Archives: Articles

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

Food prices have hit record highs due to a string of crop failures together with an upsurge in speculation, resulting in rising living costs.

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization recently announced that the food price index has now broken a previous record set in 2008, when food prices nearly doubled over the course of 18 months, leading to popular upheavals in dozens of countries.

Rising food prices, which have shot up 25 percent in the past year, have precipitated riots and demonstrations in Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Jordan, Mozambique and Yemen in recent weeks.

Skyrocketing costs were a contributing factor in the popular upsurge in Tunisia that toppled the dictatorship of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali last week. In Algeria, at least three people have been killed in clashes with police after the government slashed food subsidies.

Over the past year, the commodity food price index for corn has risen 52 percent, for wheat 49 percent and for soybeans 28 percent. Non-staple cash crops have also risen dramatically, with coffee up by 53 percent and cotton 119 percent.

The sharp rise in food prices is partly attributable to a bad crop year, exacerbated by a series of natural disasters. Droughts in Argentina and Russia, both major food producers, have decreased output, while recent floods in Brazil and Australia have completely wiped out some crops.

But the rise in commodity prices is not confined to agricultural products, although the increase is most dramatic there. Brent Crude oil hit nearly $100 per barrel last week, and has increased in price by 26.54 percent from a year ago, when it was trading at $75 per barrel. Copper, meanwhile, is up 30 percent over the past year.

Increased energy prices are a factor in rising food prices, as agriculture consumes large amounts of fossil fuels during harvesting and transport, and petrochemicals are the main component of industrial fertilizers. The increasing use of ethanol, a corn-based alcohol, in gasoline in the US and elsewhere has also cut into supplies of corn available on the food and animal-feed markets.

The rising cost of food and fuel have led to declining living standards for masses of working and poor people. In countries like Egypt and Ethiopia, household expenditures on food constitute as much as 50 percent of a family’s budget. In Mozambique, households spend on average 75 percent of their incomes on food. For these people, the 25 percent increase in food prices over the last year means the difference between survival and starvation.

In the United States, rising food and fuel prices are forcing families to live without adequate heat in the wintertime, forego needed medications, and cut back on nourishment, with devastating consequences for the health of children and the elderly.

In some cases, governments have sought to cushion the blow by extending subsidies or announcing export controls.

China and Indonesia have announced measures to curb food prices, and the Indian government said last week that it would “impose controls on exports and ease restrictions on imports, including tariff reduction where necessary, to improve domestic supplies.” Russia recently extended its export ban on grains until July 2011.

Despite these measures, food prices continue to climb, as world markets in food commodities are unregulated.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Committee proposed limits last week on the size of commodity bets taken by speculators, as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. The proposal, which amounts to little more than a public relations exercise, will be voted on after a two-month “comment period.” Two of the four commissioners who voted in favor of the proposal have indicated that they would not vote to put the measure into law, meaning that it will never come into existence.

The world’s major food suppliers are experiencing record profits from the price hikes. Cargill, the largest global trader of food commodities, saw its profits triple in the fourth quarter of last year, up to $1.49 billion from $489 million in 2009.

While unfavorable crop conditions no doubt have played a role in driving up food prices, this cannot explain the fact that the price of crude oil and copper have increased at the same rate, and in some cases faster, than staple foods.

In December, it was revealed that a single anonymous investor controlled 90 percent of the copper supply in the UK, in an attempt to corner the market. Suspicions loomed at the time that the mystery trader was JPMorgan Chase, the US bank, or UK-based HSBC. The firms denied holding the position and the investor remains unknown.

Speculation, which has played a major role in rising food prices, is itself dependent on the supply of ready cash. Thus, a major reason for the surge in global prices is to be found in the Obama Administration’s monetary policy. The US has kept the federal funds interest rate, the rate at which banks charge each other for loans, as close to zero as possible. At the same time, it has undertaken unprecedented moves, called “quantitative easing,” to expand the money supply even further. These measures, which come on top of the vast government bailout that transferred trillions of dollars into US finance companies, have served to flood the market with cash, fueling speculation.

