Archives: Articles

When companies are owned by workers and the community—instead of Wall Street financiers—everything changes

George Siemon calls himself Organic Valley’s “C-E-I-E-I-O.” An organic farmer himself, he leads the $700 million cooperative of small dairy and egg farmers with a commitment to sustainability. Photo courtesy of Organic Valley.

Our economic system is profoundly broken. To anyone paying attention, that much is clear. But what’s less clear is this: Our approach to fixing the economy is broken as well. The whole notion of “fighting corporate power” arises from an underlying belief that there is no alternative to capitalism as we know it. Starting from the insight that capitalism has become virtually a universal economy, we conclude that our best hope is to regulate corporations and work for countervailing powers like unions. But then we’ve lost before we begin. We’ve defined ourselves as marginal and powerless.

There is another approach. It’s bubbling up all around us in the form of economic alternatives like cooperatives, employee-owned firms, social enterprises, and community land trusts. We don’t recognize that these represent a coherent, workable alternative to capitalism, for two reasons.

First, we haven’t acknowledged what unites them. Second, we don’t have a name for this seemingly disparate batch of alternatives.

Ownership unites them. That’s the reason that these different models represent change that goes deep. It’s the reason this change is fundamental, enduring, and real. This transformation doesn’t depend on the legislative or presidential whims of a particular hour, but is instead a permanent shift in the underlying architecture of economic power.

The alternatives emerging in our time represent an unsung ownership revolution. This revolution is about broadening economic power from the few to the many and redefining the purpose of economic activity. The aim isn’t to endlessly grow gross domestic product or to create wealth for a financial elite, but to generate the conditions for the flourishing of life.

Here we confront the second consideration—the need for a name. We can call this new economy the generative economy. The word generative is from the Greek ge; it’s the same root form found in the word Gaia and means “the carrying on of life.” The generative economy is one whose fundamental architecture tends to create beneficial rather than harmful outcomes. It has a built-in tendency to be socially fair and ecologically sustainable.

Options like worker ownership and cooperatives not only spread wealth but ensure that owners are local, hence more likely to care about local ecological impacts. And they allow enterprises to reject the growth imperative endangering the biosphere. Generative enterprise does not answer to the demands of the finance system, which locks publicly traded companies into a growth path in order to keep stock prices inflated.

In writing the book, Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution, I’ve been traveling around and visiting places where this new economy is bubbling up. Here’s some of the good news I have to share: Generative ownership isn’t just about small, local, founder-run companies. It’s possible to keep the soul of these companies alive even at large scale, and long after the founder is gone.

Founded on Fairness

Consider, for example, the John Lewis Partnership (JLP) in England. It’s the largest department store chain in the country, with 35 department stores and 272 Waitrose grocery stores. Revenues of this company are more than $11.5 billion. If placed into the Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S. corporations, JLP would settle in around 212—a little higher than Starbucks. It’s 100 percent owned by its employees.

The John Lewis Partnership is built around the value of fairness. The founder, John Spedan Lewis, who created its democratic structure about a century ago, believed that traditional ownership was unfair because dividends paid to shareholders for doing nothing were obscene when workers barely earned subsistence wages. The stated purpose of the company he created is to serve the happiness of its employees, or, as the company calls them, partners.

To see if this firm was real, I flew to London and visited a few of its stores—including a Waitrose grocery store. I met a butcher at the meat counter wearing a white linen fedora, a crisp white shirt beneath a green-striped apron, and a bow tie. The hats were required, he explained. But wearing a tie every day was his choice. “I just feel more dressed,” he told me. People notice touches like that at Waitrose, where pay raises are given for performance, including such things as “being a tidy person,” John said. He told me about his sister, Carol, who also worked at Waitrose and had just been diagnosed with cancer. “They’ve been really good,” he said, referring to the company. “There’s a budget set aside for people like this. She’s been off for three months, and they’re holding her job.”

