elements. While most of the incidents did find the front page banner headlines about the involvement of Muslims, so called Jihadi groups, the voices of victims challenging the police version, and the findings of social activists were hardly any news, tucked in the back pages, presented in a subdued manner, if at all. During the whole process a large section of Muslim youth were tortured and many of them had to give up their education and professional carriers due to the line of investigation and the treatment from the state which was meted out to them.

On the top of this whole process the social thinking was cultivated to believe in the theory of ‘All Terrorists are Muslims’. Even today many a Muslim youth are behind the bars for the acts of terror, which as per Swami’s confession were planned and executed by Hindutva elements. Will Government take urgent steps to set right the ongoing injustice to the innocent youth who have been implicated due to the non professional and biased conduct of the state? The demand for their release and suitable compensation being given to them has to be taken up by the government in the right earnest.

What is to be done with the fountainhead of this ideology of Hate, the organization to which most of the groups owe allegiance, to which some of these are directly associated. the RSS? Many of those involved have been directly associated with RSS, others indirectly and RSS can very conveniently say that it has nothing to do with them. For RSS disowning any of its activists is a very easy job. It is not legally responsible for the associated organizations, as they are autonomous on paper. Those who have been directly a part of RSS have been expelled and disowned. RSS chief has said that RSS has no place for those indulging in violence. Legally RSS cannot be and should not be taken to task as RSS has kept its structure so fluid that it can get all the violence done, while keeping its shirt clean from the blood stains.

The demand for banning RSS has no meaning. It was banned in the wake of Gandhi murder, during the emergency and after the demolition of Babri Masjid. Banning organizations does not help. The point is to take up the battle at ideological plane, at social and political level. And that is a challenging task as RSS has been consistently spreading its ideology through various conduits and lately school books and large section of media has been the major vehicle of spread of its ideology. Its ideology is being given the religious veneer by the ilk of Swami Aseemanand, Laxmananand and other saints who are using the language of religion to propagate their political ideology and agenda.

All those who stand for a democratic society with the concept of Human rights need to come together and take multiple programs to combat the religion based nationalism, and politics laced in the language of religion, which is the major cause of the terrorism, as practiced by the likes of Osama bin laden or Swami Aseemanand.

Ram Puniyani

20 January 2011

Merriam-Webster defines racism as “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.” It was the basis of South African apartheid and Nazi “master race” superiority above others, especially Jews.

Israel has no constitution. Basic Laws substitute, including statutes affirming exclusive rights for Jews. One is the right of return, granting them automatic citizenship. Goyim are denigrated and not wanted, especially Arabs. David Ben-Gurion once said:

“This is not only a Jewish state, where the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, but a state for all Jews, wherever they are, and for every Jew who wants to be here….This right is inherent in being a Jew.” It applies to no one else.

Israel’s Law of Citizenship or Nationality Law establishes rules so stringent against non-Jews that many Palestinians in 1948 were denied citizenship, despite family roots going back generations or longer.

On May 5, 2007, Professor Joseph Maddad’s Palestine Remembered.com article headlined, “Israel’s Right to Be Racist,” discussed a “New anti-Semitism,” saying:

“Anti-Semitism is no longer the hatred of and discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group; in the age of Zionism, we are told, anti-Semitism has metamorphosed into something that is more insidious. Today, Israel and its Western defenders insist genocidal anti-Semitism consists mainly of any attempt to take away and to refuse to uphold the absolute right of Israel to be a Jewish racist state.”

Israel will do anything to convince Arabs why it deserves to be racist, he said. It also makes peace provisional on “Palestinians ‘recogniz(ing) its right to exist’ as a racist state,” meaning, at best, they’ll be tolerated as lesser beings provided they accept inferiority and remain submissive, relinquishing all rights in return for nothing.

By any standard, racism, xenophobia, and supremacism notions are abhorrent. They have no place in civil societies, especially ones claiming democratic credentials. Tolerance is the very essence of democracy, accepting beliefs other than our own. Gandhi once said:

“A democracy prejudiced, ignorant, superstitious, will land itself in chaos and may be self-destroyed….The truest test of democracy is in the ability of anyone to act as he likes, so long as he does not injure the life or property of anyone else….If we want to cultivate a true spirit of democracy, we cannot afford to be intolerant. Intolerance betrays want of faith in one’s cause.” Democracy is “impossible until power is shared by all.”

