Premier Wilders

Vandaag schrijft Mohammed Benzakour in de Volkskrant dat Wilders maar snel premier van Nederland moet worden, zodat even snel duidelijk wordt dat deze praatjesmaker geen enkele oplossing heeft voor de wezenlijke problemen van onze samenleving. Wilders zal ontdekken dat ook de Nederlandse regering zich zal moeten houden aan afspraken, regels, wetten en internationale verdragen. En uit is dan zijn spel van het consequentieloos schreeuwen vanaf de zijlijn. Ik ben het helemaal eens met Benzakour. De verrotting moet er op een of andere manier eruit. Dan maar zo.

Obama 105

Fixing America, Erasing Bush

Sunday 24 May 2009

President Obama gave a speech on Thursday praising the excellence of the American experiment, and claimed his own life was made possible by the promise of the documents and the ideals that founded this nation. As usual, his delivery and diction was perfect. Unfortunately, his behavior of late has fallen far short of the ideals he has given such eloquent lip service to.

    Two thousand pictures of Americans performing acts of savage torture on prisoners will not be released to the general public if Mr. Obama gets his way. Military commissions will continue to try prisoners outside the scope of American law, and will be free to use brazen hearsay as "hard" evidence against defendants. Mr. Obama continues to cleave to the most abhorrent aspects of Bush-era secrecy policies, and has moved to block a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, who was outed by Bush administration officials in order to silence her Iraq whistleblower husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

    Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW, responded to the Obama administration's stance regarding the Plame suit with a statement that succinctly sums up the distance between Obama's words and his administration's deeds. "We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson," said Sloan. "The government's position cannot be reconciled with President Obama's oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions."

    Indeed.

    These issues of torture and secrecy lead directly to the office of the President of the United States, and the manner in which Mr. Obama has proceeded thus far offends the very nature of the nation he presumes to lead. Mr. Obama sang the praises of our founding documents on Thursday, while failing utterly to live up to the oath he swore to them. In particular:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    That is the Fifth Amendment to the word, which as much as anything else is what makes America a special place. The notion of American Exceptionalism raises hackles all across the world, but within the lines of that Fifth Amendment are the ideals that do make America truly exceptional. Lees verder:

http://www.truthout.org/052409A

Iran 267

Ha'aretz: Obama quashed Israel military option against Iran
Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=54500&l=e&size=1&hd=0

May 22, 2009

Israel's military option against Iran has died. The death warrant was
issued courtesy of the new U.S. administration led by Barack Obama.

All the administration's senior officials, from the president to his vice
president, Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others are sending
strong, clear hints that Israel does not have permission to strike Iran.
Yet, given their familiarity with the Israeli client, they have not made do
with simple hints and intimations. Washington dispatched the new CIA
director, Leon Panetta, to Israel. Panetta made clear to Netanyahu, in so
many words, that an Israeli attack would create "big trouble."

Perhaps Israel at one point had just a small window of opportunity to
exercise the military option, or, in other words, the possibility of
attacking sites in Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. This
is assuming, of course, that Israel indeed has the military capability for
carrying out such a mission - an assumption that raises many questions.
This is a mission that requires gathering pinpoint intelligence, to
identify the precise targets without harming thousands of innocent
civilians.

Simply put, one of the targets of such a strike is the uranium enrichment
facility in Isfahan, which lies in the heart of a congested civilian
population. A realistic military option is also contingent on fighter jets
finding undetected routes, as well as carrying a sufficient payload of
bombs and missiles to inflict heavy damage on the targets.

Let us assume that Israel does, indeed, have a reasonable military
capability which would enable it to strike at the targets, inflict heavy
damage and set Iran's nuclear program back a few years. The opportunity to
realize this capability arguably presented itself to Israel a few years
ago. Iran at the time was subject to an intense international offensive.
Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly exposed its
lies and levied sanctions against the Tehran regime.

Threats made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel from the map
and his insistence on denying the Holocaust aroused great sympathy for
Israel. This sympathy was buttressed by the Olmert government's willingness
to hold peace talks with Syria and seek an agreement with the Palestinians.
Above all, this friendly international atmosphere was backed by an
accommodating Republican administration and a president who was ready to
support (or to turn a blind eye to) any Israeli operation. In addition,
Iran's ability to respond to an attack with missiles was limited.

But all this is now in the past. The sanctions are stuck. Ahmadinejad has,
for the time being, softened his bellicose rhetoric. The production of
Iranian missiles has doubled.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not ready to recognize the right of
the Palestinians to a state of their own, nor does he have any intention of
holding serious negotiations with Syria, regarding withdrawal from the
Golan Heights. This position reduces international support for Israel. Yet,
most importantly, there is a new president in Washington, one who has
outlined a new policy vis-a-vis Iran. He has announced the start of
negotiations with Iran, and even though he mentioned that the talks will
have to be concluded by the end of this year, he did not set a clear
deadline. All these factors, including the explicit statements made by
administration officials, put Israel in its place.