When employees at Waitrose and other JLP stores face a family emergency, they can seek a grant or loan from the Committee for Financial Assistance. That committee, composed of and elected by employees, controls the special budget John referred to and makes decisions outside the chain of management. Help from that fund—plus the commitment to hold Carol’s job—took “the money side of worries away,” John said.

I also visited the company’s Peter Jones department store, entering through an arched doorway with the legend inscribed in stone, “Here is Partnership on the scale of modern industry.” There I encountered a mid-level manager named Harry Goonewardene, who served on the Partnership Council, an elected body of employees that works alongside the board of directors.

“How did you get on the council?” I asked him. “Did you campaign?”

“Very much so,” he said. “I stood at the door and grabbed people, told them, ‘Hi, this is who I am.’” He carried himself as a city councilmember might, calmly, with an air of dignity that was almost arresting. He was impeccably dressed in a dark suit and had dark olive skin—he is from Sri Lanka, I was later told. He lacked that harried, pinched sense one often sees among floor managers at other retailers. A meeting of the Partnership Council would be held soon, he told me, during which an adjustment to the pension scheme would be discussed.

Each year, the company contributes to pension accounts a sum not far below employees’ annual pay; employees aren’t required to contribute anything. However, they are not eligible until they have completed three years of work, and people were concerned about that. “A committee has been looking at this, and we’ll take it back to constituents and present a plan,” he said. By “constituents,” he meant the workers.

John and Harry are among the 76,500 employee-owners of the John Lewis Partnership. If the ultimate perquisite of being an owner is the right to pocket some of the profit left after the bills are paid, then these employees are genuine owners. Each year, after the firm sets aside a portion of profits for reinvestment in the business, the remainder—generally between 40 and 60 percent of profit—is distributed to employees. One clerk named Emma told me her recent bonus was 2,000 pounds [U.S. $3,264]. “I spent some on a holiday in the Canary Islands,” she told me. “It was my first holiday in four years.”

Every employee at JLP, from shop clerk to the chairman, gets a bonus representing the same percentage of individual pay. As one manager told me, “In the worst year, it’s 8 percent, in the best year, 24 percent” of salary. Last year, the annual figure was announced with fanfare on the floor of the company’s store on Oxford Street, where a partner held up a poster reading “18%,” and employees clapped and cheered. That bonus amounted to about nine weeks pay.

Here we begin to see what is revolutionary about the John Lewis Partnership. Employees in this firm are not a countervailing power. They’re not legally outside the firm, negotiating with it. They are the firm.

From shareholders to stakeholders

This concept represents a kind of revolution akin to the shift from monarchy to democracy. In the American Revolution, the founding generation didn’t attempt to regulate or restrain monarchy. They created a new source of political power and sovereignty that they controlled themselves. The revolution they began is one that we are in a position to finish today. That previous generation democratized the political aspect of sovereignty. But our politics and economy are so intertwined that imbalances in wealth and ownership have eroded our political democracy. To fix this, we need to democratize the economic aspect of sovereignty.

Today the ruling oligarch in our economy is capital. Only capital has the right to vote inside most companies, and only capital has a claim on profits. Serving capital—maximizing returns for absentee shareholders—is the goal of publicly traded companies.

In the generative economy, ownership is rooted instead in the hands of stakeholders connected to the life of the enterprise. In some cases, these are employees. They can also be community members, as with municipally owned electric plants and wind installations. In the case of credit unions, the depositors are the owners.

With a farmer-owned cooperative like Organic Valley—a Wisconsin firm with more than $700 million in revenue—the owners are the suppliers, the people who produce the organic milk, cheese, and eggs that the company distributes. While the purpose of JLP is to serve employee happiness, the purpose of Organic Valley is to save the family farm. Both JLP and Organic Valley share certain ownership design patterns: a combination of rooted ownership and a mission that is not about maximizing profits but serving the needs of life. Protecting and enhancing the biosphere is integral to Organic Valley’s operations, since it deals only in organic products. The company helps its new farmers through the rigorous process of going organic, which means company growth translates into wider restoration of soils and watersheds.

