Het Neoliberale Geloof 473

The Movement Against the Banks

By Ruth Conniff, October 21, 2009

A massive rally in Chicago next week aims to express public displeasure with the massive bank bailout outside the American Bank Association annual meeting. Protesters will converge at 11:30 on Monday, October 26, at 301 North Water Street, where the meeting is taking place.

"The same financial institutions that caused the economic crisis and took billions in taxpayer bailouts are back to earning incredible profits," rally organizers—including Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and Change to Win—declare. "Meanwhile, Americans face shrinking pensions, rising foreclosures and unemployment, state budget cuts, predatory lending, outrageous overdraft fees, and sky-high credit card interest rates."

Protesters will demand oversight and accountability and reforms that would rein in the banks. It is an important moment, since Congress takes up regulatory legislation, including the idea of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency, this month.

The Obama Administration is backing the idea of a consumer protection agency, but shying away from other reforms, including breaking up the "too-big-to-fail" banks and separating commercial banking activities from the investment activities that led to the current financial crisis. Today's New York Times includes a profile of Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve chairman from 1979 to 1987, describing how he has been marginalized by Obama's pro-Wall Street economic advisors for suggesting a return to the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which, before deregulation, mandated that commercial banking and investment activities be separate.

"His disagreement with the Obama people on whether to restore some version of Glass-Steagall appears to have contributed to published reports that his influence in the administration is fading and that he is rarely if ever in the small Washington office assigned to him," the Times reports.

Meanwhile, Bankster, "your go-to site for updates on the financial services re-regulation fight in Congress and for progressive net-roots campaigning against the big boys on Wall Street"—is up and running.

The site, a project of the Center for Media and Democracy, aims to be the most comprehensive resource on the web for lay people who want to understand the battle for control over the financial services industry.

The site calls for criminal penalties for the bankers: "On the one-year anniversary of the Banksters blowing a hole in the global economy, no employee of a major American bank or financial institution is behind bars," Bankster points out. "Compare this to what happened after the Savings and Loan heist almost 20 years ago. No less than 1,852 S&L officials were prosecuted and 1,072 were jailed. Over 500 CEOs and top officers were indicted. What is going on here? Don't we believe in holding people accountable anymore? Tell the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to get cracking!"

Among the other citizens' groups featured on the site are the "10 percent is enough" campaign that brings together leaders from all the major world religions to oppose usurious interest rates on moral grounds.

And just in time for Halloween, the anti-death-bonds campaign focuses on an issue Michael Moore brought to light in his new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story": employers and investment firms such as Goldman Sachs taking out life insurance policies on working people and naming themselves the beneficiaries, so they can benefit from your death.

All of these issues should galvanize public opposition to the banks' control of their own regulators in Washington. As Bankster puts it, "If you want to rein in the Banksters and if you think America deserves better than a ‘boom and bail’ economy, you need to muscle up and weigh in." Only engaged citizens can stop the banks.

Zie: http://www.progressive.org/rc102109.html

Het Katholieke Limburg

Hesjes voor asielzoekers

Omdat burgers schrikken van mensen die vanwege hun huidskleur in het donker niet opvallen, moeten asielzoekers in Tienray 's avonds fluorescerende hesjes dragen.

De maatregel, die niet als een harde verplichting wordt opgelegd, is een initiatief van het inwonersoverleg in Tienray. Dat is een platform waarin Tienraynaren, de gemeente, politie en het Centraal Orgaan opvang Asielzoekers (COA) problemen rondom de tijdelijke noodvoorziening voor asielzoekers in het Tienrayse klooster bespreken.
In het verslag van het overlegplatform staat dat de hesjes nodig zijn vanwege "de donkere huidskleur" van asielzoekers. "Daardoor ziet men de mensen niet of pas op het laatste moment, wat tot schrikreacties leidt."
Anti racisme-organisaties plaatsen grote vraagtekens bij de maatregel. "Ik heb er begrip voor dat verkeersveiligheid een belangrijk item is. Maar als je op papier stelt dat asielzoekers vanwege hun donkere huidskleur niet te zien zijn in het donker wordt het toch erg bedenkelijk", vindt Dick Houtzager van Art. 1, de landelijke vereniging ter voorkoming en bestrijding van discriminatie. ,,Ik wil het geen racisme noemen, maar op deze manier plak je asielzoekers wel een etiket op."
Woordvoerders van het COA en de gemeente Meerlo-Wanssum zeggen dat de maatregel uit oogpunt van verkeersveiligheid is genomen. Van discriminatie is volgens hen geen sprake. ,,Asielzoekers hebben geen weet van de verkeersregels", zegt Claude Fasseur van het COA. "Ze lopen over fietspaden en wegen en houden daarbij geen rekening met andere weggebruikers. Als ze naar een ander dorp gaan, willen we ze daarom 's avonds een hesje laten dragen."