Indoctrinating Israeli Children to Hate

“You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught” was a memorable Rogers and Hammerstein song from their 1949 musical, “South Pacific,” saying:

“You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear. From year to year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear…. You’ve got to be taught to be afraid of people whose eyes are oddly made, and people whose skin is a different shade. You’ve got to be carefully taught. You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late. Before you are six or seven or eight. To hate all the people your relatives hate. You’ve got to be carefully taught!”

Tel Aviv University’s Professor Daniel Bar-Tal studied dozens of elementary, middle, and high school texts on grammar, Hebrew literature, history, geography and citizenship. They justify Israel’s right to wage humanitarian wars against Arabs who won’t accept or acknowledge exclusive Jewish rights, saying:

“The early textbooks tended to describe acts of Arabs as hostile, deviant, cruel, immoral, unfair, with the intention to hurt Jews and to annihilate the State of Israel. Within this frame of reference, Arabs were delegitimized by the use of such labels as ‘robbers,’ ‘bloodthirsty,’ and ‘killers,’ adding that little positive revision occurred through the years with mischaracterizations like tribal, vengeful, exotic, poor, sick, dirty, noisy, colored, and “they burn, murder, destroy, and are easily inflamed.”

At the same time, Jews are called industrious, brave, and determined to handle difficulties of “improving the country in ways they believe the Arabs are incapable of.” Moreover, “(t)his attitude served to justify the return of the Jews, implying that they care enough about the country to turn the swamps and deserts into blossoming farmland; this effectively delegitimizes the Arab claim to the same land.”

Vilifying Arabs in Israeli Textbooks

Israeli children are well taught. In the Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) winter 2007 edition, Ismael Abu-Saad headlined his article, “The portrayal of Arabs in textbooks in the Jewish school system in Israel,” saying:

Approved Jewish textbooks use three primary themes to portray them:

— orientalism as a politically loaded, derogatory characterization of eastern as opposed to a superior Western (occidental) culture;

— “the Zionist mission to build a Jewish nation-state in Palestine….; and

— “an Israeli-Jewish frame of mind determined by a victim or siege mentality.”

Zionists believe Palestine belongs exclusively to Jews, based on biblical notions of being its original inhabitants despite the illogic and falseness of that premise. Nonetheless, Israeli textbooks teach about a “land without people for a people without land,” that Jews arrived and made the desert bloom, and God promised Israel solely to Jews.

Hebrew University’s Eli Podeh describes “a tradition of depicting Jewish history as an uninterrupted record of anti-Semitism and persecution.” Moreover, Arabs are portrayed as violent. As a result, dehumanization, denigration, and Israeli force against them are legitimized. So is teaching children hate in textbooks, starting when they’re too young to understand how their minds are being manipulated.

Israel’s Ministry of Education sets curricula guidelines and content, reflecting Jewish ethnocentrism and superiority toward Arab society and culture. As conflicts erupted, they were called the enemy the way Yoram Bar-Gal described as a:

“negative homogeneous mob that threatens, assaults, destroys, eradicates, burns and shoots. (They’re) haters of Israel, who strive to annihilate the most precious symbols of Zionism: vineyards, orange groves, orchards and forests. Arabs (are) viewed as ungrateful. (Zionism) brought progress to the area and helped to overcome the desolation, and thus helped to advance” Arabs as well as Jews. Instead of being thankful, “they respond with destruction and ruin.”

From establishment in 1948, Jewish textbooks taught these notions, portraying Arabs negatively, saying they’re illegal intruders having no place on Jewish land. “The ‘mythologizing’ of the historical curriculum perpetuates the image of the Arab, and the Palestinian Arab in particular, as an ahistorical, irrational enemy.”

It’s been “instrumental in explicitly and implicitly constructing racist and threatening stereotypes and a one-sided historical narrative that (through education) is internalized in the Jewish Israeli psyche” from a very young age.

Truth and balance are totally absent. Arabs are vilified for not being Jews, a superior people. Logic and tolerance aren’t parts of the equation. In November 2001, an unnamed Netanya Jewish newspaper wrote about an elementary school celebration under the headline, “Arabs are used to killing.” Textbooks and children’s literature are filled with stories about violent, dirty, cruel, and ignorant Arabs wanting to harm Jews. They vilify and dehumanize them as thieves, murderers, robbers, spies, arsonists, criminals, terrorists, kidnappers, and the “cruel enemy.”