Liberal New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman, writing on his blog, has sprung to the defense of the White House. Last month he insisted that the vast expansion of the money supply, a policy that he supports, has nothing to do with the run-up in speculation. He concludes, “America is, for the most part, just a bystander in this story. …[R]ising commodity prices are basically the result of global recovery. They have no bearing, one way or another, on U.S. monetary policy.”

Instead, he argues that the run-up in food prices is driven by “fundamentals” of the global economic recovery. “What the commodity markets are telling us is that we’re living in a finite world, in which the rapid growth of emerging economies is placing pressure on limited supplies of raw materials, pushing up their prices.”

Krugman’s argument is contradicted by the fact that many potential vehicles for speculation, even those not tied to any recovery, have risen in the recent period. More specifically, US stock values have grown in the recent period, despite the absence of any recovery in production. The US NASDAQ is up by over 20 percent over the past year, and the S&P 500 is up 13.84 percent. Yet this is despite the fact that, over the past year, the US economy has created 500,000 fewer jobs than the amount required to keep up with population growth.

By Andre Damon

19 January, 2011

WSWS.org

He might still be living in the lap of luxury, but make no mistake Tunisia’s former President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali and his family are prisoners.

Like birds in a guilded cage, they are languishing in a palace in one of the most exclusive districts of Jeddah but the truth is Ben Ali and his equally odious and corrupt family have nowhere else to hide.

It should signal a warning to all the other despots and dictators in the region – Egypt in particular – that no matter how close you think you are to the West, in times of trouble they will drop you faster than a burning coal.

As one of the cruelest oppressors on the planet scrambled to board a plane to escape what some may consider a well deserved lynching, the truth is he had no idea where he was going.

So fast was his demise.

We were told he was heading for Malta, then France and Dubai and half a dozen other countries but the truth is no one wanted the 74-year-old.

A desperate man, he finally found a bolthole in the Red Sea port city of Jeddah on Friday, arriving around midnight after close ally President Nicholas Sarkozy rejected a request for his plane to land on french soil.

Meanwhile frantic calls to the White House hotline and to Obama rang unanswered.

Once again America has proved itself to be a fickle friend just as the late Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi discovered when he went in to exile after his repressive regime in Iran was overthrown in the Islamic Revolution of 1979. The former Shah spent his exile in Egypt, totally isolated and shunned by the very same leaders in the West who had once supported him.

The Saudi government refuses to say how long he will be their guest but I like to think the many soldiers posted outside the palace’s half dozen or so gates are not there for his protection but there to ensure he remains within the high sided walls.

Quite how this secular leader will settle in the land of the Two Holy Mosques is beyond me. Ben Ali despised Islam to such an extent he made sure his brutal enforcers abused and punished those God-fearing Tunisians who wore hijabs and grew beards.

For instance, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Interior and the Secretary-General of Tunisia’s ruling political party, the Constitutional Democratic Rally, stated several years ago that they were so concerned about rise in the use of the hijab by women and girls and beards and the qamis (knee-level shirts) by men, that they called for a strict implementation of decree 108 of 1985 of the Ministry of Education banning the hijab at educational institutions and when working in government.

Police ordered women to remove their head scarfs before entering schools, universities or work places and others were made to remove them in the street. Amnesty International reported at the time that some women were being arrested and taken to police stations where they were forced to sign written commitment to stop wearing the hijab.

Perhaps someone should remind the Saudis about that and have him charged under Shari’a law just for starters.

Ben Ali’s hatred and fear of Islam can also be witnessed in Egypt where Hosni Mubarak rules with an iron fist. The prisons and dungeons of Egypt are jammed full of members of the Muslim Brotherhood and other dissenting voices and political opponents who are rounded up everytime an election is in the offing.

Mubarak’s betrayal of the Palestinian people and his irrational fear of Hamas speaks volumes also about his secular outlook and lifestyle which is at odds with Islam.

I was asked to leave Cairo in December 2009 by his Foreign Ministry after writing an article in which I said Mubarak had turned Egypt into America’s rent boy in the Middle East because of the huge sums of money he willingly took from the US in return for oppressing the people of Gaza and supporting Israel.

But now he must be wondering if bending over a barrel for Uncle Sam is really a price worth paying.

