Archives: Articles

You would certainly know Yvonne Ridley or at least heard of her name if you have been a regular follower of Press TV, especially in Britain, albeit before the state-run media regulator Ofcom took the news network off the Sky platform, depriving millions of Britons of the opportunity to watch a TV channel which has always tried to shed a light on the obscured, concealed aspects of the events and tell the truth about what’s happening around the world. Ridley is a renowned British journalist, war correspondent and TV host. She made the headlines on September 28, 2001 when she was arrested by the Taliban members in Afghanistan while working for the Sunday Express. She converted to Islam after she was released by Taliban on October 9, 2001 and became an outspoken critic of Zionism and the mainstream media’s portrayal of the War on Terror. Ridley is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists. She is a devoted philanthropist and humanitarian activist. Yvonne Ridley has written two books called “In the Hands of the Taliban” and “Ticket to Paradise .”

Ridley took part in an interview with me, discussing her viewpoints regarding the prospect of Iran-West relations, the expansionistic policies of the Israeli regime in the Occupied Palestine and the popular uprisings of the Arab world widely known as Arab Spring.

Kourosh Ziabari: One of the recent events which stained the already blurred relations between Iran and the UK was Iranian students’ assault on the British embassy in Tehran in the late 2011. Some political analysts say that it was an undiplomatic action and Britain ‘s response in closing the Iranian embassy in London was natural. However, some others believe that it was an intrinsic consequence of the UK ‘s hostile policies toward Iran . What’s your viewpoint in this regard?

Yvonne Ridley: As the UK Government found out last year, when students get angry and in a destructive mode nothing will stop them. The Conservative Party headquarters in London was trashed and vandalized by angry students in the UK who felt they had been lied to over the increase in student fees. And they caused much more damage to the Tory Party HQ than the rampaging students in Tehran , yet no one accused the British police of turning a blind eye or encouraging acts of vandalism and violence. The UK Government was, however, outraged but I feel it used the event as an opportunity to accelerate hostile relations between both countries.

KZ: Tensions between Iran and the West has been mounting in recent months, especially since IAEA released its latest report on Iran ‘s nuclear program. What’s your prediction for the future of Iran-West relations? Do you foresee any chances of reconciliation and restoration?

YR: The tensions are predictable and there is a weary feeling of deja vu among anti war activists who fear the worst between Iran and the West having witnessed a similar build up of hostilities over non-existed WMD in Iraq during Saddam’s rule.

KZ: Israel , the U.S. and their European allies have repeatedly threatened Iran against a preemptive military strike. Are these war threats realistic or merely media propaganda aimed at intimidating the Iranians? Why doesn’t the UN take any decisive action against the states who propagate such threats and spread fear?

YR: The UN is weak and in the sway and influence of America but I doubt if there will be a military strike, for several different reasons. The USA is struggling in Afghanistan against the Taliban, a bunch of ill-equipped fighters in flip flops and shalwa khameez so there is no way it would tackle Iran which has a strong army, is armed and will retaliate. Furthermore there are tens of thousands of U.S. and other western civilians, oil workers, missionaries and NGOs in Iraq and if one single strike touched Iranian soil, there is a very real danger 10 million or so Shiite in neighboring Iraq will rise up against westerners. This could manifest itself in another disastrous hostage situation similar to the one in Iran from which the USA has still not psychologically recovered.

KZ: The U.S. and its European allies are persuasively lobbying around the world to convince the economic partners of Iran join the global sanctions, especially the newly proposed oil embargo against Iran . Will these sanctions bear fruit for the U.S. or it will backfire? Will the economic pressures finally bring Iran to its knees?

YR: Iran is not marginalized or as isolated as the U.S. and UK would want. Several countries in the Euro-zone rely on Iran for cheap oil while Russia , China , Brazil , Venezuela and other countries in South America have expressed solidarity with Iran .

KZ: President Barack Obama had promised during his presidential campaign that he would pursue a policy of detente and tension easing with the Muslim world, especially Iran, and follow the path of diplomacy and “change” to resolve Iran’s nuclear controversy. But we saw that he followed the path of his predecessor and even talked of the option of a nuclear strike against Iran . What’s your idea about his approach toward the Middle East in general, and Iran in particular? Has he fulfilled his promise of change?

YR: This latest U.S. president, given a Nobel peace Prize because he was not George W. Bush, is a one-term president. He made many promises on the road to the White House and broke more than 60 percent of them. He is, sadly, a man who promised to deliver so much and failed. He escalated the war in Afghanistan, was forced to retreat from Iraq – make no mistake the departure of American troops in Iraq was reluctantly done and the soldiers left in one of the quietest U.S. exits in history.

KZ: What has been in your view, the main stimulus behind the revolutions of the Arab world? We know that corrupt regimes had existed in countries such as Tunisia , Egypt , Libya , Bahrain and Yemen for many decades, but the nations of the region revolted against their rulers all at once. What’s the reason in your view?

YR: The people lost their fear in the tyrants, most installed and supported by the West; and as they grew stronger they began to rediscover their Faith in God and as they got closer to their Faith they became stronger as they held on tight to the Rope of Allah.

KZ: Will the chained revolutions of the Arab world, especially the revolution in Egypt , weaken the status of Israel in the Middle East ? What about the U.S. ? Political commentators believe that if the revolutionaries in Bahrain and Yemen achieve their goal, the United States will lose two of its strategic allies in the region. What’s your take on that?

YR: The U.S. was caught out by the Arab Spring, but since the CIA missed the fall of the Berlin Wall it is hardly surprising that there was a huge intelligence failure in this area. Israel is unusually mute because it is very concerned over what is going to manifest from the revolutions and it can no longer rely on the USA to crack the whip and make the tyrants pull their people into line. The U.S. has already lost its control in the region and should Yemen and Bahrain succumb to the will of the majority then it will lose strategic allies.

KZ: It seems that the United States will not lift its unconditional support for Israel , at least in the foreseeable future, and Israel will be able to continue its repressive policies in the occupied lands and with regards to the subjugated people of the West Bank and Gaza Strip like before. What’s your assessment regarding the current state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Will the Arab League supported initiative for peace help solve the crisis?