Zie: http://www.limburger.nl/article/20091023/REGIONIEUWS01/910229941/1008

Over dit bericht moet ik eerst heel lang nadenken. Ik bedoel, moeten Chinese asielzoekers ook zo'n geel hesje aan? En Arabische asielzoekers? Of geldt dit alleen voor hele zwarte asielzoekers, die uit bijvoorbeeld Cameroen komen. Hoe zwart moet de zwarte huid zijn voordat zo'n hesje aanmoet? En hoe zit het met witte asielzoekers, die overdag niet zo opvallen als zwarte asielzoekers, want laatst genoemden zie je overdag veel beter dan witte asielzoekers. Problematische maatregel. Ik weet wel dat de gele ster bij Jodenwerd ingevoerd zodat ze meteen zouden opvallen. We weten de consequenties daarvan. Het gaat in dit geval om het katholieke Limburg. Katholieken waren altijd al voor gele markeringen.'In Europe, the Fourth Council of the Lateran of 1215 ruled that Jews and Muslims must be distinguishable by their dress (Latin "habitus")", and the yellow badge in Europe dates from this, unlike the Jewish hat (or "Judenhut"), a cone-shaped hat, which is seen in many illustrations from before this date, and remained the key distinguishing mark of Jewish dress in the Middle Ages.^[10] From the sixteenth century, the use of the Judenhut declined, but the badge tended to outlast it, surviving into the eighteenth century in places,^[11] even longer in Imperial Russia.'

Het Neoliberale Geloof 472

Een aanrader voor de Maarten Schinkels in Nederland:

Letter from America

Imperialism, Goldman Sachs Style

By RICHARD BERNSTEIN

Published: October 21, 2009

NEW YORK — Sooner or later, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, created by Congress to investigate the causes of the recent and ongoing financial crisis, will no doubt examine the technical aspect of the financial collapse — low interest rates, credit default swaps, derivatives, cheap mortgages that ballooned and other factors that almost wrecked the global economy.

Probably among the many things the commission members will not do, however, is read “The Origins of Totalitarianism,” the 1951 book by the German-born political theorist Hannah Arendt, which at first glance would seem to be utterly detached from a crisis that took place more than three decades after the author’s death.

But the commission members, probably all products of a liberal education, would actually do well to read Arendt. Or, at least, that was the implicit argument of a group of political scientists, philosophers and even a couple of economists who gathered last weekend at Bard College, a bucolic spot about 90 miles, or 145 kilometers, from New York, to ask what Arendt’s writings could teach about the current crisis.

Quite a lot was the answer, though Arendt shared the stage with others from different places and times, most notably Thomas Hobbes, the 17th-century political thinker with whom Arendt closely identified.

The title of one panel — “Can Arendt’s Discussion of Imperialism Help Us to Understand the Current Financial Crisis?” — was typical of the conference, with its somewhat surprising assumption that Arendt, whose main concern was understanding the twin evils of Nazism and Communism, would have much relevance at all to a world dominated by what might be called Goldman Sachsism.

But what that panel discovered in Arendt’s writings on imperialism, which were part of her larger “Origins of Totalitarianism” work, actually echoes eerily and powerfully recent financial events.

The crucial point is that for Arendt, the era of imperialism, which she believed began in the 1870s and lasted until the outbreak of World War I in 1914, marked the moment when the economic principle of unlimited growth and expansion came to dominate politics. It was the point at which private people pursuing great wealth, in essence, seized political power and made the protection of their interests the policies of the state — and it’s not all that hard to see something like that happening today.

