MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
October 7, 2010
MEDIA ALERT: DEATHLY SILENCE
OBAMA’S LETTER, NETANYAHU’S REJECTION AND THE MEDIA’S NON-RESPONSE
Following Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967, along with other territories including East Jerusalem, Israel has built and expanded Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land. The settlers enjoy the benefits of a separate, and far superior, civilian infrastructure to nearby Palestinian communities, and they are protected at great expense by the Israeli military. Under international law, the settlements are illegal. But despite private agreements with the US to rein in growth, Israel has continued the non-stop expansion of its illegal settlements. While the public stance of the United States is that it does not recognise “the international legitimacy” of the settlements, Washington has in practice provided decades-long support for Israeli policy.
Earlier this week, independent journalist Jonathan Cook reported facts that blow a hole through the standard deceit that the United States is an “honest broker” for peace in the Middle East. (Jonathan Cook, ‘Obama's Cave-In to Israel’, Counterpunch, 4 October, 2010; http://www.counterpunch.org/cook10042010.html). As Cook explains, details were leaked of a letter sent by US President Barack Obama to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister:
“Obama made a series of extraordinarily generous offers to Israel, many of them at the expense of the Palestinians, in return for a single minor concession from Netanyahu: a two-month extension of the partial freeze on settlement growth.”
The previous 10-month freeze on settlement growth in the West Bank, which has just ended, has not so far been renewed by Israel. This obduracy threatens to bring the negotiations to an abrupt halt. This was the deadlock that Obama’s letter was supposedly designed to break.
Netanyahu reportedly declined the US offer, while Washington denies that a letter was ever sent. But according to the Israeli media, US officials in Washington are “incensed” by Netanyahu’s rejection.
As Cook notes, the disclosures were made by an informed source: David Makovsky, of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a close associate of Dennis Ross, Obama’s chief adviser on the Middle East, who is said to have initiated the offer.
Cook continues:
“In return for a two-month extension of the settlement moratorium, the US promised to veto any UN Security Council proposal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the next year, and committed to not seek any further extensions of the freeze. The future of the settlements would be addressed only in a final agreement.
“The US would also allow Israel to keep a military presence in the West Bank’s Jordan Valley, even after the creation of a Palestinian state; continue controlling the borders of the Palestinian territories to prevent smuggling; provide Israel with enhanced weapons systems, security guarantees and increase its billions of dollars in annual aid; and create a regional security pact against Iran.”
The Palestinian leadership, observes Cook, is certain to draw three major conclusions “from this attempt at deal-making over its head.”
“The first is that the US president, much like his predecessors, is in no position to act as an honest broker. His interests in the negotiations largely coincide with Israel’s.
“Obama needs a short renewal of the freeze, and the semblance of continuing Israeli and Palestinian participation in the ‘peace process’, until the US Congressional elections in November.”
“The second conclusion -- already strongly suspected by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, and his advisers -- is that Netanyahu, despite his professed desire to establish a Palestinian state, is being insincere.”
Finally:
“The third conclusion for the Palestinians is that no possible combination of governing parties in Israel is capable of signing an agreement with Abbas that will not entail significant compromises on the territorial integrity of a Palestinian state.”
There was next to no coverage of these dramatic revelations, and their implications, in the UK news media. As far as we can determine, the Independent has remained silent, along with The Times and the bulk of the national press.
One welcome, although brief, exception appeared last week on the Guardian website by its Jerusalem-based correspondent Harriet Sherwood. (‘Obama offering Israel incentives to extend freeze on settlement construction, say reports’, guardian.co.uk, 30 September 2010 18.11 BST,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/israel-obama-netanyahu-peace-talks). Oddly this did not appear in the print edition, as far as we can determine from searches of the Lexis-Nexis newspaper database.
A fleeting mention did, however, appear in the Guardian on Monday this week (and the following day in the paper). Stretching his journalistic muscle to all of 40 words, Guardian assistant editor Simon Tisdall wrote blandly in his “world briefing”:
“Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, is likewise refusing to budge. He reportedly told US officials that a 60-day extension to the building moratorium that expired last month, as sought by Obama, would damage his political credibility and endanger his coalition.”
(‘Obama faces humiliation over Middle East talks’, guardian.co.uk, 4 October 2010 16.00 BST;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/04/israel-palestine-peace-collapse)
Note the conformity to the requirements of professional journalism to report facts, but only superficially and without the context and analysis that might offend power.
As far as we can see, the only other national UK newspaper to mention the latest disclosures was the Daily Telegraph which had a printed piece titled inoffensively – indeed, deceptively - ‘Obama tries to keep peace deal on track’. The earlier online version was more honest: ‘Barack Obama “sent Israel letter outlining assurances on peace talks”’. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/8035425/Barack-Obama-sent-Israel-letter-outlining-assurances-on-peace-talks.html)
As for the BBC, the search function on its news website is notoriously cumbersome to use; so it has been difficult to verify whether BBC news online has reported it at all. But an email from Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen (see below) strongly suggests the corporation has yet to mention the disclosures about Obama’s letter, Netanyahu’s rejection of it, and what these latest developments might mean for a proper understanding of the Middle East “peace process”.
Exchange With BBC Middle East Editor
On October 4, we wrote to Jeremy Bowen, asking whether he was aware of Obama’s letter and Netanyhau’s rejection of it. We also referred to Cook’s report, highlighting the main conclusions that could be drawn, as we saw above: namely, that the US is no “honest broker”; the timing of Obama’s letter with forthcoming US Congressional elections is unlikely to be a coincidence; and that Netanyahu, and indeed the Israeli leadership as a whole, is not a sincere negotiating partner.
We concluded in our email to Bowen:
“Were you aware of these disclosures? And do you plan to report them, and their significance?”
On October 5, Bowen emailed back:
“Yes, I am aware of the American proposals, which have been reported extensively since David Makovsky put them in the WINEP [Washington Institute for Near East Policy] site.
“I am in Lebanon working on a radio programme at the moment. I feel sure that the American offer will be part of my reporting when I am back with the Israelis and Palestinians.”