YR: My belief in this solution has been the same for more than three decades, much longer than I’ve been a Muslim. The Palestinian people will be victorious because they have time and patience on their side. In 50 years time their children will ask: “Was there really a state called Israel ?” Israel is on a permanent war footing and not one single country can survive in that situation forever. I’ll give the Zionist another decade before it implodes.

KZ: Israel is the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and it’s not a signatory to Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well. The United States has not allowed a comprehensive investigation of the nuclear facilities of Israel so far, and Tel Aviv regime is continuing to develop nuclear bombs in its underground installations. Isn’t the nuclear program of Israel a threat to international peace and security?

YR: What nuclear weapons? Israel says it has no nukes! Pf course the world knows they are lying thanks to the heroic Christian convert Mordechai Vanunu who is still being persecuted for telling the world about the Zionist State ‘s deadly arsenal of nuclear weapons. The poor man has served his sentence but he is still not allowed to leave Israel where he is under continuous surveillance. The vindictiveness of the state knows no bounds when it comes to this man.

KZ: And finally, let me ask your idea about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Why has such a revolutionary movement taken shape in the U.S. ? What are the major grievances of the protesters? What’s your idea regarding the government’s treatment of the protestors?

YR: A number of American people have woken up to the injustices of capitalism and what is being done in their name by the U.S. Government – this wonderful movement has captured the imagination of many and while they are taking their fight to the streets of the USA and the West there is another army that the USA should really be concerned about … Anonymous. They are leading the battle in cyber-warfare and are showing that when the people rise up and they begin to lead the leaders become increasingly irrelevant. Watch this space.

By Kourosh Ziabari

16 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Kourosh Ziabari is a journalist from Iran

Uganda is undoubtedly rife with resources for Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron, et. al. to plunder, otherwise why would a viral film like Kony 2012 be popping up on YouTube? And the unwitting, or perhaps even duplicitously savvy shill’s film — and its Hollywood accomplices — are certainly making ample headlines. [1] The ostensible end of the viral YouTube picture, would appear to be pressing for yet another “humanitarian” intervention. After all AFRICOM is still based in Stuttgart, Germany, so the US and its partners, are undoubtedly pining away for another place, to base their banefulness and multifarious tools of mass destruction.

The US/Western-backed dictator Yoweri Museveni is somehow never mentioned in the film. A man’s whose iron fist, and human rights violations have given rise, to a monstrous opposition movement like the Kony-led Lord’s Resistance Army. [2] And Museveni has been involved in numerous atrocities, and crimes against humanity himself. And about 40% of the Ugandan people live in immense poverty under Museveni’s authority. Indeed, on Museveni’s inauguration day (23 years ago) he said that Africa’s problems, were largely caused by leaders who overstay their time in power: leading to impunity, the promotion of patronage, and corruption. Museveni — who the Congo received $10 billion from an International Court of Justice ruling because of his atrocities — should, undoubtedly, be brought to justice also. [3]

The International Criminal Court (led by Luis Moreno Ocampo) is also highlighted in this film. A court that is already widely discredited in Africa. [4] Since its inception in 2002 the ICC, has targeted solely African and other developing world leaders. Jean Ping, the head of the African Union, has said about the ICC and Ocampo, “We Africans and the African Union are not against the International Criminal Court. We are against Ocampo who is rendering justice with double standards.” The ICC has had many opportunities to indict Western war criminals/leaders — such as Bush, Blair, Olmert and Cheney — since it has come into being, and it has; of course, wholly failed to do so. [5]

US militarism being promoted as a solution or panacea, is never an answer. American military advisers going into a nation is exceedingly rarely — if ever — good. And certainly not for the ostensible end of humanitarianism. The film and its campaigners, are certainly folks to continue, to keep a close eye on in my opinion. As suggested earlier, perhaps they are just well meaning dupes, but the film presents a very limited picture as to what ails the Central African nation of Uganda. And again to exuberantly support US militarism, as a goal against the Lord’s Resistance Army, is unequivocally highly suspect, to even downright reprehensible at the absolute very worst.

By Sean Fenley

10 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

Notes:

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine/2009/feb/19/state-of-uganda-museveni

[3] http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12404

[4] http://allafrica.com/stories/201111030091.html

[5] http://mondediplo.com/2009/03/03warcrimes

Sean Fenley is an independent progressive, who would like to see some sanity brought to the creation and implementation of current and future, US military, economic, foreign and domestic policies. He has been published by a number of websites, and publications throughout the alternative media.

The Winter 2012 edition of Palestine News features a photograph of an old man. His white beard and traditional jalabiya give him the appearance of any Palestinian grandfather. His name is not given; he could be a Muslim or a Christian. We know that he comes from the West Bank village of Qusra, and that he is holding the broken branches of his olive trees.

According to the accompanying report, the destruction of Palestinian olive trees by Jewish settlers -under the watchful eye of the Israeli occupation army – cost farmers over $500,000 in 2011. It isn’t only income that the settlers are targeting. They know the land is also a source of empowerment to millions of Palestinians. Their ultimate aim is to break the bond that has united the native inhabitants of Palestine since time immemorial.

But will they succeed?

Suheil Akram al-Masri, a 26-year-old political prisoner from Gaza, was hospitalized on March 2, just hours after his release. Al-Masri had reportedly fallen unconscious after 13 days of being on a hunger strike, in solidarity with female prisoner Hana Shalabi, who went on a hunger strike on February 12.

Hana’s story is troublingly typical. She has spent 25 months under what Israel calls ‘administrative detention,” a bizarre legal system that allows Israel to hold Palestinian political activists indefinitely without charge or trial. She was released in October 2011 as part of the prisoner exchange deal, only to be kidnapped again by soldiers a few months later.

Like Khader Adnan, who had recently ended the longest hunger strike ever staged by a Palestinian prisoner, Hana decided that enough was enough. Hundreds of Palestinians, including Hana’s aging father, joined in her quest for freedom and dignity.