Dozens of books use delegitimizing labels, including inhuman, war lovers, monsters, bloodthirsty, dogs, wolves of prey and vipers. Kids are taught this. How can they know it’s hateful and false, so they internalize and act on these ideas later as adults.

One characterization portrayed Bedouins as “primitive being(s), at home in the untamed natural setting of the fearsome desert. (They’re) exotic figure(s), full of mystery, intrigue, impulsive violence and instinctive survival.”

Noted Israeli literary figures, like Amos Oz, write this way. In his 1965 “Nomads and the Viper,” he described how Bedouin nomads brought devastation to a kibbutz, including foot-and-mouth disease, destruction of cultivated fields, and theft. He dramatized the chasm separating lawful agricultural settlers and primitive Bedouins, and that trying to cross it would be dangerous or fatal. In other words, associating with Arabs risks contaminating Jews.

Abu-Saad concluded saying:

“One can only question whether the currently delegitimizing, discriminatory and antagonistic stance of the state of Israel vis-a-vis its Palestinian Arab citizens is indeed, in the long-term interest of the State, whose ideology and mythology notwithstanding, is in fact a multi-ethnic state, with an indigenous minority that makes up nearly one-fifth of the population.”

Israel’s curriculum must change. Hate must be expunged. Arabs must be allowed to represent themselves and their culture rather than accept false dehumanization and vilification characterizations for not being Jews. A 17-year old Jerusalem high school student, Daniel Banvolegyi, once said:

“Our books basically tell us that everything the Jews do is fine and legitimate and Arabs are wrong and violent and are trying to exterminate us. We are accustomed to hearing the same thing, only one side of the story. They teach us that Israel became a state in 1948 and that the Arabs started a war. They don’t mention what happened to the Arabs. They never mention anything about refugees or Arabs having to leave their towns and homes.”

Claims of Incitement and Hate in Palestinian Textbooks

In November 2001, Professor Nathan J. Brown’s Adam Institute “Democracy, History, and the Contest over the Palestinian Curriculum,” explained:

“(T)he Palestinian curriculum is not a war curriculum; while highly nationalistic, it does not incite hatred, violence, and anti-Semitism. It cannot be described as a ‘peace curriculum’ either, but the charges against it are often wildly exaggerated or inaccurate….”

First generation 1994 National Education textbooks said practically nothing about Israel, and, with few exceptions, weren’t pejorative. Beginning in 2000, second generation books touched sensitive areas but not with the stridency that critics claim.

Virtually all incitement charges stem from the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, claiming to “encourage the development and fostering of peaceful relations” through tolerance and mutual respect. In fact, its real purpose is attacking the Palestinian Authority (PA) while ignoring incendiary Israeli texts. It’s also linked to extremist, racist Israeli groups, advocating settlement expansions, land theft, dispossessions, hate-mongering, and violence.

A June 2004 Israel/Palestinian Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) report titled, “Analysis and Evaluation of the New Palestinian Curriculum” concluded that:

“There is….no indication of hatred of the Western Judeo-Christian tradition or the values associated with it.” In fact, “the textbooks promote an environment of open-mindedness, rational thinking, modernization, critical reflection and dialogue.” They also “promote civil activity, commitment, responsibility, solidarity, respecting others’ feelings, respecting and helping people with disabilities, and….reinforce students’ understanding of the values of civil society such as respecting human dignity; religious, social, cultural, racial, ethnic, and political pluralism; personal, social and moral responsibility; transparency and accountability.”

Palestinian enmity stems from occupation harshness, including denial of peace, self-determination, freedom, equity and justice, and other basic rights. Yet textbook-expressed anger is moderate compared to Palestinian suffering and vilification teachings. The differences are stark.

A Final Comment

It’s a short leap from demonizing to calls for extermination. Yet extremist pro-settler rabbis advocate it, according to a January 2011 article in the Orthodox Fountains of Salvation. It suggests Israel will create death camps to solve its Palestinian problem, eliminating them like Amalek or Amalekites, code for Palestinians and other perceived Jewish enemies. The offending paragraph states:

“It will be interesting to see whether (the politically correct rabbis) leave the assembly of the Amalekites in extermination camps to others, or whether they will declare that wiping (them out) is no longer (historically) relevant. Only time will tell….”