After all, no one grovelled more to America than Ben Ali. In 2005 he was even ordered to extend the hand of friendship to the Zionist State, a country which had bombed his own when Yasser Arafat’s PLO was headquartered in Tunis in 1986.

Did he object? No, in fact Ben Ali went one step further and invited the war criminal Ariel Sharon to visit Tunisia. Well, where has all that craven behaviour got him?

Just like the previous Tunisian tyrant, he happily kissed the rump of Zionists while belly-dancing in front of Western leaders who claimed to be among his closest allies.

Well, just where are his friends now?

He’s friendless, homeless and humiliated.

By Yvonne Ridley

17 January, 2011

Countercurrents.org

British journalist Yvonne Ridley is the European President of the International Muslim Womens Union. She travelled extensively through Tunisia in February 2009 with the Viva Palestina convoy.

The Water Festival is a time of great celebration in Cambodia. It is always celebrated around November but the dates are dependent on the moon. Some say it’s a chance to honour the rivers that replenish the soil for the harvest. Others say it’s to honour the spirits that make the river miraculous change direction and flow in the other direction.  Mostly it’s the time where the people from Cambodia’s countryside take over the capital. Phnom Penh is theirs. They sleep along the streets, they cheer on the boat of their district, they stay up all night and enjoy myriad free entertainment from fireworks to concerts and traditional dancing. It’s a grand celebration of life.

The development of a new island in the river, accessed through such a beautiful bridge decorated with a Naga snake,  was this year such a focal point for the celebration. So many went to Diamond Island over the holiday period for the trade show, the fun park, the free concerts, the displays and because so many other people were there to see. Such a focal point of joy and happiness, among Cambodia’s rural poor.

And therein lies the tragedy. Those that died on the bridge on November 22 were hardly Cambodia’s wealthy. They were yet again the poorest of the poor. Garment factory workers, usually young women out for a good time. Sisters from a tiny village disobeying their mother and running to the capitol to join the fun. They were slum dwellers from a nearby slum soon to be demolished. They were moto-dop drivers, garbage collectors, market sellers, rice farmers. And now 395 such people lay dead in the height of the celebrations.

No doubt there will much discussion and debate by NGOs and human rights groups in weeks to come. How the government could have protected them. How safety standards are not enforced. But this is not the day for such recriminations. Today a Prime Minister weeps openly with his people, and the streets are silent. Outside every home, along every street, there are the traditional offerings, candles and incense for those who have passed. TV channels read the names of those who have died, replay the footage of that fateful night and update the death toll hour to hour.

It is hard to watch the images without comparing them to so many of the images long associated with Cambodia. It is not a publicity stunt that so many of those interviewed by the media, including Hun Sen’s address to the nation, refer back to the Khmer Rouge years. Not since then has there been such a tragedy in our history, they say. One woman wept, I lost everyone to the Khmer Rouge, and now I lost my son in this stampede. Who will take care of me now?

Over the past decade the international community has tried hard to persuade Cambodia that an international tribunal was necessary to heal Cambodia’s past, to reconcile the nation, to bring closure. To date the tribunal has seemed an alien legal process, far the from reality of everyday lives and certainly not a mechanism for healing deep seated pains and loss.

But the events of the past few days have felt very different. In every restaurant, in every market, along the street — people go about their business slowly and silently. People watch TV screens in breakfast shops and cry openly. On Wednesday I watched a military truck slowly make its way down the Monivong, the main road through Phnom Penh, filled with coffins. As it past shops and houses, guards, pedestrians, passersby, all stood, almost to attention, to pay respect and honour those nameless corpses going by.

I drove past the hospital and found people giving out water to the many people camped out there trying to find their family members. A huge billboard displayed the unidentified people still indie the hospital, and people clamber over each other to see if they can find their own.

While this has been a deep and great tragedy for Cambodia, something else is going on here. This country has become united in its grief. People are coming together to put right, something which was very wrong. They are standing together to mourn their country people, fully aware that those who died were the least among them, and now deserve the highest honour for their tragic end. And of course all of us looking on wonder how they can bear more suffering, more grief and more pain.