Charlotte Kates, an activist with The National Lawyers Guild, wrote, “Imprisonment is a fact of life for Palestinians…There are no Palestinian families that have not been touched by the scourge of mass imprisonment as a mechanism of suppression.”

In the Israeli military there is an order that grants it “the authority to arrest and prosecute Palestinians from the West Bank for so-called ‘security’ offenses.” There are 2,500 such military orders, including one issued in August 1967, which deems any acts of influencing public opinion as “political incitement’”. Also prohibited is any activity that demonstrates sympathy for organizations deemed “illegal” by the military.

Palestinians are thus governed by laws without internationally recognizable legal frame of reference. There is no need to examine the Fourth Geneva Convention on prisoners, the rights of occupied nations or the forceful seizure of property. Israel is governed by its own absurd and inhumane logic.

It is this very logic that allows Israel to justify the detention of Gaza patients seeking medical treatment outside their besieged area – which lacks critical medical equipment and life-saving medicine. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) issued a statement on January 23, protesting an exceptionally disturbing practice that has been used by the Israeli military for many years: interrogating Palestinians seeking surgery in West Bank or Israeli hospitals.

Bassam Rehan, 25, from Jabaliya refugee camp, was a victim of this policy. He was detained as he tried to pass through the Erez crossing. PCHR was concerned that, like many before him, Rehan would be subject to torture, according to Maan News. “Targeting patients, exploiting their need for medical treatment at hospitals in Israel or the West Bank and blackmailing them constitute serious illegal actions,” PCHR’s statement read.

Such stories don’t begin or end here. But the continuation of this terrible and convoluted episode raises questions about the lack of will to bring the injustice to an end. It highlights our collective moral responsibility, even culpability, in allowing Israel to treat people – the natives of this ancient ‘holy land’ – in such a degrading way.

There is no point in counting on Barack Obama, Stephen Harper or David Cameron to exact justice for Palestinians. How could they, when their governments continue to facilitate and arm the occupation of Palestine, finance the illegal settlements, ensure the continuation of the siege on Gaza and block any attempt – even symbolic – to indict the unlawful, violent and Apartheid-like practices of the Israeli government?

To whom can ordinary Palestinians turn for justice? To whom can they appeal for their rights? And from whom should they expect solidarity?

One thing remains certain. Palestinians will continue to resist with or without an international awakening to their plight. The old man will try to replant a new olive grove. Suheil, Hana and Adnan will continue their quest for freedom. A whole new generation will carry on the torch from the previous one.

In the meanwhile, we, the silent multitudes, cannot afford to remain silent. Our silence only empowers Israel’s crimes and allows for the untold suffering of millions of people. It is time to redefine our relationship to the Palestinian struggle. We are not helpless outsiders; we are enablers of this moral travesty, and we can choose not to remain so.

Ordinary Palestinians need true solidarity, not sermons about violence and non-violence. They have utilized the latter for nearly a hundred years. They need us to morally divest from Israel, as opposed to standing halfway between the oppressed and the oppressor. They need us to overcome our tendencies towards intellectual elitism or any sense of moral ascendancy. They don’t need of us to play the role of the lecturer. They need us to truly listen, to comprehend and to act.

This is not a conflict concerning religion or politics. It is about rights, about people with history firmly rooted in their land. They need us to remember their names, their stories and their longing for justice and lasting peace. Suheil, Hana, Adnan and Bassam and millions of others need our voices of support.

Before we speak of ‘solutions’ to the ‘Palestinian-Israeli conflict,’ I believe that we must first resolve our own dilemma by divesting from an occupation that runs counter to any conception of true humanism.

Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Where do we stand in relation to this conflict? Are we on the side of the armed Brooklyn settler, and the US-armed Israeli soldier? Or are we on the side of the bearded old man holding tightly to his broken olive branches, conveying a profound mix of despair and hope?

The choice is yours. And the consequences of your choice could redefine history.

By Ramzy Baroud

7 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

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).

Asia became the largest importer of arms from 2007 to 2011, as international transfers of major conventional weapons rose 24 percent, research revealed Monday.

@ Global Times

Sun Wei and agencies contributed to this story.Bottom of Form

“What have you learned in school today, my son?”

“There was no school today. There is an emergency!”

“And what have you learned from that, my son?”

ACTUALLY, QUITE a lot.

This week’s “round”, as the army likes to call it, followed a well-established pattern, as formal as a religious ritual.

It started with the assassination (or “targeted elimination”) of a hitherto unknown Palestinian resistance (“terrorist”) leader in the Gaza Strip.

The Palestinians responded with a rain of missiles, which lasted for four whole days. More than a million Israelis around Gaza stopped working and stayed with their children near their shelters or “protected areas” (meaning nothing more than relatively safe rooms in their homes.) One million Israelis roughly equate to 10 million Germans or 40 million Americans, in relation to the population.

A proportion of these rockets were intercepted in their flight by the three batteries of the “Iron Dome” anti-missile defense. There were some Israeli injured and some minor material damage, but no Israeli dead.

Israeli manned and unmanned aircraft struck and there were 26 Palestinian dead in the Gaza Strip.

After four days and nights, both sides had had enough, and Egyptian mediators achieved an unwritten Tahdiyeh (Arabic for “Quiet”).

Everything as usual.

EXCEPT FOR the details, of course.

It all started with the killing of one Zuhair al-Qaisi , the General Secretary of the “Popular Committees”. He has been in this position for only a few months.

The “Popular Committees” are a minor resistance/terrorist group, the third by size in the Strip. They are overshadowed by Hamas, which did not take part in this round, and “Islamic Jihad”, which took up the cause of the “committees” and launched most of the rockets.

The number of launches was a surprise. During the four days, 200 rockets were launched – an average of some 50 per day. 169 fell in Israel. There was no sign that the Jihad was running out of stock. Hamas, of course, is a much larger organization, with a much bigger arsenal. In the Gaza Strip, one must assume, there are now huge quantities of missiles, almost all the more sophisticated ones provided by Iran. How they made the long journey can only be guessed.