“After the disastrous financial swindles of the 1860s and ’70s, which were on a scale Bernie Madoff might admire, the need to protect their far-flung capital investments, and the huge profits derived from interest on them, inspired capitalists for the first time to ensure their enterprises, that is, to back them up with political power,” Jerry Kohn, the head of the Hannah Arendt Center at the New School for Social Research in New York, said in a paper he read at the conference.

Arendt was a German-Jewish scholar who escaped Nazism and spent much of her career teaching at American universities. She is probably best known to the general public for her phrase “the banality of evil,” which she coined while covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem — her idea being that Eichmann’s evil illustrated not some sort of radical passion but rather a dull, bureaucratic obedience to authority.

But her career was spent in deep deliberation over the collapse of European civilization at the hands of both Nazism and Communism, and one of the key elements in that collapse was the replacement of the commitment to public virtue with the rampant pursuit of private interests. This led her, in her work on imperialism, to some statements that seem, in light of the financial collapse, to be remarkably prescient.

“For the first time,” she wrote, speaking of imperialism, “investment of power did not pave the way for investment of money, but export of power followed meekly in the train of exported money.”

• Another conference participant, Tracy Strong, professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, noted the attention Arendt paid to Cecil Rhodes, the British ruler of colonial southern Africa, who said he would annex the planet if he could. What the Bard conference did was draw the line from Rhodes to Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, A.I.G. and others who were too big and central to the American national purpose to be allowed to fail.

  As Roger Berkowitz, head of the Hannah Arendt Center for Ethical and Political Thinking at Bard, put it of the imperialist era, “The bourgeoisie in essence outsourced government to representatives who basically ordered the world in such a way that the bourgeoisie could pursue its interests.”

  “Now,” he added, “you have much the same thing.”

  Like their counterparts of the 1870s who ventured into faraway and hostile territories in search of fabulous wealth, and then had to turn to their governments for protection, the banks and investment houses of today want to maximize profits in risky ways and to be protected against risk at the same time.

  What is remarkable in this as a historical process is the ease with which governments were persuaded to serve the private interests of the imperialists. Or, as Arendt put it, cited in this instance by Mr. Kohn: “The nations concerned were hardly aware that the recklessness that had prevailed in private life, and against which the public body always had to defend itself and its individual citizens, was about to be elevated to the one publicly honored political principle” — namely, the principle of national glory through imperial expansion.

  Lest the comparison of past and present seem a bit too neat and tidy, one needs to remember that Arendt, as several conferees put it, was skeptical of historical analogies, writing in the preface of “Origins” that “no matter how much we may be capable of learning from the past, it will not enable us to know the future.”

  Well, truer words were never spoken — and yet that comment about the recklessness of private life becoming, in practice, a publicly honored political principle suggests that she understood one aspect of the future, our present, very well.

  Zie: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/us/22iht-letter.html

De Israelische Terreur 982

Goldstone: Israel's missed opportunity

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/21/goldstone-report-israel-gaza-war-crimes-un


Israel's missed opportunity

My mission was determined to investigate war crimes in Gaza fairly.
The Israeli government was wrong to shut us out

o Richard Goldstone
o guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 21 October 2009 10.30 BST


Five weeks after the release of the report of the fact-finding
mission on Gaza, there has been no attempt by any of its critics to
come to grips with its substance. It has been fulsomely approved by
those whose interests it is thought to serve and rejected by those of
the opposite view. Those who attack it do so too often by making
personal attacks on its authors' motives and those who approve it
rely on its authors' reputations.

Israeli government spokesmen and those who support them have attacked
it in the harshest terms and, in particular my participation, in a
most personal and hurtful way. The time has now come for more sober
reflection on what the report means and appropriate Israeli reactions
to it.

I begin with my own motivation, as a Jew who has supported Israel and
its people all my life, for having agreed to head the Gaza mission.
Over the past 20 years, I have investigated serious violations of
international law in my own country, South Africa, in the former
Yugoslavia, in Rwanda and the alleged fraud and theft by governments
and political leaders in a number of countries in connection with the
United Nations Iraq oil-for-food programme.

