De Israelische Terreur 497

No bread in Gaza
By Rami Almeghari
The Electronic Intifada
25 December 2008
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10054.shtml

The Gaza Strip, home to more than 1.5 million Palestinians, will soon be without its most basic
commodity: bread. While families around the world celebrate Christmas, gathering around tables of abundance, Gaza parents like me will not even be able provide bread for their children unless Israel opens the commercial crossings to Gaza from the outside world.
Yesterday, after I finished my lecture at one of Gaza's universities, my wife asked me to bring some bread from Gaza City. All bakeries in our area have stopped operating because of the lack of flour and cooking gas due to Israel's 18-month siege of the territory.
I drove throughout Gaza City to try to find some bread for my four children, instead finding a miserable scene. On the drive back to my home in the Maghazi refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip, I saw dozens of people lining up in rows to get bread from al-Yazji Bakery. I quickly realized that it would take one or two hours until it would be my turn in line, by which time I might not find bread at all. So I continued my drive back to Maghazi, without bread.
"Father, we want to eat, we don't have bread," my eldest daughter complained. I paused and then thought to ask my son Munir to bring some felafel sandwiches -- our answer to fast food -- so we can quickly fill our empty stomachs.
Fortunately, after a while Munir returned carrying sandwiches bought at an inflated price.
While we were eating, my wife asked me to drive early to Gaza City the next day so we might buy some bread. Imagine that today in Gaza, acquiring a simple package of bread requires getting up at daybreak, purchasing a gallon of expensive gas because it is smuggled in from Egypt, and that it will take two or three hours to complete the task!
Of course, my family's story is not special. It is the story of all families in Gaza who are trying to survive a deliberate humanitarian crisis created by Israel.
According to Abdel Naser al-Ajrami, head of the bakers association in Gaza, more than 27 bakeries out of a total of 47 in Gaza City have been shut down completely due to a lack of cooking gas and wheat, as Israel has sealed the commercial border crossings for almost two months now.
Al-Ajrami explained yesterday that sufficient quantities will be distributed to bakeries in the next three days, adding that there have been relentless efforts by officials of the ruling Hamas government to ensure that the necessary amounts cooking gas and wheat are supplied throughout Gaza.
On 18 December, the UN Agency for Palestinian refugees
(UNRWA) halted food distribution to 750,000 refugees in Gaza, including my family, because their stocks of wheat flour have run out. According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Israel is only allowing 16 truckloads of goods to enter Gaza per day. In contrast, 475 trucks per day entered the Strip in May 2007 when the militia loyal to Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip amidst factional fighting with forces loyal to the Fatah party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
As the new year approaches, it is unclear what is in store for Gaza as a six-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian resistance groups ended earlier this week. In response to the closure and the extrajudicial killing of Palestinians by Israeli forces, resistance groups in Gaza have renewed the firing of crude rockets into southern Israel. As Israel gears up for an election, the fate of families like mine becomes a matter of political rhetoric, each candidate trying to outdo the other in its promises to do harm to our lives. Gaza remains the world's largest open-air prison. However, unlike other prisons, the inmates are allowed to go hungry. Meanwhile, the Israeli warden goes unpunished by the United States and the European Union for its cruelty.

Rami Almeghari is contributor to The Electronic Intifada, IMEMC.org and Free Speech Radio News. Rami is also a former senior English translator at and editor-in-chief of the international press center of the Gaza-based Palestinian Information Service and a part-time lecturer on media and political translation at the Islamic University of Gaza. He can be contacted at rami_almeghari A T hotmail D O T com.