Right-wing Orthodox rabbis are behind this publication, founded by the former Safed chief rabbi, whose son currently holds the position and who circulated the above material. Also involved is Ramat Gan’s chief rabbi as well as Rabbi Avinar, suspected of abusing a woman who sought his spiritual advice. Each holds paid government sinecures, showing the link between official zealotry and their own, extremist enough to call for genocide.

Another note: On January 18 from the West Bank, Russian President Dmity Medvedev joined a growing list of countries endorsing a Palestinian state with an East Jerusalem capital. However, he stopped short of official recognition, saying Moscow recognized independence in 1988 and wasn’t changing the former Soviet Union’s position.

To date, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Uruguay, Ecuador, Chile, Paraguay, France, Norway, Guyana, and now Russia recognized, will recognize, or endorsed Palestinian statehood. Though largely symbolic, it shows growing unease with Israel’s occupation, harder than ever to justify the more opposition builds globally. It’s just a matter of time before justifying it no longer is possible as Edward Said suggested in a July 13, 2001 article, titled “Israel Sharpens Its Axe,” saying:

As “long as there is a military occupation of Palestine by Israel, there can never be peace. Occupation with tanks, soldiers, checkpoints and settlements is violence” that becomes harder to justify as more people understand. Their numbers and anger grow daily.

By Stephen Lendman

19 January, 2011

Countercurrents.org

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

You’d think the U.S. was already at war with China, given the immense amount of anti-China rhetoric spouting from the government and media. But selling wars takes time. The average American hasn’t bought in to this false advertising yet.  So the big lie will be repeated until its roots are deeply sunk into the American psyche: China, says the U.S. government, is a threat that needs to be “dealt with.”

This propaganda assault is multi-faceted, taking aim from all directions. Any China-related issue — military, economic, and social — is open for attack. For example, the head of the U.S. Department of Defense, Robert Gates, recently visited Asia and focused much of his trip talking about China as a “military threat.”

What is this threat? Gates answers that China has shown a “rapid buildup of military capability,” proven by its production of a “stealth fighter.” The U.S. media had a field day with this news, intending to sow terror in the psyche of the American public.

A quick glance at the numbers reveals that Mr. Gates and the unquestioning U.S. media are unabashed hypocrites: China is nowhere near the U.S. when it comes to military expenditures:  the U.S., under Obama, will spend $725 billion in 2011(!), while China will spend $80 billion.

When it comes to overseas military bases, China has zero; the U.S. has at least 737!

While Gates was traveling throughout Asia on his Chinese provocation tour, Hillary Clinton joined the attack, targeting China’s human rights record in a lengthy, inflammatory speech, which included this slight:

“… when China lives up to its obligations of respecting and protecting universal human rights, it will not only benefit more than one billion people, it will also benefit the long-term peace, stability and prosperity of China.”

Yes, China is a violator of human rights, but in voicing her criticism Mrs. Clinton managed to raise the bar of hypocrisy to new heights.

Has Clinton forgotten that Guantanamo Bay remains open, filled with tortured people who are charged with no crimes? Has she forgotten that Bagram Air base in Afghanistan continues to deny the International Red Cross access to its “black site” detention center, since they would discover the torture chambers described by ex-detainees? Need we mention Bradley Manning, who remains in solitary confinement without any criminal charges, for allegedly informing the American public about U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and all kinds of secret machinations?

But before Clinton’s speech became yesterday’s news, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner provided anti-China reinforcements, this time blasting China’s economy. The Washington Post reports:

“China’s unwillingness to allow its currency to rise in value is hampering U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace and harming the Chinese economy, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said Wednesday… ” (January 12, 2011).

Once again, utter hypocrisy.  No single government has caused more damage to the global economy than the United States, whose corporations sparked the global downturn by saturating the world with trillions of dollars in fraudulent housing mortgages sold as top-rated investments.

This policy was encouraged by the U.S. government, which gave the corporations cheap money with little oversight, a strategy that continues to this day with the Federal Reserve printing dollars non-stop that U.S. corporations are using to speculate on foreign currencies and drive the prices up of oil and other raw materials worldwide.