One must assume that in Hizbollah-dominated South Lebanon, the stockpiles of missiles are even greater.

On the other side (ours) the Iron Dome has chalked up a huge success, a source of great pride for the contractor, the army and the country at large.

This is a sophisticated system, made in Israel, which initially evoked a lot of skepticism. For that reason, there are at this moment only three batteries in action, each protecting one city (Ashkelon, Ashdod, Beer Sheva). A fourth battery is scheduled to be provided soon.

The system does not intercept every rocket, which would be enormously costly. Instead, the system itself calculates whether a rocket would fall in open space (and could be ignored) or on a populated area (when the interceptor would be launched), all in seconds. Of these, more than 70% were intercepted and destroyed, a great success by any reckoning.

The sting is that one of the Palestinian rockets costs only a few hundred shekels, while one single Iron Dome missile costs 315 thousand shekels. During the four days, 17.6 million shekels’ worth of missiles was spent by the Israeli side. This apart from the very high price tag of the batteries themselves.

The Air Force sorties over the Gaza Strip cost another tens of millions – one hour of flight costs some 100 thousand shekels (almost 25 thousand dollars).

THE FIRST question to be asked was therefore: was the whole exercise worthwhile?

Israelis rarely ask themselves such questions. They believe that those in charge know what they are doing.

But do they?

It all hinges on the necessity to kill al-Qaisi, even for those who believe in such killings as a solution.

Al-Qaisi was in his position as leader of the “Popular Committees” only since the assassination of his predecessor in similar circumstances. A replacement will easily be found. He may be better or worse, but will hardly make much difference.

The Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, gave a strangely convoluted explanation for the assassination: “(al-Qaisi) was one of the heads of Popular Committees who were, it seems, busy preparing a large attack. I cannot yet say whether this attack was averted.” It seems. I cannot say.

Unofficially it was said that al-Qaisi may have been involved in sending a group of militants from Gaza to the Egyptian Sinai, to attack Israeli territory from there. Last year there was such an attack near Eilat, with several Israeli dead, al-Qaisi’s predecessor was blamed for that and killed before an investigation had even started.

So was it worthwhile to endanger the lives of so many people, send a million people to the shelters and spend tens of millions of shekels on such grounds?

My guess is that al-Qaisi was killed because an opportunity presented itself to do so – such as information on his movements.

WHO MADE the decision?

Targeted assassinations are based on information received from the Shabak (aka Shin Bet). In practice, it is this security service that makes the decision to kill people – acting as gatherer of the information, the assessor of it, and the judge at the same time. No independent analysis of the information, no review, no judicial process of any kind. Questioning the Shabak almost amounts to treason, no politician and no journalist would dare to do so, even if he were so inclined- which he or she is not.

After the Shabak has decided to kill somebody, this is brought  to a tiny group of men: the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the army Chief of Staff and perhaps the officer commanding. Nobody with an independent outlook.

Did any of these people ask the relevant questions?  I doubt it.

For example: Binyamin Netanyahu prides himself on his huge success in America, indeed in the entire world: he has managed to get everybody deeply concerned about the (not yet existing) Iranian nuclear bomb. The Palestinian issue has been completely wiped off the map. And here he sets in motion another round of fighting that reminds people everywhere that the Palestinian issue is alive and kicking, and that it may explode at any moment. Does that make sense even from the point of view of a Netanyahu or a Barak?

ANOTHER INTESTING political aspect of this “round” was the role Hamas played in it, or, rather, didn’t.

Hamas rules the Gaza Strip. The Israeli government does not officially recognize this rule, but somehow still considers Hamas responsible for everything that happens in the Strip, whether Hamas was involved or not.

Until now Hamas entered the fight whenever Israel attacked objects in Gaza. This time, it stayed outside the fray, and even emphasized this fact in telephone interviews on Israeli TV.

Why? Hamas is closely connected with the Muslim Brotherhood, which now dominates the Egyptian parliament. It is under pressure to create a unity government with Fatah in Palestine and join the PLO. Taking part in the armed fight against Israel at this moment would jeopardize this effort. The more so as the Islamic Jihad is closely connected with Iran, the rival of Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

ISRAELI TV correspondents have the annoying habit of concluding their reports with a disturbingly banal sentence. For example, a report about a fatal road accident will almost invariably end with the words: “…and he (or she) only wanted to get safely home.”

This week, almost all the final reports about the mess in the south ended with the words: “Quiet has returned to the South – until the next time!”

Everybody assumes that “next time” the rockets coming out of Gaza will have a greater range and perhaps reach the outskirts of Tel Aviv, and everybody in Israel hopes that the Iron Dome missile will become even more effective.

Until then, All Quiet on the Southern Front.

By Uri Avnery

17 March 2012

It looks like a classic case of gratuitous police witch-hunt and framing of innocents on dubious, unsubstantiated charges. The arrest of Mohammad Ahmad Kazmi, a Delhi based urdu journalist working for Iran’s state broadcaster IRNA, in connection with the recent attack on Israeli diplomat’s car in Delhi, clearly smacks of a sinister conspiracy. Kazmi was arrested by police on Wednesday, while returning to his home in Jor Bagh from India Islamic Cultural Centre, Lodhi Road. Police claims that he provided the executioner with the logistical support, but did not have knowledge about the entire plot. His family rubbishes the charges as baseless and concocted, alleging that he has been framed because he is an outspoken critic of US and Israel and appears on many TV channels regularly.

Looking at the overall picture, there seems to be more to it than meets the eye. It reminds me of the similar cases framed by Delhi Police against my own Kashmiris in Delhi, SAR Geelani (a teacher at Zakir Husain College, DU) and Iftekhar Gilani (Journalist), who were detained, interrogated and later acquitted.

The suspected bomber, who is the prime accused in the case, has already fled the country, claims police. Kazmi is accused of having been in regular touch with the main suspect, though he had no inkling about the whole ‘terror’ plot. Police claims that the conspiracy was hatched in January 2011, outside the country, and Kazmi was supposed to gather all the information about the diplomat’s car and pass it on to the executioners of plot. Police managed to track Kazmi via technical surveillance system.