The late Maha Ghosananda, Cambodia’s peace monk often chanted;

Perhaps Maha understood that it is the yoke Cambodians must bear  on behalf of us all. People who come to Cambodia often comment of the smiles of the children, the happiness of the people. They marvel at the sense of fun, and joy in simple pleasures. They speak of the open-hearted way Cambodians welcome them, embrace them and befriend them. Perhaps this is what Maha speaks of — the joy that is born of suffering. Perhaps Cambodia suffers so much so that compassion can be.

For the past 48 hours  Cambodian television channels have received donations from around the country for the victims’ families and the injured survivors. No amount is too small to announce on the television recognising the contributions of even the poorest people. From this suffering comes great compassion.

One boy told of a man who saw him trapped under the feet of the people on the bridge. He bent down and lift the boy up and put him on his shoulders so he was above the crowd. Later the boy realised he was riding on the shoulders of a dead man. From this suffering comes great compassion.

What we learn through the events of the past few days is that sense of national identity and reconciled togetherness cannot come from outside. It comes from the shared suffering, losses, histories and processes that people experience  for themselves. In many South-East Asian nations those shared histories are days of liberation, celebrating anti colonial struggles and the pride of self determination. Cambodia has no just day of celebration or national unity. Cambodia’s unity seems always to come through her suffering. Piles of shoes belonging to the deceased — in the Khmer Rouge years and again today. The mass graves of the Killing Fields, parallel to lines of bodies along the river bank of the past two days.

Today is Cambodia’s national day of mourning.  Today, one after another Cambodians are laying flowers and burning incense at the fateful bridge. This is their time, where they stand together as a nation and grieve. This is not just grief for those who died in this incident. This is truly a national day of mourning for all the suffering they have endured. This is the time they rally and unite to put right something that went very wrong. This is their moment of national unity. This is the suffering they bear, from which compassion is born. As a Prime Minister weeps with his people, Maha’s words echo over this timeless land;

“Our journey for peace begins today and every day.

Each step is a prayer, each step is a meditation, each step will build a bridge.”

Ironic, yet true. Cambodians will wipe their tears, and continue to build their nation, heal their hearts and show great compassion. Not just to each other, but to the world.

by Emma Leslie,

executive director,

Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies

Phnom Penh, 25 November 2010

When faced with problems, most authoritarian regimes maintain a policy of rigidity when the appropriate response would be flexibility, political wisdom and concessions. This policy gives authoritarian leaders their ability to control their populations to serve the interests of a few individuals and political and military elites. It can also, however, usher their downfall, for populations can only be oppressed, controlled and punished to a point.

President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, who controlled his population with an iron fist since his arrival to the presidential palace in 1987, must have crossed that point. He was forced to flee the country amid the angry chants of thousands of Tunisians, fed up with growing unemployment, soaring inflation, government corruption, violent crackdowns and lack of political freedom. These mounting frustrations led to relentless protests throughout the country. The government’s subsequent crackdowns only stirred emotions beyond any crowd control strategy, and eventually Ben Ali’s plane left to seek refuge outside his own country.

The upheaval in Tunisia is certainly worthy of all the headlines, media commentary and official statements it has generated. But many of these reactions contain generalizations that hype expectations, worsen an already terrible situation and provoke misguided policies. Indeed, the current political storm, dubbed both the “Youth Intifada” and the “Jasmine Revolution”, has inspired many interpretations. Some commentators wished to see the popular uprising as a prelude to an essentially anti-Arab regimes phenomenon that will strike elsewhere as well, while others placed it within a non-Arab context, noting that popular uprisings are growing in countries that struggle with rising food prices. Even al-Qaeda had a take on the situation, trying to score points to find a place in the looming political void.

Many commentators have focused on the Arab identity of Tunisia to find correlations elsewhere. Hadeel al-Shalchi’s Associated Press article “Arab activists hope Tunisia uprising brings change,” presented the uprising within an Arab context. Reporting from Cairo, she wrote of the growing optimism among those whom she dubbed “Arab activists” that other Arab leaders will share the fate of Ben Ali if they don’t ease their grip on power. Hossam Bahgat is one such activist. He told AP, “I feel like we are a giant step closer to our own liberation… What’s significant about Tunisia is that literally days ago the regime seemed unshakeable, and then eventually democracy prevailed without a single Western state lifting a finger.”