We replied the following day:
“It is noteworthy that the BBC has seemingly failed to report on President Obama’s letter, especially given the extensive resources at your disposal. Obama’s self-serving offer to the Israelis, and Netanyahu’s rejection of it, is significant for many reasons as reporter Jonathan Cook makes clear in his piece. The role of the US as 'honest broker', and the cynical realpolitik of the timing with US Congressional elections in November, are laid bare; as is Netanyahu’s obstructionism and insincerity. The story is all over the Israeli media.
“There were thus compelling reasons for the BBC to bring these disclosures in a timely and fully explanatory way to the attention of the public. That the BBC’s Middle East bureau is seemingly unable or unwilling to do so, regardless of whether you happen to be in Lebanon working on a radio programme, is grim news indeed.
“By denying the public vital facts that enables us to form a fully rounded picture of what’s going on, you have surely neglected your professional responsibilities. This matters because ultimately people’s lives depend upon the truth being reported.”
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor
Email: jeremy.bowen@bbc.co.uk
Please copy to:
Helen Boaden, BBC News editor
Email: helenboaden.complaints@bbc.co.uk
Michael Lyons, BBC Trust chairman
Email: michael.lyons@bbc.co.uk
Please blind copy us in on any exchanges or forward them to us later at:
editor@medialens.org
Having started Media Lens in 2001, we are delighted to announce that, a mere nine years later, David Cromwell has managed to flit from the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton to join David Edwards in working full-time on the project. No longer can the BBC’s John Sweeney claim that we are “two moonlighting clerks from the White Fish Authority or some such aquatic quango”. (Sweeney, letter to New Statesman, September 22, 2003).
This wonderful development for us is entirely thanks to the kindness and generosity of numerous individuals sending one-off and monthly donations. As ever, your support is hugely appreciated. With our writing manpower doubled, our energies revitalised, we are exploring new ways of challenging the mainstream media Moloch.
The best way to support us is to send a monthly donation via PayPal or a standing order with a UK bank. If you currently support the corporate media by paying for their newspapers, why not support Media Lens instead?
http://www.medialens.org/donate
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/101007_deathly_silence_obamas.php
The second Media Lens book, 'NEWSPEAK in the 21st Century' by David Edwards and David Cromwell, was published in 2009 by Pluto Press. John Pilger writes of the book:
"Not since Orwell and Chomsky has perceived reality been so skilfully revealed in the cause of truth."
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/newspeak.php
Our earlier book, 'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media' (Pluto Books, London), was published in 2006:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
donderdag 7 oktober 2010
Henk Hofland 34
Dit schreef de columnist Henk Hofland in de NRC van gisteravond:
En nu, terwijl in Washington de grootste verwarring over Afghanistan heerst, zijn sommige politici toch weer van plan om Nederlandse soldaten naar deze uitzichtloze onherbergzaamheid te sturen. Laat Obama eerst met een doordacht plan komen, waarmee ook zijn generaals het eens zijn, en daarna Den Haag om steun vragen. Dan kunnen we altijd nog zien wat we doen.
http://weblogs.nrc.nl/hofland/2010/10/06/grootmacht-nederland/
Zou Henk niet weten dat meer dan 40 procent van de federale begroting van de VS naar -- wat officieel heet -- de 'Nationale Veiligheid' gaat. Dit betekent dat de VS geen militair-industrieel complex heeft, maar een militair-industrieel complex is. Dat complex kan zichzelf alleen legitimeren door het hebben van een vijand en het voeren van oorlog. Dat spreekt voor zich. Het was een halve eeuw geleden dat de oud-opperbevelhebber van de Geallieerde Strijkdrachten Dwight Eisenhower, na acht jaar presidentschap van de VS, wees op de gevaar van het militair-industrieel complex toen hij tijdens zijn afscheidsspeech dit verklaarde:
'Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.'
Het probleem is nu dat de poortwachters van de macht suggereren dat de oorlog in Afghanistan uitsluitend bepaald wordt door politiek-militaire factoren, terwijl men angstvallig zwijgt over de economische drijfveer achter dit alles. Dit verzwijgen is het probleem van de mainstream media die niet al te ver van de officiele versie van de werkelijkheid mogen afwijken, zelfs niet als ze door een oud militair en Amerikaanse president worden gewaarschuwd. Alle opiniemakers van de commerciele massamedia spelen het spel mee. Daar worden ze voor betaald. And the beat goes on.
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html
En nu, terwijl in Washington de grootste verwarring over Afghanistan heerst, zijn sommige politici toch weer van plan om Nederlandse soldaten naar deze uitzichtloze onherbergzaamheid te sturen. Laat Obama eerst met een doordacht plan komen, waarmee ook zijn generaals het eens zijn, en daarna Den Haag om steun vragen. Dan kunnen we altijd nog zien wat we doen.
http://weblogs.nrc.nl/hofland/2010/10/06/grootmacht-nederland/
Zou Henk niet weten dat meer dan 40 procent van de federale begroting van de VS naar -- wat officieel heet -- de 'Nationale Veiligheid' gaat. Dit betekent dat de VS geen militair-industrieel complex heeft, maar een militair-industrieel complex is. Dat complex kan zichzelf alleen legitimeren door het hebben van een vijand en het voeren van oorlog. Dat spreekt voor zich. Het was een halve eeuw geleden dat de oud-opperbevelhebber van de Geallieerde Strijkdrachten Dwight Eisenhower, na acht jaar presidentschap van de VS, wees op de gevaar van het militair-industrieel complex toen hij tijdens zijn afscheidsspeech dit verklaarde:
'Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.'
Het probleem is nu dat de poortwachters van de macht suggereren dat de oorlog in Afghanistan uitsluitend bepaald wordt door politiek-militaire factoren, terwijl men angstvallig zwijgt over de economische drijfveer achter dit alles. Dit verzwijgen is het probleem van de mainstream media die niet al te ver van de officiele versie van de werkelijkheid mogen afwijken, zelfs niet als ze door een oud militair en Amerikaanse president worden gewaarschuwd. Alle opiniemakers van de commerciele massamedia spelen het spel mee. Daar worden ze voor betaald. And the beat goes on.
http://www.h-net.org/~hst306/documents/indust.html
The Empire 682
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/
America's power outage...Dilip Hiro, Oct. 5, 2010 Asia Times
..............................