The above-mentioned Obama administration officials have no problem peddling their anti-China bias to the U.S. media, which stumble over themselves to provide assistance whenever possible. The New York Times recently published an editorial entitled, The Real Problem With China:

“For the United States, the No.1 problem with China’s economy is probably intellectual property theft.” (January 12, 2011).

In reality, the real problem that the U.S. government has with China is two-fold: China’s growth is pushing aside U.S. influence/power all over the world, which has negative influence on the profits of U.S. corporations, which are losing contracts to Chinese companies.

In response, the U.S. is provoking China in the media and militarily, encircling China by arming U.S. allies in the region, especially India, Japan and South Korea. Hillary Clinton responded to this allegation by denying it, while the Obama administration immediately contradicted her by its actions. The New York Times published an article addressing the issue while failing to connect the dots:

“The United States is not bent on containing China, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday, but the Obama administration is cultivating other allies across Asia to help it manage Beijing’s increasingly bold projection of military and economic power.” (January 12, 2011).

This policy of encirclement and provocation can easily lead to war. As Obama continues to tighten the noose while China struggles to squirm its neck free, the odds grow that military “incidents” may happen, especially as the U.S. throws additional military force in waters just off China’s coast in the South China Sea.

The Obama administration joins the right wing in trying to blame both the recession and the startling U.S. inequality in wealth on China. The real culprits are the corporate friendly politicians in the Democratic and Republican parties, which have both spent decades cutting taxes for the rich and corporations, while encouraging the wealthy to flee the U.S. and its living wage jobs for the third world, where slave wages equal larger profits.

The best way for working people to deal with this situation is to ignore the anti-China hype and focus their fire on the U.S. government and U.S. corporations. Demanding jobs from the government NOW that are paid for by taxing the rich is the best way to overcome the economic problems of the U.S.  Working people cannot be distracted by fake overseas threats, whether they are alleged terrorists or foreign governments. The real threat continues to be closer to home.

17 January, 2011

Countercurrents.org

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action. He can be reached at shamuscook@gmail.com

Following the controversy (*) caused by the Final Declaration of the Conference of Solidarity with Palestine, held in November 2010 in Stuttgart under the title “One Democratic State in Palestine with Equal Rights for all its Citizens “, Ilan Pappe emphasizes here the importance and relevance of this statement which represents a paradigm shift.

Recently the organizers of the Stuttgart conference and especially those who signed the Stuttgart declaration came under sever criticism from various writers and politicians in Germany and were exposed at time even to typical German center left abrasive language.

Setting aside the insignificant aspects of the dialogue – the style and the bizarre focus on one particular person who signed the declaration – it is important to stress the main issues and the principal points that made this conference such a significant contribution to the struggle for Palestine.

The scene of activism in the struggle of Palestine has an orthodoxy on the one hand, and a new challenging movement, on the other. The Orthodoxy based its vision of peace on a two states solution and on a deep conviction that a change from with the Israeli society, through the ’peace camp’ there, will bring about an equitable solution. Two fully sovereign states would live next to each other and would also agree on how to solve the Palestine refugee problem and will decide jointly what kind of a Jerusalem there would be. It also included a wish to see Israel more of a state of all its citizens and less as a Jewish state – but nonetheless retaining its Jewish character.

This vision was clearly based on the wish to help the Palestinians on the one hand and on realpolitic considerations on the other. It was and is driven by over sensitivity for the wishes and ambitions of the powerful Israeli party and by exaggerated consideration for the international balance of power and in particular it is calculated in a way that would fit the basic American position and stances on the issue. It is however a sincere position and in this respect it is different from the position of the political elites of the West which were much more cynical when they pushed forward a softer version of this Orthodox view – these politicians knew and still know that this discourse and plan allows Israel to continue uninterrupted the dispossession of Palestine and the Palestinians and is not in any way a credible formula for ending the colonization of Palestine.

This orthodox view has slowly vanished from the scene of activism. The official peace camp in Israel, and the Liberal Zionist organizations worldwide still subscribe to it – as do the more leftist politicians in Germany and Europe. In some ways, dear friends such as Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky still endorse it in the name of realpolitic and efficiency.

But the vast majority of activists had enough. The emergence of the BDS movement, through the call for such action by the Palestinian civil society inside and outside of Palestine, the growing interests and support for the one state solution and the emergence of a clearer, be it as small, anti Zionist peace camp in Israel, have provided an alternative thinking.