Kazmi has been working with IRNA since 1988 and has earlier worked with DD and BBC also, having covered Iraq and more recently Syria as his major assignments. He is also a regular contributor for many prominent Urdu dailies and periodicals. He also volunteers to teach English to underprivileged children at India Islamic Cultural Centre. The journalists who have worked with Kazmi in the past have already expressed their outrage and indignation. He is a widely respected analyst and commentator on Middle East politics and minces no words in calling spade a spade. To my mind, in this case, he is merely a pawn in a rather sinister game.

This act by police is utterly vindictive, but not shocking. Delhi Police is notorious for it. However, it is sad that this time they chose to target a journalist from Urdu media. I wonder how the mainstream English media would have reacted had one of their own been arrested on such dubious charges. Some of his colleagues fear that he might have been on police radar since a week, when he appeared on a national television and blasted US and Israel for their paranoia. (link: http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/prime-time/video-story/223929)

In such a grim scenario where journalists are arrested, tortured and interrogated for expressing their views, which are not in sync with the official rhetoric, freedom of expression is bound to become a serious casualty. In this country, where dissent amounts to sedition and freedom of expression is often sacrificed at the altar of larger ‘national interest’, journalists and writers have to walk a tightrope. This is where Kazmi seems to have faltered. He has made enemies for not toeing the official line on US and Israel and hence has invited the wrath for it.

So far, only few odd voices from Urdu media have come out in his support, which is not surprising. The game has just begun. Media trail will start now. The likes of Arnab Goswamis and Praveen Swamis will go all out to manufacture charges against him. He will be attacked, interrogated, tortured, harassed, ridiculed and finally he will be set free. In the ensuing hullabaloo we may never hear the true story, because we will not be exposed to it, given India’s “strategic interests”. However, one thing is certain, and I can vouch for it: he is merely a pawn in a sinister game.

By Syed Zafar Mehdi

8 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

(Writer is a Delhi based Journalist.)

Key staff from Al Jazeera’s Beirut Bureau have resigned citing “bias” in the channel’s stance on the conflict in Syria.

Bureau Managing Director Hassan Shaaban reportedly quit last week, after his correspondent and producer had walked out in protest.

A source told the Lebanese paper Al Akhbar that Al Jazeera’s Beirut correspondent Ali Hashem had quit over the channel’s stance on covering events in Syria. “… his position [which] changed after the station refused to show photos he had taken of armed fighters clashing with the Syrian Army in Wadi Khaled. Instead [Al Jazeera] lambasted him as a shabeeh [implying a regime loyalist],” a source told Lebanese press.

Ali Hashem was also infuriated by Al Jazeera’s refusal to cover a crackdown by the King of Bahrain while twisting its Syria angle. “[In Bahrain], we were seeing pictures of a people being butchered by the ‘Gulf’s oppression machine’, and for Al Jazeera, silence was the name of the game,” he said.

The Beirut bureau’s producer also quit claiming Al Jazeera had totally ignored Syria’s constitutional reform referendum, which saw a 57% turnout with 90% voting for change.

Ghassan Ben Jeddo, who had been the head of the Beirut Bureau before resigning almost a year ago, said that Al Jazeera was biased in covering the Arab Spring, especially in Syria and Bahrain.

“I do believe that Al Jazeera and other channels were not balanced in dealing with the events,” he said. “For instance, with respect to the events in Syria and Bahrain, we started to invite guests from America who only criticize the regime in Syria and support the regime in Bahrain and persons who justify NATO intervention. This is unacceptable.”

Journalist and author Afshin Rattansi, who worked for Al Jazeera, told RT that, “sadly”, the channel had become one-sided voice for the Qatari government’s stance against Bashar al-Assad, having begun as the region’s revolutionary broadcaster.

“It is very disturbing to hear how Al Jazeera is now becoming this regional player for foreign policy in a way that some would arguably say the BBC and others have been for decades,” he said. “If Al Jazeera Arabic is going to take a war-like stance after [the] Qatari government, this would be very ill.”

“There is the courage of these journalists, however, in saying ‘Look, this is not the way we should be covering this. There are elements of Al-Qaeda in there,’” Rattansi concluded. “The way Al Jazeera Arabic has covered the story of Syria is completely one-sided.”

Journalists and anti-war activist Don Debar, who has also had Al Jazeera experience, confirmed that the station has been heavily guided by the Qatari government in its policies.

“That has been ongoing since last April of 2011,” Debar told RT. “The head of the bureau in Beirut quit, many other people quit because of the biased coverage and outright hand of the government in dictating editorial policy over Libya, and now Syria.”

­‘There’s a chill, they’re controlling things more at Al Jazeera’

­Former Al Jazeera English-language blogger Ted Rall recounted his own story of quitting the job. He said his blogs and columns were being rejected on a regular basis.

“For a long time I ascribed it to incompetence on their part because they weren’t very good at getting back very quickly, but over time I came to learn through various people there that the politics of the channel were changing,” he told RT. What he found out was that leftist and progressive voices such as his were not welcome anymore and that he no longer needed to submit anything.

Rall noted that this change in policy only took place recently.

“After September 11, Al Jazeera became a channel that could be counted upon for openness and transparency, certainly compared to most corporate broadcast media in the West, particularly related to the Middle East and Central Asia and South Asia but that has really changed in the last year or so,” he said “There’s a chill, they’re controlling things more.”

When Rall first went to work at Al Jazeera, he says he was surprised that it was actually owned by the Qatari government. He compared their past hands-off policy to that of Rupert Murdoch when he owned the Village Voice of New York City. But now, the “Qataris have decided to shape the picture of the news a little more than they used to.”

While he rejected the notion of objectivity, Rall did note that the media could try to present a more balanced view.

“What you really want to see is a broad marketplace of ideas, where lots of different ideas and stories are being told,” he summed up.