Washington's Iran policy challenged
As China's third biggest supplier of petroleum (after Saudi Arabia and Angola), Iran figures prominently on Beijing's radar screen. So far, Chinese energy corporations, all state-owned, have invested $40 billion in the Islamic Republic's hydrocarbon sector. They are also poised to participate in the building of seven oil refineries in Iran. When, earlier this year, European Union (EU) companies stopped supplying gasoline to Iran, which imports 40% of its needs, Chinese oil corporations stepped in. That was how in 2009, with a $21.2 billion dollar two-way commerce, China surpassed the EU as Iran's number one trading partner. It is estimated that China-Iran trade will rise by 50% in 2010.
Like Russia, China backed a fourth set of United Nations economic sanctions on Iran in June only after Washington agreed that the Security Council resolution would not include provisions that might hurt the Iranian people. Therefore, the resulting resolution did not outlaw either investment or participation in the Iranian oil and gas<http://www.atimes.com/
Much to Moscow's chagrin, on July 1, President Obama<http://www.atimes.com/
Two weeks later, Russian Oil Minister Sergey Shmatko struck back. He announced that his country would be "developing and widening" already existing cooperation with the Islamic Republic's oil sector. "We are neighbors," he emphasized. Russian oil companies were, he added, free to sell gasoline to Iran and ship it across the Caspian Sea, which the two countries share. The Kremlin also warned that if Washington chose to penalize Russian companies for their actions in Iran, it would retaliate. The Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Cherkin, stated categorically that Russia had closed the door to any further tightening of the sanctions against Iran.
As promised publicly and repeatedly, in August the Russians finally commissioned the civilian nuclear power plant near Bushehr, which they had contracted to build in 1994. It meets all the conditions of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russia will provide it with nuclear rods and remove its spent fuel which could be used to produce weapons.
Little wonder, then, that Russia and China appear on the list of the 22 nations that do "significant business" with Iran, according to the White House. What surprised many American analysts was the appearance of India on that list, which reflected their failure to grasp a salient fact: "energy security trumps all" is increasingly the driving principle behind the foreign policies of a variety of rising nations.
Soon after the enactment of CISADA, India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao stated that her government<http://www.atimes.
More remarkably, Washington's policy has even been sabotaged by political entities which are parasitically dependent on its goodwill or largess.
In a black-market trade of monumental proportions, more than 1,000 tanker trucks filled with petroleum products cross from oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan into Iran every day. On the Kurdish side, the profits from this illicit energy trade go to the governing Kurdish political parties which have been tightly tied to Washington since the end of the First Gulf War in 1991.
An even more blatant example of defiance of Washington in the name of energy was provided by Pakistan which would be unable to stand on its feet without the economic crutches provided by America. In January, Washington pressured Islamabad to abandon a 690-mile Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project that has been on the planning boards for the past few years. Islamabad refused. In March, its representatives signed an agreement with the Iranians. And a month later, Iran announced that it had completed construction of the 630 miles of the pipeline on its soil, and that Iranian gas would start flowing into Pakistan in 2014.
An irreversible trend
In whole regions of the world, US power is in flux, but on the whole in retreat. The United States remains a powerful nation with a military to match. It still has undeniable heft on the global stage, but its power slippage is no less real for that - and, by any measure, irreversible. Whatever the twenty-first century may prove to be, it will not be the American century.
Those familiar with stock exchanges<http://www.atimes.
For almost a decade, Washington poured huge amounts of money<http://www.atimes.com/
As the high command at the Pentagon trains a whole new generation of soldiers and officers in counterinsurgency warfare, which requires the arduous, time-consuming tasks of mastering alien cultures and foreign languages, "the enemy," well versed in the use of the Internet, will forge new tactics. Given the growing economic strength of China, Brazil, and India, among other rising powers, US influence will continue to wane. The American power outage is, by any measure, irreversible.
Dilip Hiro, a London-based writer and journalist, is the author of 32 books, the latest being After Empire: The Birth of a Multi-Polar World (Nation Books).
America's power outage...Dilip Hiro, Oct. 5, 2010 Asia Times
..............................
Washington's Iran policy challenged
As China's third biggest supplier of petroleum (after Saudi Arabia and Angola), Iran figures prominently on Beijing's radar screen. So far, Chinese energy corporations, all state-owned, have invested $40 billion in the Islamic Republic's hydrocarbon sector. They are also poised to participate in the building of seven oil refineries in Iran. When, earlier this year, European Union (EU) companies stopped supplying gasoline to Iran, which imports 40% of its needs, Chinese oil corporations stepped in. That was how in 2009, with a $21.2 billion dollar two-way commerce, China surpassed the EU as Iran's number one trading partner. It is estimated that China-Iran trade will rise by 50% in 2010.
Like Russia, China backed a fourth set of United Nations economic sanctions on Iran in June only after Washington agreed that the Security Council resolution would not include provisions that might hurt the Iranian people. Therefore, the resulting resolution did not outlaw either investment or participation in the Iranian oil and gas<http://www.atimes.com/
Much to Moscow's chagrin, on July 1, President Obama<http://www.atimes.com/
Two weeks later, Russian Oil Minister Sergey Shmatko struck back. He announced that his country would be "developing and widening" already existing cooperation with the Islamic Republic's oil sector. "We are neighbors," he emphasized. Russian oil companies were, he added, free to sell gasoline to Iran and ship it across the Caspian Sea, which the two countries share. The Kremlin also warned that if Washington chose to penalize Russian companies for their actions in Iran, it would retaliate. The Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Cherkin, stated categorically that Russia had closed the door to any further tightening of the sanctions against Iran.
As promised publicly and repeatedly, in August the Russians finally commissioned the civilian nuclear power plant near Bushehr, which they had contracted to build in 1994. It meets all the conditions of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Russia will provide it with nuclear rods and remove its spent fuel which could be used to produce weapons.
Little wonder, then, that Russia and China appear on the list of the 22 nations that do "significant business" with Iran, according to the White House. What surprised many American analysts was the appearance of India on that list, which reflected their failure to grasp a salient fact: "energy security trumps all" is increasingly the driving principle behind the foreign policies of a variety of rising nations.
Soon after the enactment of CISADA, India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao stated that her government<http://www.atimes.