The new movement which is supported by activists all around the world, inside Israel and Palestine, is modeled on the anti-Apartheid solidarity movement. The whole of Palestine is an area that was and is colonized, and occupied in one way or form by Israel and in it Palestinians are subject to various legal and oppressive regimes and therefore the need is to change fundamentally the reality on the ground before it would be too late.

In other words we have witnessed a paradigm shift represented in this new activism (which of course has many elements of old ideas drawn from the PLO 1968 charter and activist groups such as Abna al-Balad, Matzpen, the PFLP and PDFLP which are updated to the current reality and which were deserted in 1993 in the name of realpolitic). The new paradigm insists on analyzing Israel as a settler colonialist state of the 21st century whose ideology is the main and principal obstacle for peace and seeks peaceful means of changing this regime for the sake of everyone living there and those who were expelled from there.

Activism for the sake of activism is useless. It has to be based on an analysis and suggest a prognosis. For this work activism for the sake of activism is useless it has to be connected to a clear analysis and prognosis. Zionism was and is a settler colonialist movement and Israel is a settler colonialist state and as long as this stay like this, even withdrawal from part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the creation of a Bantustan there would not end the dispossession and the ethnic cleansing that began in 1948. Bantustans did not end Apartheid in South Africa.

The new movement, in which the meeting in Stuttgart, was an important landmark, is galvanizing OUTSIDE support for Palestine and the Palestinians. It is not, and can not, be concerned with the question of Palestinian representation – this can only be resolved by the Palestinians themselves, or how best is for the Israeli Jews to accept the responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and how to move on to a different future where both Arabs and Jews can live together. But in Stuttgart, especially on the podium there was a sizable representation for both Palestinians and Israelis and therefore the declaration wisely describe both their aspirations, supported morally by others, and an outline for action in Europe for bringing an end for the dispossession of Palestine – not just in small parts of it.

It is not ridiculous to aspire for a regime change in Israel; it is not naïve to envision a state where everyone is equal and it is not unrealistic to work for the unconditional return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes. Moreover, such wishes do not obstruct the struggle against the current daily Israeli abuses in the land of Palestine; on the contrary, it gives the only possible rational explanation why we should oppose with the same commitment and moral force the demolition of houses in Jerusalem, in the Negev and in the Gaza Strip.

Stuttgart was a station, and the train continues now elsewhere to campuses in America, Churches in England and union halls in Europe. Hopefully it will get to synagogues as well and there is no need to confuse the struggle against Zionism, with anything else. This is as it is a formidable ideology, with a state and an army that harmed not only Palestinians but also Jews wherever they are, including in Israel.

We should thank the organizers, sign the declaration, and move on. Palestine can not wait for the internal German misgivings and inhibitions. We should boycott, sanction and divest as this is the only way forward for us from the outside so that both peoples in the inside would have fair chance to build a better future.

By Ilan Pappé

17 January, 2011

Silviacattori.net

Ilan Pappé, Israeli historian, Professor of History at the University of Exeter (UK), has written many books and works with local and international journals. He is the author of : “The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict” (London and New York 1992), “The Israel/Palestine Question” (London and New York 1999), “La storia della Palestina moderna” (Einaudi 2004), “The Modern Middle East” (London and New York 2005) and “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” (2006).

(*) The Final Declaration of the Conference was strongly criticized (“Zur „Vision“ einer Einstaatenlösung im Nahen Osten”) by Dr Ludwig Watzal who had not participated in the Conference. The Stuttgart Palestinian Committee has responded to this criticism in a letter entitled .“Wer verschanzt sich eigentlich hinter dogmatischen Barrieren?” (“Who is really hiding behind dogmatic barriers?”).)

Malcolm X, speaking at a rally of the Organisation of Afro-American Unity in 1964, described Patrice Emery Lumumba as “the greatest black man who ever walked the African continent. He didn’t fear anybody. He had those people [the colonialists] so scared they had to kill him. They couldn’t buy him, they couldn’t frighten him, they couldn’t reach him.”

This was three years after Lumumba was assassinated by Belgian mercenaries in the breakaway state of Katanga (southern Congo ).