The supreme tenet of Israeli defense policy states that Jerusalem must not
launch any strategic initiative that stands in contradiction, or places in
harm's way, the clear interests of the United States. This stance has
underpinned every fateful decision taken by Israel relating to matters of
war and peace. Israel embarked on the Six-Day War only after it was
convinced that the U.S. would not oppose. In the hours leading up to the
Yom Kippur War, Israel refrained from launching a preemptive strike for
fear that Washington would blame it for starting the war. Israel invaded
Lebanon in 1982 only after Defense Minister Ariel Sharon came under the
impression that the U.S. would view the move with understanding. During the
first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. did not permit Israel to respond to Iraqi
scud missiles, and Israel obliged.

If this tenet remains the cornerstone of defense policy, then Israel once
again will not act against the explicit wishes of the U.S. Thus, when
Israeli leaders say that "all options are open," this is nothing but a
dog's bark being louder than his bite. Or, if you will, a mouse that roars.
If the U.S. does not alter its policy, then Israel no longer has the
military option at its disposal - if it ever had such an option at all.

De Pro Israel Lobby 129

Iqbal Jassat - ‘Terror’ Channels Face Freedom Threat Posted: 20 May 2009 01:45 PM PDT The perception that many American policies are influenced by Israel has been given a further boost with the latest attempt by the US Congress to silence free speech. The current move to ‘cleanse’ the airwaves involves pro-Israeli members of the congress who are in the process of submitting a bill that seeks to target satellite stations as “terrorist organizations”. The proposed bill is viewed as Israel’s on-going efforts to stem the tide of widespread support Palestinians have received following the Gaza disaster spawned by the apartheid state’s inhumane war. Graphic details and gruesome images of victims of Israeli brutality have also resulted in global outrage resulting in condemnation of these war crimes and demands for the prosecution of the perpetrators. Having failed to eliminate Hamas and the spirit of resistance embodied within all sectors of Occupied Palestinian in spite of the most lethal weapons of mass destruction deployed over three weeks in an intense and highly disproportionate manner, Israel has once again turned to American legislators for help. In keeping with its need to veil its own hidden agenda, Israeli lobbyists within the US Congress seek to promote the bill as part of US efforts to “stem the demonization of Americans in the Arab media”. Satellite carriers ArabSat and NileSat that broadcast channels such as al-Manar and Hamas’ al-Aqsa are in the firing line. Authors of the bill from both the Republican and Democratic parties have explained that these television broadcasters were helping “foreign terrorist organizations in their objectives, including recruiting fighters, collecting funds and disseminating propaganda”. The language sounds as archaic as the Bush administration’s neocon warmongers. Yet it seems that despite the euphoria of “change” heralded with the election of Barack Obama, no fundamental changes in the American construct of the discredited “war on terror” are discernable. The phenomena of “terror-related channels” are part of the Israeli political psychology that treats resistance to its illegitimate Occupation of Palestine as “terrorist”. This ploy is designed to demonize media activists, analysts, authors, commentators and broadcasters in one single sweep and thereby discredit their authenticity. It’s not any different to the propaganda war unleashed against South Africa’s freedom struggle by the now defunct National Party. The essence of this is captured in a critical study by Terry Bell and Dumisa Ntsebeza titled “Unfinished Business: South Africa Apartheid & Truth”: “The optimism stemming from the effective council of war in Simonstown was bolstered politically by elements within the United States security establishment. They were actively engaged in planning armed resistance to the new, Soviet-leaning governments in Nicaragua and Afghanistan. The fact that such governments has come to power in 1979 and that South Africa then faced the prospect of Rhodesia going the way of Angola and Mozambique, fed into the paranoia of the time. South Africa, it seemed, was back in the frontline of the ‘free world’ fight. Here was international communism on the march; the evil empire had gained some advantage, which the CIA and the Pentagon were trying to claw back, having been betrayed by their politicians and congress. “Botha and his generals saw themselves very much part of this ‘international struggle’. South Africa would play its part in fighting the Red menace and so earn the eventual gratitude of the world at large. The enemy could be resisted and overcome by sponsoring opposition from within the very communities that may initially have supported the new governments. An iron fist could be created and wielded by those whose hearts and minds had been won over. Besides, as Botha was especially pleased to note, in Britain the woman he regarded as a friend, Margaret Thatcher, had swept to power. There was also the prospect of a Republican victory in the US presidential race, which would bring the rightwing Ronald Reagan to power. The CIA and the Pentagon might have less difficulty under such an administration. In Germany too, the conservative Helmut Kohl seemed on the way to eventual victory and Robert Muldoon, regarded as a friend of the apartheid state, was back in charge of New Zealand.” Though Bell and Ntsebeza describe the rightwing mood prevalent during the eighties which was inclined to be supportive of the apartheid regime’s version of the war on terror, the current ideological battle waged by Israel in cahoots with its Western allies, including unelected Arab states euphemistically referred to as “moderate”, is a continuation of the same propaganda war. It is a revolting thought that so-called liberal societies who value freedom of expression are being manipulated to implement punitive measures on the back of special legislation designating satellite providers as transmitters of “terror-related channels”. In addition, the bill urges governments and private investors who own shares in satellite companies to oppose transmission of telecasts by al-Aqsa TV, al-Manar TV and other channels designated as “terrorist”. Since al-Aqsa and al-Manar are transmitting on the satellite providers Nile-Sat, controlled by the Egyptian government, and ArabSat, controlled by the Arab League, it is entirely possible that the timing of this bill was calculated to coincide with Hosni Mubarak’s visit to the US following Netanyahu’s meeting with Obama. This latest move to reverse Israel’s negative profile in the battle for hearts and minds is the worst form of mind control and should be resisted. - Iqbal Jassat is chairperson of the Media Review Network (MRN), an advocacy group based in Pretoria, South Africa. By Iqbal Jassat – Pretoria, source  (and thanks to Silver Lining blog)