In all of these, allegations reached the highest political echelons.
In every instance, I spoke out strongly in favour of full
investigations and, where appropriate, criminal prosecutions. I have
spoken out over the years on behalf of the International Bar
Association against human rights violations in many countries,
including Sri Lanka, China, Russia, Iran, Zimbabwe and Pakistan.

I would have been acting against those principles and my own
convictions and conscience if I had refused a request from the United
Nations to investigate serious allegations of war crimes against both
Israel and Hamas in the context of Operation Cast Lead.

As a Jew, I felt a greater and not a lesser obligation to do so. It
is well documented that as a condition of my participation I insisted
upon and received an even-handed mandate to investigate all sides,
and that is what we sought to do.

I sincerely believed that because of my own record and the terms of
the mission's mandate we would receive the co-operation of the
Israeli government. Its refusal to co-operate was a grave error. My
plea for co-operation was repeated before and during the
investigation, and it sits, plain as day, in the appendices of the
Gaza report for those who actually bother to read it.

Our mission obviously could only consider and report on what it saw,
heard and read. If the government of Israel failed to bring facts and
analyses to our attention, we cannot fairly be blamed for the
consequences. Those who feel that our report failed to give adequate
attention to specific incidents or issues should be asking the
Israeli government why it failed to argue its cause.

Israel missed a golden opportunity to actually have a fair hearing
from a UN-sponsored inquiry. Of course, I was aware of and have
frequently spoken out against the unfair and exceptional treatment of
Israel by the UN and especially by the human rights council.

I did so again last week. Israel could have seized the opportunity
provided by the even-handed mandate of our mission and used it as a
precedent for a new direction by the United Nations in the Middle
East. Instead, we were shut out.

As I stated in response to a recent letter from the mayor of Sderot,
I believed strongly that our mission should have been allowed to
visit Sderot and other parts of southern Israel that have been at the
receiving end of unlawful attacks by many thousands of rockets and
mortars fired at civilian targets by Hamas and other armed groups in
Gaza. We were prevented from doing so by, what I believe, was a
misguided decision by the Israeli government.

In Gaza, I was surprised and shocked by the destruction and misery
there. I had not expected it. I did not anticipate that the IDF would
have targeted civilians and civilian objects. I did not anticipate
seeing the vast destruction of the economic infrastructure of Gaza
including its agricultural lands, industrial factories, water supply
and sanitation works. These are not military targets. I have not
heard or read any government justification for this destruction.

Of course the children of Sderot and the children of Gaza have the
same rights to protection under international law, and that is why,
notwithstanding the decision of the government of Israel, we took
whatever steps were open to us to obtain information from victims and
experts in southern Israel about the effects on their lives of
sustained rocket and mortar attacks over a period of years. It was on
the strength of those investigations that we held those attacks to
constitute serious war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity.

The refusal of co-operation by the government of Israel did not
prevent us from reacting positively to a request from Gilad Shalit's
father to speak personally to our mission at its public session in
Geneva. No one who heard his evidence could fail to have been moved
by the unspeakable pain of a parent whose young son was being held
for over three years in unlawful circumstances without any contact
with the outside world and not even allowed visits from the
International Committee of the Red Cross. The mission called for his
release.

Israel and its courts have always recognised that they are bound by
norms of international law that it has formally ratified or that have
become binding as customary international law upon all nations. The
fact that the United Nations and too many members of the
international community have unfairly singled out Israel for
condemnation and failed to investigate horrible human rights
violations in other countries cannot make Israel immune from the very
standards it has accepted as binding upon it.

Israel has a strong history of investigating allegations made against
its own officials reaching to the highest levels of government: the
inquiries into the Yom Kippur war, Sabra and Shatila, Bus 300 and the
second Lebanon war.

Israel has an internationally renowned and respected judiciary that
should be envy of many other countries in the region. It has the
means and ability to investigate itself. Has it the will?