More remarkably, Washington's policy has even been sabotaged by political entities which are parasitically dependent on its goodwill or largess.
In a black-market trade of monumental proportions, more than 1,000 tanker trucks filled with petroleum products cross from oil-rich Iraqi Kurdistan into Iran every day. On the Kurdish side, the profits from this illicit energy trade go to the governing Kurdish political parties which have been tightly tied to Washington since the end of the First Gulf War in 1991.
An even more blatant example of defiance of Washington in the name of energy was provided by Pakistan which would be unable to stand on its feet without the economic crutches provided by America. In January, Washington pressured Islamabad to abandon a 690-mile Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project that has been on the planning boards for the past few years. Islamabad refused. In March, its representatives signed an agreement with the Iranians. And a month later, Iran announced that it had completed construction of the 630 miles of the pipeline on its soil, and that Iranian gas would start flowing into Pakistan in 2014.
An irreversible trend
In whole regions of the world, US power is in flux, but on the whole in retreat. The United States remains a powerful nation with a military to match. It still has undeniable heft on the global stage, but its power slippage is no less real for that - and, by any measure, irreversible. Whatever the twenty-first century may prove to be, it will not be the American century.
Those familiar with stock exchanges<http://www.atimes.
For almost a decade, Washington poured huge amounts of money<http://www.atimes.com/
As the high command at the Pentagon trains a whole new generation of soldiers and officers in counterinsurgency warfare, which requires the arduous, time-consuming tasks of mastering alien cultures and foreign languages, "the enemy," well versed in the use of the Internet, will forge new tactics. Given the growing economic strength of China, Brazil, and India, among other rising powers, US influence will continue to wane. The American power outage is, by any measure, irreversible.
Dilip Hiro, a London-based writer and journalist, is the author of 32 books, the latest being After Empire: The Birth of a Multi-Polar World (Nation Books).
Maxime Verhagen. Filosemiet 3
Sonja heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "Elma Drayer van Trouw" achtergelaten:
NOS: Verhagen wenste met SMSje Wilders succes met anti-islam speech in Berlijn. Mijn dochter is nu 16 - wat voor toekomst gaat zij krijgen?
NOS: Verhagen wenste met SMSje Wilders succes met anti-islam speech in Berlijn. Mijn dochter is nu 16 - wat voor toekomst gaat zij krijgen?
Elma Drayer van Trouw 2
De christelijke columniste Elma Drayer van het christelijke dagblad Trouw schrijft vandaag:
Holistisch geneuzel past in een bredere trend
Holistisch geneuzel past in een bredere trend
In Groot-Brittannië, aldus de krant van maandag, is het Netwerk der Druïden erkend als ’bonafide’ godsdienst. Dankzij die beslissing geniet het gezelschap voortaan dezelfde privileges als andere georganiseerde religies. En vooral in belastingtechnisch opzicht zou dat heel fijn zijn.
Even dacht ik dat de krant ons in de maling nam. Panoramix dezelfde status als de dominee? Maar nee, het was geen flauwe grap. De Charity Commission for England and Wales had de beslissing wel degelijk onlangs wereldkundig gemaakt...
Het oordeel van de Britse commissie past immers in een bredere trend. Het bevestigt hoezeer wij in West-Europa met een enorme boog lijken terug te keren naar het animistische wereldbeeld van onze verre voorouders. Terwijl de monotheïstische Schepper zijn aanhang ziet slinken, wordt zijn plaats langzaam ingenomen door Moeder Natuur. Zij is oneindig wijs, zij is oneindig goed, haar moeten wij gehoorzamen. En wee, wie zich afkeert van haar heilige wetten – zie de dagelijkse pagina’s Duurzaamheid & Natuur in deze krant.
Ik mijmer nog even door.
Terwijl Drayer even door mijmert wil ik hier een kanttekening plaatsen. Drayer laat doorschemeren het belachelijk te vinden dat de mythen van druiden even legitiem worden beschouwd als de mythen van het christendom. De christelijke luchtgod met alle fanfare erom heen kan volgens Drayer niet gelijk gesteld worden met het animisme van de druiden. Waarom niet, maakt ze niet duidelijk. En ik begrijp dat wel, want ze heeft geen rationele argumenten daarvoor. Drayer wordt gedreven door kleinburgerlijke opvattingen over metafysica: Jezus goed, Mohammed fout, Panoramix idioot. (Haar kennis van de druiden reikt niet verder dan een stripfiguur). Het is een simpel wereldbeeld dat wordt aangehangen door miljoenen al dan niet fundamentalistische christenen. Ze beseffen niet dat hun waarheid even absurd is als die van alle anderen. 'Holistisch geneuzel'? Is het geloof in een meneer die over water kon lopen en wiens 'vader' enkele nomadische stammen tot uitverkoren volk koos minder absurd dan de opvatting van mensen die geloven dat alles bezield is? Ik neig de laatste groep rationeler te vinden dan de eerste. En terwijl het christendom een lange geschiedenis kent van moord en roof, genocide stelt de Trouw-columniste dat juist de anderen onverdraagzaam zijn.
Elma Drayer vindt de christenen normaler, zo maak ik op uit het feit dat ze dacht 'in de maling' te worden genomen. Wat een malle meid. En dan te rekenen dat de christelijke god Drayer geschapen heeft naar zijn evenbeeld.
The Empire 682
Progressive Dissent Is in the FBI's Crosshairs
After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes across the nation, it appears that free speech depends on who's speaking and what they're saying.
October 6, 2010 |
Is free speech worth the constitutional paper it’s written on?
After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes in Minneapolis, Chicago and North Carolina, it appears to depend on who’s speaking and what they’re saying.
The pretext for the raids was investigating “material aide to terrorists”, resulting in grand jury subpoenas and confiscation of computers, books, music CDs and from one home, a Martin Luther King poster. The targeted Minneapolis activists have openly protested US military policy since the 1980s. The FBI certainly knows they have nothing to do with terrorism. These activists simply have the audacity to challenge bi-partisan US invasions, occupations and support for dictatorships and human rights abusers. Dissent on the left has long been seen as ‘criminal behavior’. Where once “the communist threat" was the argument for such repression, now, “terrorism” is.