­When it was first set up, Al Jazeera English was intended to be a softer version of its Arabic counterpart. Since then, the situation has changed drastically, Middle East analyst Tariq Ali told RT. “The channel I think, was largely set up to please the west and its coverage showed that very clearly. There were few critical programs, compared to Arabic Al Jazeera, but it seems now both are working in tandem.”

By Rt.com

12 March 2012

Gilad Atzmon outlines a vision of Palestinian-Jewish reconciliation in Palestine where Jews, freed of their Zionist state and its ideology of oppression, exclusiveness, exceptionalism, and racial supremacy and segregation, live side by side with Palestinians as citizens of one state with equal rights and responsibilities.

I was asked to talk to you about the on-going dispute within our ranks between those who support the one-state to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and those who advocate two states for the two people.

Interestingly enough, this is a topic I hardly comment on, and not because I am short of vision, opinion or ideas, but rather because I believe that the fate of the people in Palestine and Israel should be decided by the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves. I, for instance, fail to see what qualifies a New York City Jewish academic or activist to determine how people should live in Palestine or anywhere else. Furthermore, I have never seen a Palestinian trying to advise Western solidarity activists how to run their lives. I argue then, that our “interventionist” enthusiasm to preach to others on how they should live is actually slightly pretentious.

But the subject is obviously deeper: in spite of the fact Israel is an organic sovereign state – it is already recognized as one state by the [other] nations, it has a single sewage system, one power grid, one pre-dial international code –many Western leaders insist that it should actually be divided into two. Don’t you think that it is pretty unusual for the “international community” to blindly follow the Zionist ideology and draw a racially-inspired line between the two people on the land?

Zionism – a failed enterprise

So, rather than enter an endless and futile debate here, I propose that we should begin from a point at which we all agree: I presume that we all accept that Israel is currently one state but is dominated politically and spiritually by an ethnocentric discriminatory political system.

Israel defines itself as “the Jewish state” and the practical meaning of this is quite devastating. It is racially driven. Israeli laws favour the Jewish population over the indigenous people of the land. Israel is impervious to universal and ethical thoughts. It is basically there to serve one tribe at the expense of the people of the land.

I would insist that in order to tackle the issue of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we must first understand what is Israel is all about. We must ask what the Jewish nature of Israel entails. We should understand the relationship between Zionism and Jewishness.

Zionism presented itself initially as a utopian promise to bring to life a new “authentic, ethical and civilized Jew”; it promised to make Jews into “a people like all other people”. But the Israeli reality has proved to be the complete opposite of that aspiration. Zionism has totally failed. The Israelis have been proven to be the most unethical collective in the history of the Jews.

One may wonder why, where and when did it all go so wrong? Why did Zionism fail? If Zionism was a unique moment of Jewish reawakening and self-reflection, then why didn’t it live up to that promises?

I believe that the answer is devastating. Zionism was doomed from its very beginning, for in spite of its pseudo-secularist agenda, it was entangled with a quasi-religious ideology, and inevitably it transformed the Bible into a land registry and turned God into an estate agent. It was the Jewishness of the Jewish state, then, that prevailed over the early Zionist utopia. It is the Jewishness in Israel that has led to ethnic cleansing, segregation, isolation and, ultimately, the resurrection of the European ghetto walls.

In order to contemplate the prospect of a peaceful future, then, we must be able to understand the complicated relationship between Jews, Zionism, Israel and Jewishness, and we have to ask whether there is any lucid vision of peace within the Jewish ideological and cultural discourse.

But are we even allowed to ask these questions? I say certainly yes, we must. After all, Israel openly, consciously and even proudly defines itself as the Jewish state. Its aircraft drop bombs on densely populated Palestinian neighbourhoods while decorated with Jewish symbols. Surely, then, we are entitled to ask what Jewishness means and what is its role within the Jewish psyche and spirit.

Jewishness and the Jewish psyche

In my book The Wandering Who? I have attempted to untangle this knot. I have tried to understand what is Jewish identity politics all about. I have exposed the continuum between Zionism, Jewish anti-Zionism and some elements within the left. In the book I try to establish the meaning of Jewishness and how is it related to Jewish politics and Jewish political power?

In the last few pages of the book I elaborate on a fictitious peace scenario in which an imaginary Israeli prime minister who reaches the conclusion, pretty much out of the blue, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be resolved with just a single statement.

In a news conference, the imaginary Israel prime minister announces to the world and his/her people that “Israel realizes its unique circumstances and its responsibility for world peace. Israel calls on the Palestinian people to return to their homes. The Jewish state is to become a state of its citizens, where all peoples enjoy full and equal rights.”

Though shocked by the sudden Israeli move, political analysts around the world are quick to realize that, considering Israel is the representative of world Jewry, such a simple Israeli peaceful initiative would not only resolve the conflict in the Middle East, but would also bring to an end to two millennia of mutual suspicion and resentfulness between Christians and Jews. Some right-wing Israeli academics, ideologists and politicians join the revolutionary initiative and declare that such a heroic unilateral Israeli act could be the one and only total and comprehensive fulfilment of the Zionist dream, for not only have Jews returned to their alleged historical home, but they have also managed, at last, to love their neighbours and be loved in return.

But don’t hold your breath: as thrilling as this idea is, we shouldn’t expect it to happen any time soon, for Israel is not an ordinary state and such a scenario doesn’t fit into its Jewish ethnocentric ideology that is driven by exclusiveness, exceptionalism, racial supremacy and a deep inherent inclination toward segregation.

The meaning of it is very concerning. For Israel and Israelis to fulfil the initial Zionist promise and become “a people like other people”, all traces of ideological superiority must be suppressed first. For the Jewish state to lead a peace initiative, Israel must be de-Zionized – it should first stop being the Jewish state. Similarly, in order for an imaginary Israeli prime minister to bring about peace, he or she must be de-Zionized first.

As things stand, the Jewish state is categorically unable to lead its people into reconciliation. It lacks the necessary ingredients needed to think in terms of harmony and reconciliation – at present, Israel can only think in terms of shalom, a term which, in reality, only means “peace and security for the Jews”.