There are many other benefits the company produces. Farmers benefit from healthy income. Employees benefit from stable jobs and rewarding work. Customers benefit from chemical-free food. Investors in the firm’s preferred stock benefit from dependable rates of return. Farming communities benefit from the return of vitality that flows from farmers’ prosperity.

Through enterprises like these, we can begin to grasp the principles that we could use to create a generative economy:

1. There is an alternative to capitalism. This is the heresy that the keepers of the temple do not wish us to utter. It is possible to organize a large, sophisticated, modern economy that tends toward fair and just outcomes, benefits the many rather than the few, and enables an enduring human presence on a flourishing Earth.

2. Getting there is not only about regulation but about emergence. As organizational change theorist Margaret Wheatley writes, “emergence” refers to what happens when local actions spring up and connect through networks. Without warning, emergent phenomena can occur, such as the rise of the organic food movement. Such movements rely not on central leadership but on shared vision.

3. The generative economy is not a legal exercise but the embodiment of an emerging value system. Companies in the generative economy are built around values; the John Lewis Partnership’s core value is fairness, while Organic Valley’s core values are sustainability and community.

4. Generative values become enduring through the social architecture of ownership. The generative economy is built on a foundation of stakeholder ownership designed to generate and preserve real wealth—resources held and shared by our communities and the ecosystems we live in. These enterprises don’t have absentee ownership shares trading in a casino economy, but ownership held in human hands.

Today’s major corporations may seem eternal. But as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed, creative destruction is ever present in capitalism. In industrialized nations, an estimated 15 percent of jobs are destroyed every year, and new jobs replace them. It’s the same with companies. Hypothetically, a new economy comes into existence every seven years. In the long run, battling the dinosaurs of today may be less important than getting the next economy into the right kinds of ownership.

We can’t get where we need to go by starting with corporations and asking how to restrain them, regulate them, or rein them in. We need to start with life, with human life and the life of the planet, and ask: How do we generate the conditions for life’s flourishing? Will we continue to rely on ownership architectures organized around growth and maximum income for the few? Or can we shift to new ownership models organized around keeping this planet and all its inhabitants thriving?

Our greatest challenge lies in the realm of imagination and ideas. Imagine, for example, if the energy aroused by Occupy Wall Street were channeled into achievable strategies that supported ownership alternatives. Such strategies could include the Move Your Money campaign to shift bank deposits to cooperative and community banks or a push for major legislation to advance employee ownership (an alternative favored by both left and right). Imagine if campaigns like these were unified as a single movement for a generative economy. We might create an unstoppable force—a movement less about regulating corporations as they are and more about building living enterprises as we want them to be.

By Marjorie Kelly

16 March 2012

@ YES! Magazine

Marjorie Kelly wrote this article for 9 Strategies to End Corporate Rule, the Spring 2012 issue of YES! Magazine. Marjorie is a fellow with the Tellus Institute in Boston and director of ownership strategy with Cutting Edge Capital. Her new book, Owning Our Future: The Emerging Ownership Revolution, will be published in June 2012 by Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

” You are my creator, but I am your master—obey!” So said the Monster to its creator Frankenstein [1] .   As with the monster and its creator, we witness once again Israel telling America to obey – to start yet another war of choice and massacre Iranians.

For over six decades, Israel has demanded full obedience from the United State .  Every  U.S. president, pressured by the pro-Israel lobbies in the United States and the Congressional members whose primary loyalty is to Israel at the expense of America’s national interest,  have been forced to comply with the ever-increasing bellicose Israeli demands.   No wonder Benjamin Netanyahu imagines himself unstoppable.