True, both Tunisia and Egypt are Arab countries with many similarities, but expecting a repeat of a scenario that was uniquely Tunisian and implicitly suggesting that Western states serve as harbingers of democracy is illusory, to stay the least.

Now that Ben Ali is out of the picture, Western governments are cautiously lining up behind the Tunisian uprising, but hardly with the same enthusiasm of their support of the Iranian riots of June 2009. British Foreign Secretary William Hague merely denounced the unrest, calling for “restraint from all sides.” He stated, “I condemn the violence and call on the Tunisian authorities to do all they can to resolve the situation peacefully.” US President Barack Obama added, “I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future.”

Clichéd statements aside, both the US and the UK must fear the repercussions of a popular uprising in an area so close to the heart of American-British interests in the Middle East. Both countries are careful not to appear to oppose democratic reforms, even if they are forced to disown their friends in the region. Their response is largely representative of official responses from many Western capitals – the very capitals that lauded Tunisia as a model for how Arab countries can help win the war on terror.

One must not let confusing media headlines sideline the fact that neither the US nor the UK had Tunisia on their radar for circumventing democracy or violating human rights. Ben Ali was celebrated as an icon of moderation, notwithstanding his atypical Arab stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Ben Ali’s authoritarian regime was not the type that required much chastising. It was the benign kind that allowed a tiny space for secular opposition while cracking down on any Islamic opposition group. For 23 years, such practice was barely problematic, for it served the interests of both Ben Ali and various Western powers. The countless calls for respect of human rights from international and local organizations were mostly unheeded. Washington and London rarely found that irksome.

Now that the Tunisian people’s fight for rights has taken a sharp turn, many of us find it difficult to examine the specific context of this case without delving into dangerous generalizations. Western governments now speak of democracy in the region – as if there were ever a genuine concern; commentators speak of the next regime to fall – as if every Arab country is a duplication of another; and technology bloggers are celebrating another ‘twitter revolution.’

Perhaps generalizations make things more interesting. Tunisia, after all, is a small country, and most people know little about it aside from the fact that it’s a cheap tourist destination – thus the need to place it within a more gripping context. Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is using the opportunity to read the Tunisian uprising in a unique way. The AQIM leader, Abu Musab Abdul Wadud, has called for the overthrowing of the “corrupt, criminal and tyrannical” regimes in both Tunisia and Algeria and the instatement of al-Sharia law. This call has promoted American commentators to warn of the future Islamization of Tunisia and will likely result in Western intervention to ensure that another “moderate” regime succeeds the one that just fled.

There is no harm in expanding a popular experience to understand the world at large and its conflicts. But in the case of Tunisia, it seems that the country is largely understood within a multilayer of contexts, thus becoming devoid of any political, cultural or socio-economic uniqueness. Understanding Tunisia as just another “Arab regime”, another possible podium for al-Qaeda’s violence, is convenient but also unhelpful to any cohesive understanding of the situation there and the events that are likely to follow.

By Ramzy Baroud

– Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), now available on Amazon.com

The ongoing Tunisian Intifada (uprising) cannot yet quite be termed a revolution; Tunisians are still revolting, aspiring for bread and freedom. This Intifada will go in history as a revolution if it gets either bread or freedom and as a great revolution if it gets both. Internally, “the one constant in revolutions is the primordial role played by the army,” Jean Tulard, a French historian of revolutions, told Le Monde in an interview, and the Tunisian military seems so far forthcoming. Externally, the United States stands to be a critical contributor to either outcome in Tunisia, both because of its historical close relations with the Tunisian military and because of its regional hegemony and international standing as a world power, but the U.S. seems so far shortcoming.