World Jewry and Israel

But what about world Jewry: can they push their Israeli brothers towards reconciliation? I don’t actually think that they can.

I recently came across some devastating statistics gathered by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR). The poll studied “the attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel”. It revealed that “the vast majority of [British Jewish] respondents exhibit strong personal support for, and affinity with, Israel: 95 per cent have visited the country; 90 per cent see it as the “ancestral homeland” of the Jewish people and 86 per cent feel that Jews have a special responsibility for its survival”.

Though some “progressive” Jewish voices insist that diaspora Jews are drifting away from Israel and Zionism, the JPR report reveals the complete opposite: nine out of 10 British Jews feel close affinity to a criminal, ethnic cleansing, racist and discriminatory state.

But what about the one out of 10 Jews who openly opposes Israel? Is he or she going to speak out and help us to get the message of peace across? I am not so sure either. It is more likely that he or she are going to do whatever they can to prevent us from from talking about Jewishness and the fact that 90 per cent of their brothers identify with the Jewish state.

Ahead of my Toronto appearance, the organizers of tonight’s event were subjected to endless harassment by various Jewish “anti-Zionist” organizations and individuals. Like their Zionist brothers, most Jewish “anti-Zionists” are concerned largely with Jewish tribal matters – they will fight anti-Semitism, “Holocaust denial” or any attempt to understand Jewishness from a universal perspective. Yet, as the JPR poll reveals, they will achieve very little within their respective communities.

But the situation may not be totally grim. I am actually slightly optimistic. For more than a while I have been convinced that the only people who can bring peace about are actually the Palestinians, because Palestine, against all odds and in spite of the endless suffering, humiliation and oppression, is still an ethically-driven ecumenical society.

One or two states?

So what do we do for the time being: should we fight for one state or two states? I guess that you gather by now that I am a strong supporter of one state. I would love to see Israel being transformed into a state of its citizens. I would also openly admit that I do realize that this state won’t be a Jewish state. It will be Palestine. It is about time to say it openly: Israel belongs to the past. And yet, I contend that it is the facts on the ground that will determine the future of the region. And what we see on the ground is perhaps encouraging.

In spite of the pain, animosity and distrust between the two people, there is one principle both Israelis and Palestinian would agree upon, namely “Two peoples, one hummus”. It may sound frivolous, banal or trivial to say that, but it is actually far more profound than just a culinary suggestion. Israelis are gradually becoming the minority on the land. As I once heard the Palestinian ambassador to Britain, Manuel Hassassian, saying: “Israel has many lethal bombs, the Palestinians have only one bomb, the demographic one.”

Interestingly enough, when Israelis want to feel authentic, they do not speak in Yiddish or Aramaic; they actually swear in Arabic and eat hummus.

The meaning of it is simple: deep in their hearts the Israelis know that Palestine is the land and Israel is just a state. When Israelis want to bond with Zion they actually plagiarize the indigenous people of the land, for deep inside the Israeli knows that the sky, the sea, al-Quds, Mount Olive, the Sea of Galilee, the Wailing Wall, the Arabic language and the hummus belong to the land. They also grasp that oppression, exceptionalism, supremacy belong to the state – their own Jewish state.

“Two peoples, one hummus” is my image of peace and reconciliation. The land will stay forever; the failing Jewish state is already subject to historical research. The two people will dine together, and they won’t just share the hummus: they might even share the pita bread between them.

By Gilad Atzmon

28 February 2012

@ Redress.cc

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner.

A version of this article was presented as a talk by Gilad Atzmon to the Islamic Society of York, Toronto, Canada, on 24 February 2012.

Gilad Atzmon’s response to charges of racism and anti-semitism levelled against him by Palestinian writers and activists

Ali Abunimah & Co tend to present themselves as advocates of “One Democratic State in Palestine.” This leaves me puzzled: what kind of democracy do they have in mind, exactly? For by calling for my “disavowal,” they prove beyond a doubt that they cannot tolerate even some elementary cultural criticism—criticism that is endorsed and praised by some of the most respected thinkers within our movement and beyond.

In fact, I am pretty delighted with the outraged reactions to my thoughts. I guess it enables us to map the discourse and its boundaries—and means that those boundaries are now official. Not only has my latest book, The Wandering Who?, rocked the boat, but it also has managed to unite Alan Dershowitz and Abe Foxman with Ali Abunimah and Max Blumenthal. That is pretty encouraging: it means that peace may prevail after all.

However, I also have some bad news for my would-be silencers, Palestinian and Jewish alike. I do not have any plans to slow down or drift away. I am a jazz musician and an independent thinker. I am basically a free agent—I say what I think and think what I say. The popularity of my writing among Palestinians, solidarity activists and truth seekers is the direct outcome of my sincere approach to the subject matter.

Whether my detractors accept it or not, the strength of my arguments is grounded on the transparent truthful nature of my premises. Until now, not one of my opponents has been able to point out a single discrepancy within my argument or the facts I cite. For instance, I contend that since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State—its tanks and planes decorated with Jewish symbols—it is our duty to ask: Who are the Jews? What is Judaism? And what is Jewishness all about?

The fact that some activists shy away from asking those questions doesn’t mean that the rest of us also should behave cowardly.

In case my detractors—be they Zionists, Anti-Zionist Zionists or Palestinians—fail to realize it, Palestine is not alone anymore, and is no longer an isolated, remote discourse. Even as I write, AIPAC is publicly and relentlessly pushing America into a new global conflict. In Britain, 80 percent of Tory MPs are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel. What we are witnessing here is a clear Zionist shift from the discourse of a “promised land” to one of a “promised planet.” I’m convinced that calling a spade a spade could actually save the world, including Americans, Brits, Iranians and Palestinians. But it also can save the Jews from the grave potential consequences inflicted on them by the Jewish lobbies.