Netanyahu, one of the most dangerous Israeli leaders, is demanding another war so that he may continue the aggressive usurpation of Palestinian and Arab lands uninterrupted by public opinion and disregard for international laws.  The thuggish Netanyahu came to Washington to demand surrender from its puppet master, America , like every other Israeli politician before him.   He demands sacrifice from Americans in the firm belief  that all sacrifice is justified having witnessed his own brother Yonatan Netanyahu get killed in a 1976 Israeli false flag operation in Entebbe, Uganda.

Lending support to his conviction is the American cover-up of US servicemen murdered by Israel .   When the USS Liberty was attacked by Israelis and the servicemen deliberately massacred, the Johnson Administration’s cover-up of the tragic event send a clear message to Israel :  American leaders have your back, even if you murder our citizens.

However, the  Soviet message to the Israelis and America was different — as one hopes Russia ‘s will be.

In January 1970, Israel ‘s deep penetration raids into Egypt , prompted Nasser to plea to the Soviets for help.  The Soviets sent a warning to President Nixon who dismissed it (thanks to a faulty Israeli intelligence analysis of the Soviet intentions and capabilities). By March, the Soviets had provided Egypt with air defense and Soviet troops equipped with advanced weaponry arrived in Egypt .   In addition to the 10,000 Soviet technicians, Soviet pilots were flying Egyptian planes in combat (Ball ’92).  The firm action taken by the Soviets forced Israel to modify its tactics and stop its deep penetration raids.

Perhaps it is time for Russia to once again stop this aggressive madness so that balance and sanity may resume.

The Israeli plan to wage war on Iran , will, by necessity, drag in the whole region and make the conflict  global in scope.  But how important is Iran or the other Islamic countries devastated by US-Israel? As Azar Gat, Ezer Weizman professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University opined ( Foreign Affairs, July-August 2007 ), “radical Islam” poses “no significant military threat to the developed world..”  The significant challenge, she contended, emanates from China and Russia operating under “authoritarian capitalist”  poised for a comeback.

This self-serving portrayal  has been coupled with absurd religious zealotry in the same quarters with devastating effect.  Powerful  Jews and Christians (such as AIPAC)  who believe in a “final battle” of  Gog and Magog (Ezekiel (38:1 – 39:29) preceded by a period of violence,  chaos and war,  view Israel ‘s expansionist agenda and   America ‘s imperial ambitions through ideologically tainted lenses.

This mindset was well demonstrated when in October 2007, President Bush remarked that a nuclear Iran would mean World War III, at which time Israeli newscasts on channels 2 and 10 featured Gog and Magog maps of the likely alignment of nations in that potential conflict: on one side were Israel, the United States, Britain, France and Germany; on the other were Iran, Russia, China, Syria and North Korea.   (The current GOP Presidential debate (with the exception of Ron Paul) point to this dangerous mindset).

It comes as no surprise that in 2008, the influential pro-Israel Dennis Ross , had a meeting with the Syrian “opposition group” chief, Anas al-Abdah ( see here ) to discuss “Syria in-transition” – years before the current uprisings, but without a doubt, a major contributing factor to the current unrest – a policy that continues today.

While Iran (and Syria ) is the direct target of an immediate attack, it is not the ultimate target.

Russia ‘s policies have been based on Realpolitik. As such, in the interest of its national interest , Russia must place a premium on preventing an Israeli/US led war with Iran ,  and the prelude to such a war – the illegal and immoral “crippling sanctions”.   Although Russia and Iran have had a tainted history in the past, it must be emphasized that preventing the disintegration and upheaval of the countries in the region will serve both nations and strengthen the resistance barrier to the planned global domination, future wars, and help avert the potential for a catastrophic world war.

Such deterrence is possible under the strength and resolve shown by Vladimir Putin.  Perhaps aware of Putin’s strength prompted America to increase its aid to Russian dissidents.  In 2008, Congress provided an additional $6 million for “human rights defenders and political activists in Russia .”   In line with these tactics, attempts were  made to delegitimize the election  results in Russia and create chaos in order to weaken the nation and its resolve – the usual NED and Freedom House tactic.