When it comes to war, US government sees three roles for the American people: 1. Pay hundreds of billions for the largest military on Earth 2. Kill and possibly die or be maimed for US military and corporate dominance of other countries 3. Cheerlead war. The US government -- bought and paid for by weapons-makers and mercenaries (‘contractors’) -- does not think that We The People have the right to even question, much less challenge and resist permanent war, which is bankrupting our country and civilian deaths ignite more violence.
Just days before the raids, the Department of Justice Inspector General released a report about FBI abuses of peace groups under the Bush Administration -- abuses that President Obama continues. Republicans and Democrats rubberstamp domestic spying on peace organizations, Quakers, and solidarity groups visiting countries that the US bombs or subsidizes death squads in.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Center that peace groups who talked about non-violent, democratic practices and international human rights law -- that is, alternatives to terrorism -- with organizations on the State Department’s “Terrorist Watch List” may be charged with ‘material aid to terrorists’. If ending terrorism is actually the goal, then, why make working to end violence a crime? In his dissent, SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer warned that political speech -- the most protected speech under the First Amendment -- was being criminalized.
President Bill Clinton’s 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act made “material aid" a crime, was expanded under George W. Bush’s PATRIOT Act and is broadening to Orwellian vagueness under the President Obama. He made campaign promises to close Guantanamo, yet the Obama Administration is defending Bush-era torture and imprisonment without charges, trial or conviction in court. Obama claims further powers: to assassinate anyone labeled a “terrorist’ overseas -- including American citizens.
Billions of dollars have simply disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors like KBR/Halliburton reap billions for work not done and services not provided. The US government bribes Taliban, warlords and “insurgents” with over $2B.
Dissidents educate the American public about these policies as much as they protest them.
As the FBI raided American dissidents’ homes, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced economic sanctions against Iran for human rights abuses, including “suppression of dissent”. What hypocrisy!
Since WWI, the FBI has targeted peace activists; most infamously labor leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison for an anti-war speech. The FBI’s COINTEL program subjected the civil rights movement to domestic spying while the Klux Klux Klan burned churches and homes, beat and murdered with near-total impunity. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and other leaders of color had thick FBI files. The Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement and Puerto Rican Independence movement were subjected to FBI assaults, murders and frame-ups. Congress’ 1978 Church Committee investigated these abuses and ended them until 9/11 loosened all rules.
Almost always it is progressive/Leftist non-violent groups and activists that the FBI spies on, harasses and tries to jail.
Anti-choice groups post hit lists of doctors with their addresses, commit arson on and mail anthrax-like powder to clinics -- without being investigated. White supremacists and militias threaten and commit violence against people of color, Muslims and progressives. Violent rhetoric infuses many right-wing groups -- with no grand jury subpoenas. Supporting racism, corporate rule and war -- that is, rightwing ideology -- even with a call for violence, is protected speech.
The Supreme Court will hear the case of homophobic preacher, Fred Phelps, who protests military funerals. Likely Phelps will win, as “unpopular speech" -- especially if it's bigotry -- gets protection. This is the same court that made talking about international human rights law a crime.
Bigots are held up as "victims" whose First Amendment rights are threatened, yet hatred has no problem being heard. No one is harassed for suggesting that the US nuke other countries who have not attacked us. Instead, the government targets those who uphold values of equal justice under the law, human rights, democracy and peace.
Nine years after the September 11 attacks, the US government has done more damage to fundamental American freedoms than Al-Qaeda ever did. With progressive dissent, censored from corporate media, increasingly treated like a crime, it’s time to ask: what is being protected?
Lydia Howell is a Minneapolis activist, journalist and producer-host of CATALYST: Politics and Culture on KFAI Radio.
http://www.alternet.org/story/148428/progressive_dissent_is_in_the_fbi%27s_crosshairs?page=entire
After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes across the nation, it appears that free speech depends on who's speaking and what they're saying.
October 6, 2010 |
Is free speech worth the constitutional paper it’s written on?
After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes in Minneapolis, Chicago and North Carolina, it appears to depend on who’s speaking and what they’re saying.
The pretext for the raids was investigating “material aide to terrorists”, resulting in grand jury subpoenas and confiscation of computers, books, music CDs and from one home, a Martin Luther King poster. The targeted Minneapolis activists have openly protested US military policy since the 1980s. The FBI certainly knows they have nothing to do with terrorism. These activists simply have the audacity to challenge bi-partisan US invasions, occupations and support for dictatorships and human rights abusers. Dissent on the left has long been seen as ‘criminal behavior’. Where once “the communist threat" was the argument for such repression, now, “terrorism” is.
When it comes to war, US government sees three roles for the American people: 1. Pay hundreds of billions for the largest military on Earth 2. Kill and possibly die or be maimed for US military and corporate dominance of other countries 3. Cheerlead war. The US government -- bought and paid for by weapons-makers and mercenaries (‘contractors’) -- does not think that We The People have the right to even question, much less challenge and resist permanent war, which is bankrupting our country and civilian deaths ignite more violence.
Just days before the raids, the Department of Justice Inspector General released a report about FBI abuses of peace groups under the Bush Administration -- abuses that President Obama continues. Republicans and Democrats rubberstamp domestic spying on peace organizations, Quakers, and solidarity groups visiting countries that the US bombs or subsidizes death squads in.
In June, the Supreme Court ruled 5-to-4 in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Center that peace groups who talked about non-violent, democratic practices and international human rights law -- that is, alternatives to terrorism -- with organizations on the State Department’s “Terrorist Watch List” may be charged with ‘material aid to terrorists’. If ending terrorism is actually the goal, then, why make working to end violence a crime? In his dissent, SCOTUS Justice Stephen Breyer warned that political speech -- the most protected speech under the First Amendment -- was being criminalized.
President Bill Clinton’s 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act made “material aid" a crime, was expanded under George W. Bush’s PATRIOT Act and is broadening to Orwellian vagueness under the President Obama. He made campaign promises to close Guantanamo, yet the Obama Administration is defending Bush-era torture and imprisonment without charges, trial or conviction in court. Obama claims further powers: to assassinate anyone labeled a “terrorist’ overseas -- including American citizens.