Sadly, Ali Abunimah has misrepresented my thoughts. Clearly there is no racism, anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial in my writing. As determined as my detractors are to find it, they have failed to identify a single bit of evidence of such tendencies in my work. Ali Abunimah says on my behalf that “one cannot self-describe as a Jew and also do work in solidarity with Palestine, because to identify as a Jew is to be a Zionist.” What a ludicrous interpretation of my writing, in which I go out of my way to define the issue in categorical terms. What I am obviously opposing is Jewish racial exclusivity. If Israel is in the wrong for being a Jews-only State, I argue, then its Jewish critics better fight it using an inclusive, universalist ideology and practice.

I am indeed critical of Jewish identity politics, Jewish culture and Jewish ideology. I am also critical of the Jewish cultural attitude toward history. I am critical of Jewishness and any form of Jewish exclusive political activism. And yet, I wonder, why should any person who seeks justice and peace object to my approach? Is Jewish culture or identity politics beyond criticism? Are Jews chosen after all.

I am sorry to disappoint my Palestinian and Jewish opposition league, but it seems as if their terminology is faulty and misleading: Zionism is not colonialism, for colonialism is defined as a material exchange between a Mother State and a Settler State. The fact that there is no Jewish Mother State suggests that Zionism doesn’t fit the colonial model.

Nor is Israel an Apartheid State, for Apartheid is defined by the exploitation of the indigenous residents. Yet the Jewish State prefers that the Palestinians simply and completely disappear. In other words, we are dealing here with a unique racially driven expansionist philosophy not very different from the Nazis’ Lebensraum.

Israel is not Zionism, and vice versa. Israel is the outcome of the Zionist project. If Zionism is a promise to establish a “Jewish National Home in Palestine,” Israel is its post-revolutionary product. Indeed, Israelis are barely familiar with Zionist thought and ideology. From their perspective, anti-Zionist ranting is a remote Diaspora discourse.

Shalom does not mean peace, reconciliation or harmony. Its accurate English translation is “security for the Jews.” Israeli culture lacks a clear notion of “peace” as we know it—i.e., harmony and reconciliation.

I suggest that my detractors spend some time and think this through, so they can understand that the issues involving this conflict and its resolution go far beyond mere political discourse.

I would like to take this opportunity to advise my opponents that their campaign is counterproductive. Those who are interested in my ideas realize that we are living in a post-political and post-ideological era. Like myself, they are interested in an ethical argument. They are not “party members,” and they are not taking “orders” from any sectarian group or ideology. Instead they listen to their hearts. Those pro-Palestinian organizations sponsoring my current U.S. book tour realize very well that my work galvanizes a demarcation line between truth and its enemies.

In spite of the relentless slander campaign against my writing, it has not achieved a thing except to expose a rigorous intellectual intolerance in our midst. If my opposition is concerned with my thoughts, it will have to learn to debate. Before we can proceed, I guess, my detractors may have to actually read my book and decide exactly what they are against.

By Gilad Atzmon

15 March 2012

@ Gilad.co.uk

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner..His New Book: The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk

Ayn Rand’s ideas have become the Marxism of the new right.

It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her non-fiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness(1)) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as “refuse” and “parasites”, and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention, in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.

The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate(2,3). One, for example, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife “who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing”.

Rand’s is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demi-god at the head of a chiliastic cult(4). Almost one-third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged(5), and it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year.

Ignoring Rand’s evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading “Who is John Galt?” and “Rand was right”. Ayn Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has “distilled vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose.” She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress(6).

Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed second-hand by people who have never read it. I believe it is making itself felt on this side of the Atlantic: in the clamorous new demands to remove the 50p tax band for the very rich, for example, or among the sneering, jeering bloggers who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator, mocking compassion and empathy, attacking efforts to make the world a kinder place.

It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitised by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments.

It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from a withdrawal of government. But such is the degree of misinformation which saturates this movement and so prevalent in the US is Willy Loman Syndrome (the gulf between reality and expectations(7)) that millions blithely volunteer themselves as billionaires’ doormats. I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and Social Security(8). She had railed furiously against both programmes, as they represented everything she despised about the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill-health.

But they have a still more powerful reason to reject her philosophy: as Adam Curtis’s documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan(9). Among the essays he wrote for Ayn Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal(10). Here, starkly explained, you’ll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as “the ‘greed’ of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking … is the unexcelled protector of the consumer.”(11) As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a “superlatively moral system”(12).

Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru’s philosophy to the letter, lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and repeal the laws constraining the banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already documented, but Weiss shows that in the US Greenspan has successfully airbrushed this history.

Despite the many years he spent at her side, despite his previous admission that it was Rand who persuaded him that “capitalism is not only efficient and practical but also moral,”(13) he mentioned her in his memoirs only to suggest that it was a youthful indiscretion, and this, it seems, is now the official version. Weiss presents powerful evidence that even today Greenspan remains her loyal disciple, having renounced his partial admission of failure to Congress.

Saturated in her philosophy, the new right on both sides of the Atlantic continues to demand the rollback of the state, even as the wreckage of that policy lies all around. The poor go down, the ultra-rich survive and prosper. Ayn Rand would have approved.

By George Monbiot

5 March 2012

@ Guradin

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. In the spirit of Rand, I suggest you don’t pay for it, but download it here: http://tfasinternational.org/ila/Ayn_Rand-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness.pdf

2. The just desserts are detailed on page 605 of the 2007 Penguin edition.

3. The gassing and subsequent explosion are explained on page 621.

4. Gary Weiss, 2012. Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America’s Soul. St. Martin’s Press, New York.

5. This was a Zogby poll, conducted at the end of 2010, cited by Gary Weiss.

6. To give one of many examples, Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, says that “the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.” This is a little ironic, in view of the fact that Rand abhorred the idea of public service. Quoted by Gary Weiss.

7. http://www.monbiot.com/2006/07/07/willy-loman-syndrome/

8. Gary Weiss, pp61-63.

9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011lvb9

10. Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Alan Greenspan and Robert Hessen (Eds), 1967. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Signet, New York.

11. Alan Greenspan, August 1963. The Assault on Integrity. First published in The Objectivist Newsletter, later in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

12. As above.

13. From an article by Soma Golden in the New York Times, July 1974, quoted by Gary Weiss.