There has never been more need for  Russia  to demonstrate its resolve.   As elected president, Mr. Putin would do well to draw his own “red lines” by addressing the UN  Security Council and stating firmly and irrevocably that a preventative/preemptive attack on Iran (or Syria ) is illegal, and unacceptable, which will draw reaction from Russia .   Mr. Putin should ask that the United States firmly, openly, and honestly (without giving Israel the green light privately, which the US has done many times) reject the notion that Israel has the ‘right’ to launch such and illegal act.

Perhaps with a show of strength from Russia ,  other countries will join in to resist wars of choice, ushering in a new era of renewed hope for the future of humanity and this planet.

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master’s degree in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg for Communication and Journalism and USC School of International Relations.  She is  an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.

[1] There is a common misconception that Frankenstein is the monster; it is in fact the name of the creator.

By Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

8 March 2012

@ Countercurrents.org

NEW DELHI: In an initiative to promote trade in local currencies, the BRICS nations today signed two agreements to provide line of credit to business community and decided to examine the possibility of setting up a development bank on lines of multilateral lending agencies.

The agreements were signed by officials of five countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — at the fourth BRICS summit here.

“The agreements signed today by development banks of BRICS countries will boost trade by offering credit in our local currency,” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in a media statement after the meeting.

The Master Agreement on Extending Credit Facility in Local Currency and the Multilateral Letter of Credit Confirmation Facility Agreement are being perceived as a step towards replacing the dollar as the main unit of trade between them.

Such intra-BRICS initiatives, according to officials, will not only contribute to enhanced trade and investments among the nations but would also facilitate economic growth in difficult economic times.

As regards the initiative to set up a BRICS Development Bank on the lines of multilateral lending agency, Singh said the proposal would be examined by the finance ministers.

“A suggestion has been made to set up a BRICS development bank, we have directed our FM to examine the proposal and report back by next summit,” Singh said.

The initiative to set up a BRICS Development Bank on the lines of the World Bank would allow the member countries to pool resources for infrastructure development and could also be used to lend during the difficult global environment.

Intra-BRICS trade is about USD 230 billion and has the potential of more than doubling to USD 500 billion by 2015.

By The Times of India

29 March 2012

Despite all of Hamas’ assurances to the contrary, a defining struggle is taking place within the Palestinian Islamic movement. The outcome of this struggle – which is still confined to polite political disagreements and occasional intellectual tussle – is likely to change Hamas’ outlook, if not fundamentally alter its position within a quickly changing Arab political landscape.

The current Hamas is already different from the one initially set up by a local Gaza leadership in December 1987 in response to the first Palestinian uprising. One of the very first statements circulated by their newly established ‘military wing’ (masked men armed with wooden clubs and cans of spray paint) expressed the nature of that political era:

“What has happened to you, O rulers of Egypt? Were you asleep in the period of the treaty of shame and surrender, the Camp David treaty? Has your national zealousness died and your pride ran out while the Zionists daily perpetrate grave and base crimes against the people and the children?”

Although the power discrepancy between Israel and the Palestinians has remained largely unchanged, Hamas has morphed from a local Palestinian branch of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood into a tour de force within Palestinian society. It has also become an important regional player, long designated by the US and Israel as a member of the radical camp in the Middle East (the other members being Iran, Syria and Hezbollah). While Iran and Syria were demonized for aiding and enabling Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah successfully resisted Israel’s military adventures in Gaza and Lebanon.

Arab revolutions, however, forced a remarkable transformation in terms of power relations in the region. Longtime symbols of Western influence in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen were violently and decisively forced out of power, although their cronies are still battling for position and sway. The ‘moderate camp’ was shocked to its core by the removal of Honsi Mubarak, who, for three decades, diligently guarded a pro-American fort in exchange for a fixed sum of money. The dramatic events that swept the Arab world required urgent action, a spectacular jockeying for influence – to either coerce where change was deemed unacceptable, or exploit genuine, homegrown uprisings where change presented an opportunity to settle scores.