Billions of dollars have simply disappeared in Iraq and Afghanistan. Contractors like KBR/Halliburton reap billions for work not done and services not provided. The US government bribes Taliban, warlords and “insurgents” with over $2B.
Dissidents educate the American public about these policies as much as they protest them.
As the FBI raided American dissidents’ homes, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced economic sanctions against Iran for human rights abuses, including “suppression of dissent”. What hypocrisy!
Since WWI, the FBI has targeted peace activists; most infamously labor leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to ten years in prison for an anti-war speech. The FBI’s COINTEL program subjected the civil rights movement to domestic spying while the Klux Klux Klan burned churches and homes, beat and murdered with near-total impunity. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and other leaders of color had thick FBI files. The Black Panther Party, American Indian Movement and Puerto Rican Independence movement were subjected to FBI assaults, murders and frame-ups. Congress’ 1978 Church Committee investigated these abuses and ended them until 9/11 loosened all rules.
Almost always it is progressive/Leftist non-violent groups and activists that the FBI spies on, harasses and tries to jail.
Anti-choice groups post hit lists of doctors with their addresses, commit arson on and mail anthrax-like powder to clinics -- without being investigated. White supremacists and militias threaten and commit violence against people of color, Muslims and progressives. Violent rhetoric infuses many right-wing groups -- with no grand jury subpoenas. Supporting racism, corporate rule and war -- that is, rightwing ideology -- even with a call for violence, is protected speech.
The Supreme Court will hear the case of homophobic preacher, Fred Phelps, who protests military funerals. Likely Phelps will win, as “unpopular speech" -- especially if it's bigotry -- gets protection. This is the same court that made talking about international human rights law a crime.
Bigots are held up as "victims" whose First Amendment rights are threatened, yet hatred has no problem being heard. No one is harassed for suggesting that the US nuke other countries who have not attacked us. Instead, the government targets those who uphold values of equal justice under the law, human rights, democracy and peace.
Nine years after the September 11 attacks, the US government has done more damage to fundamental American freedoms than Al-Qaeda ever did. With progressive dissent, censored from corporate media, increasingly treated like a crime, it’s time to ask: what is being protected?
Lydia Howell is a Minneapolis activist, journalist and producer-host of CATALYST: Politics and Culture on KFAI Radio.
http://www.alternet.org/story/148428/progressive_dissent_is_in_the_fbi%27s_crosshairs?page=entire
The Neoliberal Religion 13
Krugman Frustrated
Wednesday 06 October 2010
Poor Paul Krugman, stuck in the old Keynesian rut amidst its blinders. The recession would be over, he says, if only the government ran more and bigger deficits to provide the needed fiscal boost. If only the Obama people and those crazy Republicans were less afraid of such bold government action, less befuddled by ideology, and less ignorant of economics. Krugman keeps warning that 2010 will replay 1937 and plunge the economy back down.
Even fiscal conservatives, Republicans, and the rich (overlapping groups henceforth referred to as FCRR) prefer that Washington borrow the money rather than tax them for it. In that sense they support Keynesian deficit spending. Then, too, they see the silver lining on the deficit cloud because it is they who will be lending to and thus drawing interest from the government. So when recessions are sharp and threaten depressions, the FCRR grudgingly go along with Keynesian policies (as they did in late 2008 and early 2009). But they want them limited in size and duration. They equate Krugman with Chicken Little.
What are they debating so furiously? FCRR don't like big, long deficits because of the risks they pose. First, FCRR worry that Washington, engorged with borrowed money, will be tempted -- politically pressured -- to hire unemployed workers directly to produce goods and services competing with private outputs. Second, FCRR worry that state-run enterprises might operate unlike private capitalist enterprises -- more democratically with more worker inputs into basic decisions -- leading private sector workers to demand similar conditions. Third, FCRR, as lenders financing government deficits, worry that rising debt service burdens in government budgets will provoke popular demands to stretch out, cut, or default on those burdens. Fourth, FCRR worry that greater government borrowing will "crowd out" private borrowers and/or impose higher interest costs on them. Fifth, FCRR doubt that today's budget deficits will be reduced by future surpluses.
But mostly FCRR don't like Keynesian deficit spending because they think it postpones the basic economic adjustments needed to end recessions and renew economic growth, employment, and income. They argue that deficit spending -- by reducing unemployment -- slows or stops the fall in wages and salaries needed to revive the business profitability that alone will generate rising investment and growth. Likewise, by slowing the contraction of output, deficit spending slows or stops the fall in material input costs needed to revive profitability. In short, FCRR think that deficit spending beyond quick, short injections to offset extreme downturns is an ineffective, self-defeating policy for reviving capitalism in a crisis. It risks stretching out and thereby worsening the cycles of capitalism rather than allowing them to perform "creative destruction" -- eliminating what FCRR view as "inefficient" jobs and businesses.
All the above concerns emerge logically from the mainstream (neoclassical) theory of how capitalism works. Keynesians have a somewhat different theory, but mostly they address a different point. For them, "creative destruction" may provoke a social movement challenging capitalism itself and demanding fundamental social change.
This furious debate replays a classic contest between center-right and center-left groups over how governments should manage capitalism's cycles. Their shared objective has always been to secure capitalism and revive a growth period before the next downturn. Indeed, that is why each side jabs the other by charging "your policy threatens capitalism under the guise of reviving it."
Endless debates between the two sides are spectacles of mass distraction: political theater about "overcoming the economic crisis." As their relative political strengths shift, public policy oscillates between the two sides. Bush did relatively little in 2007 and 2008; his advisers were devotees of permitting "creative destruction." When the downturn deepened, widened, and threatened to spin out of control, many of those same advisers switched into Keynesian interventionists. Obama kept them to do more of the same. Krugman was hopeful. Once "recovery" seemed underway during 2009 and early 2010, the political strength shifted back toward FCRR, Obama's commitment to Keynesianism weakened, and Krugman began to panic.