Why was Lumumba killed? Because he was a relentless, dedicated, intelligent, passionate anti-colonialist, Pan-Africanist and Congolese nationalist; because he had the unstinting support of the Congolese masses; because he stood in the way of Belgium ‘s plan to transform Congo from a colony into a neo-colony.

Until the mid-1950s, the nationalist movement had been dominated by the small Congolese middle class. It was not a radical movement; it was composed of clerical workers, mid-level army officers, supervisors and so on, who were getting a cut of the enormous profits Belgium was making out of Congo . They opposed direct colonialism in the sense that they disliked white rule and were sick of being second class citizens in their own country; however, the basic economic institutions of colonialism suited them quite well. They were scared by the Congolese masses – the peasants, the workers, who worked in slave-like conditions for a pittance, and who bore the brunt of the famines and the genocidal actions of the colonisers.

The masses wanted control. They wanted the Belgians out, not just moved from the front seat to the back seat. They didn’t want white oppressors to be replaced with black oppressors; they wanted freedom and justice; they wanted democracy; they wanted nationalisation; they wanted to be listened to; they wanted to rule.

Lumumba was the key figure in mobilising these masses. Joining the nationalist movement around 1955, he quickly grew disillusioned with the middle class elite and addressed himself to the most oppressed sections of society. The peasants and workers of Congo were constantly radicalising him. He developed a clear strategy for total decolonisation, to be brought about on the basis of broad political action by the masses.

In 1958, he and others formed the broad-based Mouvement National Congolais (MNC), which immediately established itself as the key organisation in the struggle against colonial rule.

The Belgians and their friends in the ‘international community’ were shocked by the pace of development of the nationalist movement. In the mid-1950s, Belgium – which had exercised the most vicious, murderous, plunderous rule over Congo – was confident that it would retain its African colony for at least another century. However, by 1959, the MNC had gained such popularity and credibility that the Belgians knew their time was up.

But they had a backup plan: to replace traditional colonialism (white rule, backed by a military occupation) with neo-colonialism (black rule in white interests, backed with Belgian money, advisers and mercenaries). That way, Belgium ‘s theft of Congo ‘s sumptuous natural wealth (including massive reserves of coltan, diamonds, copper, zinc and cobalt) would continue uninterrupted.

Reading the writing on the wall, the Belgians decided to grant independence much sooner than anybody was expecting, in the hope that they would prevent the further growth of the nationalist movement; that it would be denied the chance to develop a coherent organisational structure and would therefore be heavily reliant on Belgium ‘s assistance. However, Lumumba had rallied the best elements of the nationalist movement around him and clearly had no intention of capitulating.

At the independence day celebrations on 30 June 1960 , Belgian King Baudouin made it perfectly clear that he expected Belgium to have a leading role in determining Congo ‘s future. In his speech, he chose not to mention such unpleasant moments in history as the murder by Belgian troops of 10 million Congolese in 20 years for failing to meet rubber collection quotas. Instead he advised the Congolese to stay close to their Belgian ‘friends’:   “Don’t compromise the future with hasty reforms, and don’t replace the structures that Belgium hands over to you until you are sure you can do better… Don’t be afraid to come to us. We will remain by your side and give you advice.”

He and his cohort were therefore shocked when Lumumba, newly elected as Prime Minister, took the stage and told his countrymen that   “no Congolese worthy of the name will ever be able to forget that it is by struggle that we have won [our independence], a struggle waged each and every day, a passionate idealistic struggle, a struggle in which no effort, privation, suffering, or drop of our blood was spared.”

Referring clearly to Belgium , Lumumba stated that   “we will count not only on our enormous strength and immense riches but on the assistance of numerous foreign countries whose collaboration we will accept if it is offered freely and with no attempt to impose on us an alien culture of no matter what nature” .

Lumumba, caring nothing for being polite to the Belgian dignitaries in the audience, concluded: “Glory to the fighters for national liberation! Long live independence and African unity! Long live the independent and sovereign Congo !”

Ludo de Witte writes of this historic speech:   “Lumumba [spoke] in a language the Congolese thought impossible in the presence of a European, and those few moments of truth feel like a reward for eighty years of domination. For the first time in the history of the country, a Congolese has addressed the nation and set the stage for the reconstruction of Congolese history. By this one act, Lumumba has reinforced the Congolese people’s sense of dignity and self confidence.”   (The Assassination of Lumumba)

The Belgians, along with the other colonialist nations, were horrified at Lumumba’s stance. The western press was filled with words of venom aimed at this humble but brilliant man – a man who dared to tell Europe that Africa didn’t need it. The French newspaper ‘La Gauche’ noted that “the press probably did not treat Hitler with as much rage and virulence as they did Patrice Lumumba.”