Syria was a prime example of the latter. It is widely understood that to balance the power play of gains and losses, the removal of Mubarak could only be offset with the ousting of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad. Only then would the game return to a state of normalcy – especially when we consider the diminishing American influence in the region following its withdrawal from Iraq. Unfortunately for Syria, the conflict was quickly redrawn around regional politics. The horrifying violence in Syria is being contextualized within dangerous paradigms concerning NATO intervention and some Arab countries’ insistence on transforming the civil war into a zero-sum game.

Hamas, which had successfully survived factional rivalry, Israeli wars and international isolation, was faced with its most pressing dilemma since the legislative elections of January 2006. On one hand, the so-called Arab Spring has ushered the unmistakable (and predicted) rise of Islamic political forces – of which Hamas is part and parcel. On the other, it has confusingly renovated the political equilibrium of the entire region.

It is no secret that without Iran’s financial support, Hamas would have found it very difficult to operate in the Gaza Strip following the Israeli blockade in 2007. Damascus had provided Hamas with a political platform, allowing the Islamic movement a level of freedom to propagate its ideas and take some of the heat off its besieged leadership in Gaza and the West Bank. Disowning its allies due to a growingly polarizing political (and sectarian) discourse in the region is not an easy decision by any means. Here lies Hamas’ predicament.

Political realism is unavoidably opportunistic. Hamas’ reputation among its supporters was maintained through a careful balance between political savvy and religiously motivated ideological principles. Revolutionary times can upset any balance, however skillfully cultivated. A series of agreements between Hamas and Fatah – including the landmark Doha accord on February 6 – were attributed to the reformatting of regional alliances: Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah suffered a serious blow with the ousting of Mubarak, and Hamas’ future in Syria looked increasingly dim in light of the escalating violence.

Although Palestinians have been demanding reconciliation between the rivals, to no avail, the successive unity episodes were incriminating to both parties as national accord and resisting Israel proved less urgent than regional politics. Hamas’ drift to a new camp continued at astonishing speed. Hamas’s leaders in Damascus, and also Gaza went out on regional tours, hoping to forge new alliances to the once shunned resistance movement. And in another twist, exiled Hamas leaders have suddenly emerged as agents of political moderation. The swiftness of the new terminology is explained by Brian Murphy and Karin Laub: “The movement’s top leader in exile, Khaled Mashaal, wants Hamas to be part of the broader Islamist political rise…For this, Hamas needs new friends like the wealthy Gulf states that are at odds with Iran” (AP, Feb 9).

Writing in the Lebanese Daily Star, Michael Broning, Israel-based director of the German Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung foundation, agrees. “Meshaal has come to represent a force of change,” he states, while Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh “represents the conservative wing of Gaza’s Hamas leadership.” Thus a long-coveted opening is presenting itself as “disagreements within Hamas have been escalating, pitting the movement’s diaspora leadership against the Hamas-led Gaza administration.” Tellingly, the title of Broning’s article is: “Engage Hamas’ moderates and test their newfound flexibility” (Feb 24).

Some commentators, Broning included, are widely speculating on the future of the movement. News outlets are rife with reports regarding Hamas’ maneuvering – whether compelled by political necessity or propelled by the ideological triumph of Islamist forces in the region.

Hamas might be reinventing itself, or it may simply be trying to weather the storm. Either way, the political context of Hamas’ maneuvers is quickly leaving its traditional home (the Israeli occupation), and moving into a whole new dimension regarding the region as a whole. While Hamas might convincingly argue that survival necessitates measured shifts in politics, it is more difficult to explain how quickly and readily regional politicking is trumping national priorities.

Indeed, the line separating principles and politics can at times be a very fine one.

By Ramzy Baroud

1 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).

Contrary to widespread concerns over an imminent hard landing, China will defy the naysayers.