All the while, below the surface of these debates, the actual economy proceeds through its cycle in typical capitalist fashion. Enduring high unemployment, home foreclosures, and stagnant production have kept downward pressure on wages, benefits, and the non-human costs of private business (falling costs of second-hand equipment, rents, etc.). Eventually, these will fall far enough to project possibilities for profit sufficiently attractive to coax new investments from capitalists. Then the usual upswing may take hold. However, the amount of time, suffering, and criticism of the economy involved in that "eventually" may generate social tensions and movements that need to be contained. This will then require renewing Keynesian interventions. Then FCRR perspectives will resume the status of loyal opposition and wait again for "recovery" to regroup its forces and return to power.
It is not one side or the other that optimally secures the underlying capitalist system against its instabilities. It is rather the public oscillation between them that best performs that task. Similarly, it is neither Republicans nor Democrats that best protect the government's subordination to the capitalist organization of the economy. That task is rather achieved above all by oscillations between them, by making each the only available political antidote for the failings of the other.
Arguments that capitalism is the problem and that an alternative system is the solution are rarely heard. Mass media, the politicians, FCRR, and Paul Krugman are aligned to maintain that silence. Yet, in a strange twist, the alternative of socialism has resurfaced yet again. Tea Party types, specialists in that American tendency to blame economic problems first and foremost on the government, criticize Obama and his policies as "socialist." Because Obama's enemies introduce the term, his many remaining supporters, especially the young, have begun to inquire about this "socialism." It is genuine interest (rather than guilt) by association. In countless venues, we now face friendly questions about socialism and what socialist responses to capitalism's crisis would entail. The US left now has an historic moment of real opportunity.
Rick Wolff is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst and also a Visiting Professor at the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. He is the author of New Departures in Marxian Theory (Routledge, 2006) among many other publications. Check out Rick Wolff’s documentary film on the current economic crisis, Capitalism Hits the Fan. Visit Wolff's web site and order a copy of his new book Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do about It. You can also follow his work on Facebook and on Twitter.
Israel as a Rogue State 119
Recognition of Israel as Jewish state poses existential threat to Israeli Arabs
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi. The version here is published by permission of Jonathan Cook.
http://www.redress.cc/palestine/jcook20101007
By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth
7 October 2010
Jonathan Cook argues that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as demanded by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, would destroy the campaign by Israel’s Arab citizens to reform Israel into a true democracy and would mean that Netanyahu will have Palestinian backing to label the reformers a fifth column and expel them to bantustans in the West Bank.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has insisted from the launch of the current peace talks that the Palestinians set no preconditions, while making his own precondition the centrepiece of negotiations. Netanyahu has said talks are futile unless the Palestinians and their leader, Mahmoud Abbas, first recognize Israel as a Jewish state. “I recognized the Palestinians' right to self-definition, so they must do the same for the Jewish people,” he told American Jewish leaders recently.
Netanyahu, of the right-wing Likud party, is not the first Israeli leader to make such a requirement of the Palestinians. His predecessor Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist opposition, wanted the same recognition. Ehud Barak, the defence minister and head of the supposedly left-wing Labour party, also supports this position.
The consensus on this matter, however, masks a reluctance by Israeli politicians to clarify what exactly is being expected of the Palestinians and why recognition is so important.
Netanyahu clearly does not simply want the fact of Israel's existence acknowledged. That is in no doubt and, anyway, the Israeli state has been recognized by the Palestinian leadership since the late 1980s. It is recognition of the state's Jewishness, not its existence, that matters.
7 October 2010
Jonathan Cook argues that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, as demanded by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, would destroy the campaign by Israel’s Arab citizens to reform Israel into a true democracy and would mean that Netanyahu will have Palestinian backing to label the reformers a fifth column and expel them to bantustans in the West Bank.
Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, has insisted from the launch of the current peace talks that the Palestinians set no preconditions, while making his own precondition the centrepiece of negotiations. Netanyahu has said talks are futile unless the Palestinians and their leader, Mahmoud Abbas, first recognize Israel as a Jewish state. “I recognized the Palestinians' right to self-definition, so they must do the same for the Jewish people,” he told American Jewish leaders recently.
Netanyahu, of the right-wing Likud party, is not the first Israeli leader to make such a requirement of the Palestinians. His predecessor Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist opposition, wanted the same recognition. Ehud Barak, the defence minister and head of the supposedly left-wing Labour party, also supports this position.
The consensus on this matter, however, masks a reluctance by Israeli politicians to clarify what exactly is being expected of the Palestinians and why recognition is so important.
Netanyahu clearly does not simply want the fact of Israel's existence acknowledged. That is in no doubt and, anyway, the Israeli state has been recognized by the Palestinian leadership since the late 1980s. It is recognition of the state's Jewishness, not its existence, that matters.
|
Debate on this subject focuses on Israel's desire to stifle the threat of a right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees. Though doubtless a consideration, that explanation hardly suffices. It is clear to everyone that the refugees are one of the main issues to be settled in the negotiations. In the unlikely circumstances that all other obstacles to Palestinian statehood were removed, it can be assumed that the international community would work to make that particular mountain a molehill.
The demand for recognition is directed chiefly at another party: the fifth of Israel's population who are Palestinian – the remnants of the Palestinian people who stayed on their land during the great dispossession of 1948, the Nakba, and eventually gained Israeli citizenship.
They are only nominally represented at the talks by their state, Israel. Instead, Netanyahu hopes to use the promise of statehood to induce Abbas to sacrifice the interests of Israel's Palestinian citizens. The Palestinian minority's leaders, who have been lobbying Abbas hard in the run-up to the talks, understand what Netanyahu's demand for recognition entails.
During the early years of the Oslo peace process, when a concession on Palestinian statehood appeared to be drawing nearer, the positions of Israel's Palestinian and Jewish leaders polarized. The assumption of Israeli politicians was that Palestinian citizens would soon either declare loyalty to a Jewish state – effectively become Zionists – or be "transferred" to the coming Palestinian state.
Faced with this challenge, Israel's Palestinian leaders encouraged a civil rights movement, demanding equality and an end to Jewish privilege. Their campaign, under the slogan “a state of all its citizens”, implied the end of Israel as a Jewish state and its transformation into a liberal democracy.
Over the past decade, during the years of the second intifada, relations between the two communities deteriorated further, with the Palestinian minority now routinely accused of being traitors.
Netanyahu's latest demand should, therefore, be understood as a cynical move to bypass his own Palestinian constituency and persuade Abbas to negotiate away the rights of Israel's Palestinian citizens on his behalf.