De Israelische Terreur 981

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122612.html

Last update - 19:49 21/10/2009 'U.S. to stand by Israel in the fight against Goldstone report' By Jonathan Lis, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service Tags: China, UN, Israel News Click here for more on the Goldstone commission report on the Gaza conflict President Peres on Wednesday harshly condemned the Goldstone report and told the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, Susan Rice that, "It is outrageous that a respected institution like the United Nations provides a platform to spread lies and stories about Israel." The Goldstone report accuses Israel Defense Forces and Palestinian militants of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity during their Dec. 27-Jan. 18 conflict in the Gaza Strip. The report also calls on the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, which could prosecute Israeli officials for war crimes. "The United Nations provides a stage for Ahmmadinejad, who threatens to annihilate Israel, and lets him stand judge," continued Peres. "This is nothing short of ridiculous." Rice promised that the United States will continue to stand by Israel as a loyal friend in the fight against the Goldstone report. Embedded video from CNN Video Meanwhile, China said it would oppose discussing the Goldstone report at the United Nations Security Council, Chinese members of parliament told a delegation of visiting Israeli officials in Beijing on Wednesday. China's declaration came in response to comments from Kadima MK Tzachi Hanegbi, who is heading the delegation from the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, and who harshly criticized China for voting in favor of a resolution endorsing the Goldstone report at the UN Human Rights Council session last Friday. The Chinese officials emphasized that the UN Human Rights Council has enough tools to examine the issue closely without the involvement of additional UN institutions. Earlier this week, Russian officials also declared Moscow's opposition to any discussion of the Goldstone Gaza report by the UN Security Council. This proclamation follows Russia's vote in favor of adopting the report at the Human Rights Council in Geneva last Friday.

De Volkskrant 91

De Volkskrant beweert:

Waar draait het om op de klimaattop in Kopenhagen?

Volkskrant-redacteur Michael Persson legt uit wat er op het spel staat tijdens de klimaattop in Kopenhagen, van 7 tot 18 december. De top in de Deense hoofdstad wordt als cruciaal gezien in de strijd tegen de opwarming van de aarde. Maar het is zeer de vraag of de rijke en arme landen hun tegenstellingen kunnen overwinnen. (23 oktober 2009)

Tags: aarde, co2, klimaat, klimaatverandering, kopenhagen, milieu, wetenschap

nog geen reacties, reageer

Zie: http://www.vk.tv/reportages/article1306704.ece/Waar_draait_het_om_op_de_klimaattop_in_Kopenhagen

Michael Persson, jij suggereert, beweert als het ware dat 'de opwarming van de aarde' het gevolg is van de strijd tussen arm en rijk. Dat is inderdaad de boodschap van de westerse commerciele massamedia. Maar beste collega, dat is een valse voorstelling van zaken. Het ware probleem is het onvermogen van de kapitalistische wereldeconomie om zich aan te passen aan de snel veranderende omstandigheden. Ik bedoel dit: Darwin verklaarde de evolutie aan de hand van 'natural selection', dus niet de 'survival of the fittest' zoals abusievelijk door velen gedacht wordt. (Dat geloof is van Herbert Spencer). Darwin stelde dat alleen de soort die zich het best kan aanpassen aan de veranderende omstandigheden en die dus evolueert, overleeft. De soort die zich niet kan aanpassen gaat ten onder. Welnu, de menselijke soort heeft een systeem bedacht waarbij de natuur beheerst en gebruikt wordt om een oneindige stroom winstgevende materie te scheppen, om al even oneindige behoeften te bevredigen, die permanent kunstmatig worden gecreëerd . Maar net zoals alles, komt aan alles een einde, ook aan het vermogen van de natuur om aan al onze grillen te voldoen. Bomen groeien niet tot in de hemel, wat het Vooruitgangsgeloof ook mag veronderstellen.

Michael, de voorstelling van zaken dat de opwarming van de aarde op dit moment te maken heeft met de 'tegenstellingen' tussen 'de rijke en arme landen'. Dit is is een nieuw voorbeeld van het feit dat de mens niet in staat is te evolueren, dus zich aan te passen aan de razendsnel veranderende omstandigheden. Opnieuw wordt een zinloze uitvlucht verzonnen om maar niet het systeem structureel te hervormen.

'Waar draait het om op de klimaattop in Kopenhagen?' Ik zou zeggen: het draait zoals altijd om rijkdom en dus om macht, om het behoud van onze overvloed, om het westerse onvermogen fatsoenlijk met de natuurlijke schaarste om te gaan. Meer niet.