Even after premier Wen Jiabao’s latest warning over a moderate slowing of growth, it is doing a far better job in managing its economy than most give it credit. It even offers some lessons in macro policy strategy that the rest of the world should heed.

Nowhere is that more evident than on the inflation front, where Chinese authorities have waged a very successful campaign against what has long been the nation’s most destabilising economic threat. After peaking at 6.5 per cent in July 2011, the headline consumer price index (CPI) has decelerated to 4.5 per cent in early 2012, with more disinflation likely in the coming months.

This reflects the impacts of three very deliberate policy actions taken by Beijing.

First, administrative measures were put in place to deal with bottlenecks in agriculture – pork,cooking oil, fresh vegetables and fertiliser. Food inflation, which accounts for about one-third of the items on the Chinese CPI, peaked at 15 per cent in mid-2011. It has slowed to about 10 per cent.

Second, bank required reserve ratios were raised 12 times in 2011 to slow credit growth. The results are encouraging. Renminbi bank loan growth decelerated from 19.9 per cent in 2010 to 15.8 per cent in 2011 and renminbi deposit growth slowed even more sharply from 20.2 per cent in 2010 to 13.5 per cent in 2011.

Third, the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) raised policy interest rates five times in 2011. This was particularly important in light of the acceleration of non-food, or core inflation, to a 3 per cent high last northern summer – the sharpest such increase in more than a decade. Had the PBoC not acted, underlying inflationary pressures could have intensified further. Instead, they have now begun to moderate – with non-food CPI inflation easing off to 1.8 per cent in January 2012.

This three-pronged approach – in conjunction with a modest acceleration in renminbi currency appreciation – is an important example of China’s increased prowess in macro policy stabilisation.

Particularly significant was the central bank’s willingness to take its policy rate – the one-year benchmark lending rate – up to the peak headline inflation rate of 6.5 per cent last northern summer. By doing so, the PBoC not only ended the excessive accommodation imparted by negative real interest rates but it was then able to orchestrate a “passive” monetary tightening – allowing real short-term interest rates to climb to 2 per cent as administrative actions took food price and headline inflation lower in the second half of 2011.

This is classic central banking at its best. China now has plenty of ammunition in its monetary policy arsenal – namely, high required bank reserve ratiosand positive real short-term interest rates – to deploy as circumstances dictate. In contrast, the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England are out of traditional ammunition. They have followed the Bank of Japan and taken their short-term policy rates down to the zero bound.

As a result, the world’s big central banks have been forced to rely on untested and dubious liquidity injections as the primary means of monetary control. Where this ends and what it implies for the future – inflation, another outbreak of asset and credit bubbles, or some combination of all that – is anyone’s guess.

In the event of a downside shock to its economy, Chinese authorities have ample scope to ease. With economic activity slowing, they have already taken modest actions in that direction with two recent 50 basis point cuts in the required reserve ratio to a still very high 20.5 per cent. At the same time, with real policy rates at 2 per cent and likely to rise a little further as headline inflation eases, there is plenty of scope for traditional monetary easing if there is further weakening in the economy. The west – out of basis points and with massive budget deficits – has no such option.

In a crisis-prone world, there is a gathering sense of foreboding over China. First it was the US, then Europe. Now there are growing fears the Chinese economy must be next. It’s not just the hand-wringing over inflation but also worries of a huge property bubble, a banking crisis or social unrest.

Those fears are overblown. China is cut from a very different cloth than the advanced economies of the west. Long focused on stability, it is more than willing to accept the short-term costs of a growth sacrifice to keep its development strategy on track.

A successful battle against inflation is an important example of the interplay between China’s tactical imperatives and its overarching strategic objectives. That’s a lesson the rest of the world could certainly stand to learn.

By Stephen S. Roach

5 March 2012

@ Financial Times

Stephen S. Roach, a member of the faculty at Yale University, was formerly chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia and is the author of ‘The Next Asia’

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