De Pro Israel Lobby 128

This is from a dedicated BDS activist in Australia ... It is an opinion piece by union heavyweights in the UK, US and Australia opposing the Israel boycott, published in Australia's only national newspaper -- a "hard Zionist" paper, as the activist reports.  

The main point to note is that these pro-Israel union voices have been summoned by the lobby to counter the boycott, which they themselves admit is "growing by leaps and bounds" and "seems unstoppable." As in the striking admission by the AIPAC Executive Director earlier this month, such testimonies from our staunchest adversaries are the strongest indicators that BDS is not only working, but truly shaking the Western mainstream walls.

Omar Barghouti

Unions move to overturn Israel boycott

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25513284-7583,00.html

Paul Howes, Michael Leahy and Stuart Appelbaum | May 21, 2009

Article from:  The Australian

LAST month, the Scottish Trade Unions Congress became the latest in a series of unions to call for a boycott of Israeli products. Support for boycotting, divesting from and sanctions against the Jewish state appears to be growing by leaps and bounds.

It has already won considerable support from trade unions in South Africa, Ireland, Britain and Norway. It seems unstoppable. But we intend to stop it.

TULIP - Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine - is a new global movement that believes in engaging with workers and their unions in Israel and Palestine, promoting co-operation and reconciliation.

We do not believe in boycotts, divestment and sanctions. We believe in peace and in a two-state solution to the conflict.

Our new global movement seeks allies in unions and non-governmental organisations everywhere who want to work together to demand respect for all Palestinians, Israelis and guest workers living in that region.

We believe we can take significant strides towards peace and reconciliation if we support those striving to improve the living standards of all working people in the region.

There are outstanding examples of co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian unions that need to be encouraged. For example, there's a remarkable initiative launched by the International Transport Workers Federation to make life much easier for Palestinian drivers.

This has been a small but ground-breaking union agreement encouraging dialogue between the Palestinian and Israeli national trade union centres, as well as individual unions and their members on both sides of the divide. This agreement will help improve the livelihoods of hard-working union truckers and their families.

As we write this the ITF is organising to move this important project to a higher level with the co-operation of the Israel trade union congress Histadrut and the Palestinian transport workers union.

This model is a firm rejection of those in trade unions promoting an Israel boycott movement.

This model upholds the traditional role of trade unions when faced with disputes of this kind: bridging the gap between nations at war, encouraging peace, justice and conciliation. It is a trade union tradition and role that we are particularly proud to uphold.

We also applaud the role of the International Trade Union Confederation, which has helped to broker co-operation agreements between the Histadrut and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions.

It is unfortunate that in recent years a number of national unions and trade union centres have changed course and abandoned that role.

Instead, they have rallied behind those Palestinians who are opposed to the peace process. Some have gone so far as to deny Israel's right to exist and attacked the Histadrut.

In doing so, in backing the Hamas terrorists who deny Israel's right to exist, they have thrown their support behind Iran's power play in the region. And the Iranian regime is no friend of the trade union movement. Iran - and its Hamas puppets - have a long record of suppressing trade unions and human rights.

Those who support the boycott of Israel actually do nothing to promote peace, justice and reconciliation: in fact, they harm those who want to end the political hegemony of the extremists on both sides.

The boycott stance provides succour to the extremists in Israel and Palestine who refuse to accept the humanity of the other, who refuse to respect the right of all workers in the region to be able to build decent lives for themselves and their families in a peaceful, just and democratic climate.

In recent weeks and months a number of unions have called for boycotts and sanctions directed exclusively against Israel.