Succes collega, met je boodschap.

De Israelische Terreur 980

"In my country we go to prison first and then become President." Nelson Mandela South Africa

Dear stan,

We're writing to you because you've already taken action to stop the imprisonment of these nonviolent heroes. We just got word in on their status and the news is not good. They need you to continue to take action.

The day before yesterday, a judge extended the detention ofMohammad Othman for yet another 11 days. He was detained on September 22 by Israeli authorities when returning to the West Bank after a trip to Norway, where he advocated for boycotts, divestments, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. Since his detention, he has endured long interrogations and solitary confinement.

Over 8,000 people have written US President Obama, asking him to press Israel for his release.
Please keep fighting for his release, and get the latest on his case here:http://freemohammadothman.wordpress.com

Yesterday, Israeli activist Ezra Nawi was sentenced to one month in jail. Why? On July 22, 2007, he tried to stop a military bulldozer from destroying the homes of Palestinian Bedouins in the South Hebron region. The whole incident was documented on video, except for a few seconds when Ezra was inside the shack being demolished. Israeli Border Policemen claimed to have been hit by Ezra in these few seconds, and the judge, of course, took their word over Ezra's.

This should come as no surprise. The very same day of Ezra's sentencing, Israel's State Prosecutor's Office decided not to press charges against Border Guard policemen documented in a videohitting Palestinians, 'as they did not cause real damage.' (1)

While these Border Guards go free, Ezra Nawi goes to jail.

After over 20,000 of you wrote letters in Ezra's defense, the judge had tried to avert more bad publicity by encouraging Ezra to admit his guilt and take community service instead of prison time. Ezra could not admit a crime he did not commit, so rather than avoiding jail as a guilty person, he is going to prison as an innocent man.

Ezra was further ordered to pay a fine of NIS 750 and NIS 500 to each of the officers he was wrongfully convicted of assaulting. In addition, Ezra was given a conditional sentence of six months in prison, should he 'participate in similar activities' during the next three years.

In reaction to the sentence, settlers complained about 'the selectivity of law enforcement officials,' implying that the judge went too light on Nawi, but ignoring the glaring irony that it is the settlers themselves who enjoy the privileges of the discriminatory system imposed by the Israeli occupation. (2)

For updates and next steps on Ezra's case, please go here: http://www.supportezra.net/

Today, the first two young Israeli conscientious objectors of the class of 2010 faced the consequences of their refusal to serve in the Israeli army. Efi Brenner was sent to his first ten days of jail, and at press time was being held in solitary confinement. Or Ben-David is under arrest, awaiting her sentence.

The 2010 Shministim letter of refusal states in part:

Out of sense of responsibility and concern for the two nations that live in this country, we cannot stand idle. We were born into a reality of occupation, and many of our generation see this as a "natural" state. In Israeli society it is a matter of fact that at 18, every young man and woman partakes in military service. However, we cannot ignore the truth - the occupation is an extreme situation, violent, racist, inhuman, illegal, non democratic, and immoral, that is life threatening for both nations. We that have been brought up on values of liberty, justice, righteousness and peace cannot accept it." (3)

Please go here to get updates on the Shministim of 2010: http://www.shministim.com

These are just some of the faces of the people imprisoned because of their resistance to the Israeli occupation. There are, of course, countless more. Last summer, the prisoners' support and human rights organization Addameer published a report documenting the arrests of demonstrators and human rights defenders. (4)

This has been a difficult week, but make no mistake -- the struggle is not over. We take comfort on Nelson Mandela's words, "In my country we go to prison first and then become President."

Sydney Levy
Jewish Voice for Peace

(1) State won't prosecute officers filmed beating Palestinians. Haaretz, Oct 21, 2009 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122549.html)
(2) Leftist jailed for 1 month for assaulting police in West Bank . Haaretz, Oct 21, 2009 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1122584.html)
(3) 2010 Shministim Letter (http://www.shministim.com/)
(4) Repression Allied, Resistance Denied: Israel's Suppression of the Popular Movement Against the Apartheid Annexation Wall (http://www.stopthewall.org/downloads/pdf/repress.pdf)