In the first few months of independence, Belgium and its western allies busied themselves whipping up all kinds of political and regional strife; this led to pro-Belgium armies being set up in the regions of Katanga and Kasai and declaring those regions to be independent states. This was of course a massive blow to the new Congolese state. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Belgians (along with their friends in France and the US , and with the active support of the UN leadership) developed plans for a coup d’etat that would remove Lumumba from power. This was effected on 14 September, not even three months after independence.

But even under house arrest, Lumumba was a dangerous threat to colonial interests. He was still providing leadership to the masses of Congolese people, and he still had the support of the majority of the army. Therefore the Belgians connived with the CIA and with their Uncle Tom stooges in Congo to murder Lumumba. That Belgium is most responsible for Lumumba’s death is amply proven in Ludo De Witte’s book, The Assassination of Lumumba. Furthermore, the UN leadership was complicit, in the sense that it could very easily have put a stop to this murderous act.

Lumumba, along with three other leading nationalists, was assassinated by firing squad (led by white Belgian officials in the Katangan police force), after several days of beatings and torture.

When the news of Lumumba’s murder broke, there was outrage around the world, especially in Africa and Asia . Demonstrations were organised in dozens of capital cities. In Cairo , thousands of protesters stormed the Belgian embassy, tore down King Baudouin’s portrait and put Lumumba’s up in its place, and then proceeded to burn down the building.

Sadly, with Lumumba and other leading nationalists out of the way, the struggle for Congo ‘s freedom suffered a severe setback which was not to be reversed for over three decades.

There are a lot of important lessons to learn from this key moment in the history of anti-colonial struggle; lessons that many people have not yet fully taken on board. As Che Guevara said: “We must move forward, striking out tirelessly against imperialism. From all over the world we have to learn lessons which events afford. Lumumba’s murder should be a lesson for all of us.”

To this day, western governments and media organisations use every trick in the book to divide and rule oppressed people, to stir up strife, to create smaller states that can be more easily controlled. To this day, they use character assassination as a means of ‘justifying’ their interventions against third world governments – just look at how they painted Aristide in Haiti, or how they paint Chavez, Castro and many others. To this day, ‘UN intervention’ often means intervention on the side of the oppressors. To this day, the intelligence services use every illegal and dishonest means to destabilise and cause confusion. We all fall for these tricks far too often.

On the bright side, the past decade has been one of historic advances; advances that point the way towards a different and much brighter future. The political, economic, military and cultural dominance of imperialism is starting to wane. As Seumas Milne pointed out at the recent Equality Movement meeting, the war on terror has exposed the limits of western military power. Meanwhile, the economic crisis has started to discredit the entire neoliberal model. The rise of China, the wave of progressive change in Latin America, the emergence of other important third world players – these all indicate a very different future.

In Congo itself, progress is being made, although it often seems frustratingly slow (principally because the west is still sponsoring armies in support of its economic interests). But, as De Witte writes, “the crushing weight of the [Mobutu] dictatorship has been shaken off”. We can’t overstate the importance of this step.

As we all move forward together against imperialism, colonialism and racism, we should keep Lumumba’s legacy in our hearts and minds.

“Neither brutal assaults, nor cruel mistreatment, nor torture have ever led me to beg for mercy, for I prefer to die with my head held high, unshakable faith and the greatest confidence in the destiny of my country rather than live in slavery and contempt for sacred principles. History will one day have its say; it will not be the history taught in the United Nations, Washington, Paris, or Brussels, however, but the history taught in the countries that have rid themselves of colonialism and its puppets. Africa will write its own history and both north and south of the Sahara it will be a history full of glory and dignity … I know that my country, now suffering so much, will be able to defend its independence and its freedom. Long live the Congo ! Long live Africa ! ” (Lumumba’s last letter to his wife, Pauline).

By Carlos Martinez

17 January, 2011

BeatKnowledge.org

Carlos Martinez is a London-based political analyst who focuses on issues on racism and culture, and runs the website  Beat Knowledge