They are attempting to demonise the Jewish state, to deny it legitimacy, and to whip up hatred against it. Sometimes that hatred spills over into anti-Semitism.

Those unions are terribly wrong.

We believe the time has come for trade unionists across the world to join forces in support of genuine Israeli-Palestinian peace with justice, based on a two-state solution with secure and recognised borders.

There are already unions and associated NGOs in a number of countries that support this goal. But they are fighting this battle alone, each in their own country. It is time we united our forces.

Today we are publicly launching this new global movement, TULIP.

At the moment, the opponents of a two-state solution are on the offensive, working hard to promote their destructive agenda of boycotts and sanctions targeting Israel. It's time for trade unionists in all countries to go on the offensive, to challenge the apologists for Hamas and Hezbollah in the labour movement.

We have no illusions that this will be anything other than a long and difficult process. But we also know that we have no choice.

We cannot abandon the field to those whose goal is the destruction of any chance for a real Israeli-Palestinian peace.

We welcome trade unionists from all countries to join us.

Paul Howes is national secretary of the Australian Workers Union; Michael J. Leahy is general secretary of Britain's Community union; and Stuart Appelbaum is president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, representing workers in the US and Canada.

www.tuliponline.org

Noam Chomsky 33

American Amnesia: We Forget Our Atrocities Almost As Soon as We Commit Them

By Noam Chomsky, Tomdispatch.com. Posted May 20, 2009.

Historical amnesia is a dangerous social phenomenon because it lays the groundwork for crimes that still lie ahead. 

The torture memos released by the White House elicited shock, indignation, and surprise. The shock and indignation are understandable. The surprise, less so.

For one thing, even without inquiry, it was reasonable to suppose that Guantanamo was a torture chamber. Why else send prisoners where they would be beyond the reach of the law -- a place, incidentally, that Washington is using in violation of a treaty forced on Cuba at the point of a gun? Security reasons were, of course, alleged, but they remain hard to take seriously. The same expectations held for the Bush administration's "black sites," or secret prisons, and for extraordinary rendition, and they were fulfilled.

More importantly, torture has been routinely practiced from the early days of the conquest of the national territory, and continued to be used as the imperial ventures of the "infant empire" -- as George Washington called the new republic -- extended to the Philippines, Haiti, and elsewhere. Keep in mind as well that torture was the least of the many crimes of aggression, terror, subversion, and economic strangulation that have darkened U.S. history, much as in the case of other great powers.

Accordingly, what's surprising is to see the reactions to the release of those Justice Department memos, even by some of the most eloquent and forthright critics of Bush malfeasance: Paul Krugman, for example, writing that we used to be "a nation of moral ideals" and never before Bush "have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for." To say the least, that common view reflects a rather slanted version of American history.

Occasionally the conflict between "what we stand for" and "what we do" has been forthrightly addressed. One distinguished scholar who undertook the task at hand was Hans Morgenthau, a founder of realist international relations theory. In a classic study published in 1964 in the glow of Camelot, Morgenthau developed the standard view that the U.S. has a "transcendent purpose": establishing peace and freedom at home and indeed everywhere, since "the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide." But as a scrupulous scholar, he also recognized that the historical record was radically inconsistent with that "transcendent purpose."

Lees verder:  http://www.alternet.org/rights/140137/american_amnesia%3A_we_forget_our_atrocities_almost_as_soon_as_we_commit_them/

De Nieuwe Reporter

Dit krijgt u te zien zodra u de website van De Nieuwe Reporter bezoekt:

 

Beste bezoeker,

In samenwerking met InSites organiseren wij momenteel een onderzoek om onze website te verbeteren en een beter beeld te krijgen van onze bezoekers.

Als u deelneemt, kunt u een LCD televisie winnen.

Wenst u deel te nemen?

Twee vragen:

1. Waarom organiseert 'De Nieuwe Reporter in samenwerking met Insites... een onderzoek'? Deze o.a. door de belastingbetaler gefinancierde website geeft zelf als verklaring het verbeteren van 'onze website'. Maar stelt deze journalistenwebsite nu dat voor hen geldt: 'U vraagt en wij draaien'? Zo nee, wat bedoelen ze dan? Hoe komt het dat deze mensen die claimen journalisten te zijn niet zelf weten hoe ze hun website moeten verbeteren? 

2. Dat lokkertje, een 'LCD televisie'. Wat voor soort journalisten worden met een 'LCD televisie' gelokt? En als ze al door een 'LCD televisie' worden gelokt, waar worden ze dan nog meer door gelokt? Ik bedoel, is dit slag journalisten wel te goeder trouw als ze gelokt moeten worden met een 'LCD televisie' zodra het gaat om het 'verbeteren' van 'onze website'? Waarom denkt niemand na bij deze website?