While the Tunisian military has made a decision to side with its people, the United States has yet to decide what and whom to support among the revolting masses led by influential components like communists, Pan-Arabists, Islamists, left wingers, nationalists and trade unionists. The natural social allies of U.S. capitalist globalization, privatization and free market have been sidelined politically as partners and pillars of the deposed pro – U.S. Zein al-Abideen Ben Ali’s regime. The remaining pro – U.S. liberalism among Tunisians are overwhelmed by the vast majority of the unemployed, marginalized or underpaid who yearn for jobs, bread, balanced distribution of the national wealth and development projects more than they are interested in upper class western – oriented liberalism. Taken by surprise by the evolving political drama in Tunisia, the U.S. cannot by default contribute to a revolution for bread at a time its economic system is unable to provide for Americans themselves. However, it can play a detrimental role in contributing to a real Tunisian revolution for freedom by making an historic U-turn in its foreign policy.

In June 2005, the then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told an Arab audience at the American University in Cairo that, “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region — and we achieved neither.” But Rice did not elaborate to add that this same policy was and is still the main source of instability and the main reason for the absent democracy. Her successor incumbent Hillary Clinton has on January 13 in Qatar postured as the Barak Obama Administration’s mouthpiece on Arab human rights to lecture Arab governments on the urgent need for democratic reforms, warning that otherwise they will see their countries “sinking into the sand.” But Clinton missed to point out that her administration is still in pursuit of its predecessor’s advocacy of democracy through changing regimes in Arab and Muslim nations by means of military intervention, invasion and occupation, an endeavor that has proved a failure in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Israeli – occupied Palestinian territories, as well a policy that was and is still another source of regional instability and absence of democracy.

The Tunisian Intifada has proved that democracy and regime change can be homemade, without any U.S. intervention. Ironically any such U.S. intervention now is viewed in the region as a threat of a counterrevolution that would preempt turning the Intifada into a revolution. U.S. hands-off policy could be the only way to democracy in Tunisia. But a hands-off policy is absolutely not a trade mark of U.S. regional foreign policy. However, the United States has a choice now in Tunisia, but it is a choice that pre-requisites a U – turn both in the U.S. approach to Arab democracy and in its traditional foreign policy.

The U.S. risks to loose strategically in Tunisia unless it decides on an historic U – turn, because politically the Tunisian Intifada targeted a U.S. – supported regime and economically targeted a failed U.S. model of development. On November 13, 2007, Georgetown University Human Rights Institute and Law Center hosted a conference to answer the question, “Tunisia: A Model of Middle East Stability or an Incubator of Extremism?” But Tunisia now has given the answer: Tunisia is neither; it is an indigenous Arab way to democracy and moderation.

Indeed the U.S. has now a choice in Tunisia. The Arab country which is leading the first Arab revolution for democracy is now a U.S. test case. Non – U.S. intervention would establish a model for other Arabs to follow; it would also establish a model U.S. policy that would over time make Arabs believe in any future U.S. rhetoric on democracy and forget all the tragic consequences of American interventions in the name of democracy. But this sounds more a wishful thinking than a realpolitik expectation.

A U.S. long standing traditional policy seems to weigh heavily on its decision makers, who are obsessed with their own creation of the “Islamist threat” as their justification for their international war on terror, which dictates their foreign policy, especially vis – a vis Arab and Muslim states, to dictate a fait accompli to their rulers to choose between either being recruited to this war or being condemned themselves as terrorists or terrorism sponsors, and in this process exclusion policies should be pursued against wide spread representative Islamic movements. The U.S. perspective has always been that Arab Democracy could be sacrificed to serve U.S. vital interests and Arab democracy can wait! But the Tunisian Intifada has proved that Arab democracy cannot wait anymore.

Exclusion of popular Islamic movements while at the same excluding democratic reforms until the war on terror is won has proved a looser U.S. policy. The U.S. exploitation of the “Islamist threat” now is not convincing for Arab aspirants for democracy, who still remember that during the Cold War with the former Soviet Union the U.S. exploited the “communist threat,” then “Pan-Arabism threat,” to shore up autocratic and authoritarian Arab regimes. In Tunisia, the prisons of the pro – U.S. regime were always full long before there was an Islamic political movement: “In the 1950s prisons were filled with Youssefites (loyal to Salah Ben Youssef, who broke away from Bourguiba’s ruling Constitutional Party); in the 60s it was the Leftists; in the 70s it was the trade unions; and in the 80s it was our turn,” leader in-exile of the outlawed Islamic Nahda movement, Rachid Ghannouchi, told the Financial Times on January 18.