If the Palestinian president does recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the campaign by Israel's Palestinian citizens to reform their country into a true democracy will be over. Netanyahu will have Palestinian backing to label the reformers a fifth column and expel them to the slivers of West Bank territory he may one day deign to call a Palestinian state.
In the meantime, he will also have Palestinian permission to institute a loyalty drive of the kind already being advanced through the Israeli parliament. Loyalty tests for individual Palestinian citizens, and the dismantlement of the Palestinian parties in the parliament unless they sign up as Zionists, would be the first measures. Rounds of expulsions could be expected later.
If all this sounds familiar, it is because much the same programme was laid out by Israel's foreign minister last week during his controversial speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Avigdor Lieberman's plan for an “exchange of populations” would initially require border changes to force hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens into a Palestinian “interim state” in return for the inclusion of West Bank settlements, some deep in Palestinian territory, in the newly expanded Jewish state.
There is one flaw in Lieberman's scheme. Many Palestinian citizens, such as those in the Galilee, are not near the West Bank and could not be exchanged through land swaps. His election slogan – “No loyalty, no citizenship” – tells the rest of a plan he has revealed to Israelis but not directly to the international community.
Although American Jewish leaders decried Lieberman's use of the UN platform to reveal a proposal that officially counters his own government's policy, Netanyahu baffled observers by remaining demure. His officials publicly distanced him from the scheme, but then privately told the Israeli media that the prime minister did not think the plan illegitimate and that he would not "chastise" Lieberman.
Netanyahu's silence should not surprise us. His foreign minister may be speaking more bluntly than other Israeli politicians, but he speaks for them nonetheless.
They are only nominally represented at the talks by their state, Israel. Instead, Netanyahu hopes to use the promise of statehood to induce Abbas to sacrifice the interests of Israel's Palestinian citizens. The Palestinian minority's leaders, who have been lobbying Abbas hard in the run-up to the talks, understand what Netanyahu's demand for recognition entails.
During the early years of the Oslo peace process, when a concession on Palestinian statehood appeared to be drawing nearer, the positions of Israel's Palestinian and Jewish leaders polarized. The assumption of Israeli politicians was that Palestinian citizens would soon either declare loyalty to a Jewish state – effectively become Zionists – or be "transferred" to the coming Palestinian state.
Faced with this challenge, Israel's Palestinian leaders encouraged a civil rights movement, demanding equality and an end to Jewish privilege. Their campaign, under the slogan “a state of all its citizens”, implied the end of Israel as a Jewish state and its transformation into a liberal democracy.
Over the past decade, during the years of the second intifada, relations between the two communities deteriorated further, with the Palestinian minority now routinely accused of being traitors.
Netanyahu's latest demand should, therefore, be understood as a cynical move to bypass his own Palestinian constituency and persuade Abbas to negotiate away the rights of Israel's Palestinian citizens on his behalf.
If the Palestinian president does recognize Israel as a Jewish state, the campaign by Israel's Palestinian citizens to reform their country into a true democracy will be over. Netanyahu will have Palestinian backing to label the reformers a fifth column and expel them to the slivers of West Bank territory he may one day deign to call a Palestinian state.
In the meantime, he will also have Palestinian permission to institute a loyalty drive of the kind already being advanced through the Israeli parliament. Loyalty tests for individual Palestinian citizens, and the dismantlement of the Palestinian parties in the parliament unless they sign up as Zionists, would be the first measures. Rounds of expulsions could be expected later.
If all this sounds familiar, it is because much the same programme was laid out by Israel's foreign minister last week during his controversial speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Avigdor Lieberman's plan for an “exchange of populations” would initially require border changes to force hundreds of thousands of Palestinian citizens into a Palestinian “interim state” in return for the inclusion of West Bank settlements, some deep in Palestinian territory, in the newly expanded Jewish state.
There is one flaw in Lieberman's scheme. Many Palestinian citizens, such as those in the Galilee, are not near the West Bank and could not be exchanged through land swaps. His election slogan – “No loyalty, no citizenship” – tells the rest of a plan he has revealed to Israelis but not directly to the international community.
Although American Jewish leaders decried Lieberman's use of the UN platform to reveal a proposal that officially counters his own government's policy, Netanyahu baffled observers by remaining demure. His officials publicly distanced him from the scheme, but then privately told the Israeli media that the prime minister did not think the plan illegitimate and that he would not "chastise" Lieberman.
Netanyahu's silence should not surprise us. His foreign minister may be speaking more bluntly than other Israeli politicians, but he speaks for them nonetheless.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National, published in Abu Dhabi. The version here is published by permission of Jonathan Cook.
http://www.redress.cc/palestine/jcook20101007
woensdag 6 oktober 2010
The Empire 681
The Colonel on the Oligarchy
Inside Out by Barry Eisler, 2010, Excerpt
Colonel Hort [Fictional]:
The oligarchy is right out in the open. It’s just a collection of people in business, politics, the military, and the media who recognize their interests are better served by cooperation than they would be by competition. Most of the people who are part of the oligarchy don’t even realize its existence. If they recognize it at all, they think of it as just a benevolent, informal establishment.
You can’t beat the oligarchy. You can’t beat it because the oligarchy has already won. The establishment is like a virus that’s taken over the organs of the host. Now it acts as a kind of life support system, and if you remove it, the patient it battens on will die. The establishment is a creature whose first priority is ensuring that if you try to remove it, you’ll wind killing the host.
The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalists Papers, that’s all just window dressing now, the artifacts of an ancient mythology, the vestments of a dead religion. We need something different now, something suited for the modern world. We are the change we’ve been waiting for.
Barry Eisler’s Background:
Spent three years in a covert position with the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, then worked as a technology lawyer and start-up executive in Silicon Valley and Japan, earning his black belt at the Kodokan International Judo Center along the way. When not writing novels, he blogs about torture, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
The Missing CIA Torture Tapes – Harper’s Magazine - 17 Aug 2010
| Posted to: |
comments
No comments found.
trackbacks
TrackBack URL:
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_trackback/4644264
No trackbacks found.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_trackback/4644264
No trackbacks found.
Abonneren op:
Berichten (Atom)