“When Nahda was in Tunisia … there was no al-Qaeda,” Ghannouchi said, reminding one that in the neighboring Algeria there was no al-Qaeda too before The Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) was outlawed. In the Israeli – occupied territories, outlawing and imposing siege on the Islamic Resistance Movement “Hamas,” which won a landslide electoral victory in 2006, should be a warning that the only alternative to such moderate Islamic movements is for sure the extremist al-Qaeda like undergrounds. Jordan proved wiser than the U.S. decision makers by allowing the Islamic Action Front to compete politics lawfully. Recruiting fake Islamic parties to serve U.S. policies as the case is in Iraq has not proved feasible impunity against al-Qaeda. The United States has to reconsider. Exclusion of independent, moderate and non – violent Islamic representative movements, unless they succumb to U.S. dictates, has proved U.S. policy a failure. U.S. parameters for underground violent unrepresentative Islamists should not apply to these movements.

The U.S. decision makers however still seem deaf to what Ghannouchi told the Financial Times: “Democracy should not exclude communists … it is not ethical for us to call on a secular government to accept us, while once we get to power we will eradicate them.” This is the voice of Arab homemade democracy; it has nothing to do with the U.S. – exported democracy.

By Nicola Nasser

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

When you do not distinguish between combatants and unarmed civilians during war, then you deserve to be named a ‘terrorist.’ It makes no difference what your religion is!

That is exactly what happened thousands of miles away and two days before last Christmas, when Israeli troops shot dead a Palestinian shepherd in the back and injured two others. A 14 year old suffered a serious head injury and another 19 year old was injured in his hand.

The shooting took place in the Northern part of Gaza near the town of Beit Lahia. Israel considered the area a war zone, Palestinians called it home.

An Israeli army spokeswoman confirmed the shooting, adding “The soldiers fired warning shot and aimed at the lower body.” Not only was that unprovoked and cold blooded murder, but rather a naked lie by the Israeli spin machine.

It took a quick search on the story to find out what the so-called “most moral army” actually did to the 22 year old Palestinian shepherd, Salamah Abu Hashish. My search reveals shocking and inhumane details. After the Palestinian medics arrived at the seen, they were denied permission by the Israeli soldiers to aid or remove the victims.

A nearby metal scraper was able to move Abu Hashish on the back of his donkey into the Kamal Udwan Hospital in Gaza where he died. Hospital officials said, one bullet went through his kidney.

The sad fact is Abu Hashish’s wife gave birth to their first child the night before, and the couple have not even chosen a name to their child.

He was the 13th Gazan to be killed by Israeli soldiers since last November and the 35 to suffer injuries near the border.

The shooting was condemned by Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process. Mr. Serry urged Israel to show “maximum restriant,” andding “I am distressed that incidents such as these continue in the perimeter area of Gaza, and deplore the killing of one apparently unarmed Palestinian civilian and the injuring of a number of others by Israel.”

Despite the UN official appeal, 48 hours later, Israeli troops once again shot a 26-year-old Gaza fisherman twice, once in each foot. He was identified as AZ, and his injures were described by Palestinian medical officials as light. Now you have a young lady who suddenly became a widow with an orphanage to care for and whose child will never know his/her father, a 14 year old boy with his life in the balance and a disabled fisherman who will no longer be able to stand on his feet or help feed his family.

Keep in mind, Israel was able and continues to commit these crimes with our tax-dollars and our government’s total silence. Israel knows exactly who butters her bread! Just when your children abuse their spending money, you will certainly lecture them about how to be responsible and act wisely. Not US officials, though, who are too fearful of Israel to act, even in accordance to their country’s own laws.

It is therefore vital that readers who are incensed by the aforementioned atrocities by Israeli soldiers against unarmed Palestinians to express their concern to the embassy of Israel at our national capitol via email at info@washington.mfa.gov.il.

Israel should cease its war crimes against Palestinians, obey the rules that the rest of the world’s civilized nations follow and end the illegal and inhumane siege of Gaza.

21 January, 2011

Uruknet.info