Merry Christmas

Boycot Israel 10

Boycott L'Oreal: Makeup for Israeli apartheid \

The Palestinian BDS National Committee,

The Electronic Intifada,

23 December 2008

In this holiday season, the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) calls upon people of conscience all over the world to boycott all the products of the French cosmetics giant, L'Oreal,[1] due to its deep and extensive involvement in business relations with Israel, despite the latter's continued occupation and apartheid policies against the indigenous Palestinian people. L'Oreal's operations in Israel began in the mid-1990s, motivated in part by political considerations. Since then, L'Oreal Israel, the company's subsidiary in Israel, has operated a factory in the Israeli town of Migdal Haemek in the Lower Galilee. The settlement of Migdal Haemek was established in 1952 on lands belonging to the ethnically-cleansed Palestinian village of al-Mujaydil, whose original inhabitants are still denied the right to return to their homes. Like almost all other Jewish settlements built in the midst of Palestinian villages in the Galilee, inside Israel, Migdal Haemek discriminates against Palestinian citizens of Israel, denying them the right to buy, rent or live on any part of the town, simply because they are "non-Jews."L'Oreal Israel manufacturers a line of products using Dead Sea minerals under the name "Natural Sea Beauty" that is exported to 22 countries. It should be noted that one-third of the western shore of the Dead Sea lies in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. While the entire shore and its resources are systematically closed to Palestinians by Israeli military occupation and apartheid practices, Israel exploits the Dead Sea for international tourism, mining and improving its image.L'Oreal's activities in Israel are not, however, limited to L'Oreal Israel. While Palestinian academics and students in the occupied territories and Israel are systematically impeded by Israeli occupation roadblocks and other oppressive measures from conducting normal academic life and research, L'Oreal awarded a $100,000 "lifetime achievement" award to a scientist at Israel's Weizmann Institute of Science in July 2008. The Weizmann Institute, since its establishment, has been a major center for clandestine research and development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons on behalf of Israel's military establishment with which it has close ties. It is, therefore, one of many academic institutions in Israel that are in collusion with the state's violations of international law and Palestinian human rights, and which are targeted for academic boycott by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).The chairman of L'Oreal Israel is Gad Propper, who is the founding chairman of the Israel-EU Chamber of Commerce, and has also been heavily involved in promoting trade between Israel and Australia and New Zealand. The French government has recognized the important role that L'Oreal's Israeli operations play in the company's global business by awarding Propper France's highest civilian honor, the Legion d'honneur earlier this month. "The award was in recognition of Propper's contribution to the global success story" of L'Oreal, according to a report in The Jerusalem Post. In 1994, L'Oreal bought a 30 percent stake in Propper's company Interbeauty, from which L'Oreal Israel was created. Since then Israel has become L'Oreal's commercial center for the entire Middle East.Political motivations for L'Oreal's Israel investmentsIn 1995, L'Oreal agreed to pay $1.4 million to the US government to settle charges that it had cooperated with the Arab League's official boycott of Israel. The company was accused of providing information in the 1980s about its US subsidiaries' ties to Israel, to the now effectively inactive official Boycott Office of the Arab League. The company denied that it had broken US laws designed to prevent American firms from cooperating with the official Arab boycott of Israel, but mounted a campaign to placate Zionist critics by emphasizing its desire to invest in Israel.Following the settlement, then chairman of L'Oreal, Lindsay Owen-Jones, apologized for the company's actions in a letter to the US-based pro-Israel lobby group the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).'

Lees verder: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10049.shtml

De Commerciele Massamedia 171

Voormalig Chef Defensiestaf van de Nederlandse Krijgsmacht.

# 21 NATO Considers “First Strike” Nuclear Option in Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009
Source: The Guardian, January 22, 2008 Title: “Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, NATO told” Author: Ian Traynor
Student Researchers: Stephanie Smith and Sarah Maddox
Faculty Evaluator: Robert McNamara, PhD

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) officials are considering a first strike nuclear option to be used anywhere in the world a threat may arise. Former armed force chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France, and the Netherlands authored a 150-page blueprint calling for urgent reform of NATO, and a new pact drawing the US, NATO, and the European Union (EU) together in a “grand strategy” to tackle the challenges of an “increasingly brutal world.” The authors of the plan insist that “the first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” The manifesto was presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to NATO’s secretary general in mid-January 2008. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008.
The authors—General John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and NATO’s ex-supreme commander in Europe; General Klaus Naumann, Germany’s former top soldier and ex-chairman of NATO’s military committee; General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff; Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff; and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defense staff in the UK—paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the West in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope. The five commanders argue that the West’s values and way of life are under threat, while the West is struggling to summon the will to defend them.
They claim that the following are key threats:
Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism
The “dark side” of globalization, meaning international terrorism, organized crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction
Climate change and energy insecurity, entailing a contest for resources and potential “environmental” migration on a mass scale
The weakening of the nation state as well as of organizations such as the UN, NATO and the EU.
To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of NATO decision-making methods, a new “directorate” of US, European, and NATO leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU “obstruction” of, and rivalry with, NATO. Among the most radical changes demanded are the following:
A shift from consensus decision-making in NATO bodies to majority voting, resulting in faster action through an end to national vetoes
The abolition of national caveats in NATO operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign
No role in decision-making on NATO operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations
Use of force without UN Security Council authorization when “immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings.”
Reserving the right to initiate nuclear attack was a central element of the West’s Cold War strategy against the Soviet Union. Critics argue that what was once a method used to face down a nuclear superpower is no longer appropriate.
UPDATE BY IAN TRAYNOR
I was the only person to write about this and nothing much has really happened since.'

Zie ook: Henk van den Breemen
Uit Wikipedia, de vrije encyclopedie

Hendrik Gijsbert Bernhard (Henk) van den Breemen (Valkenswaard, 23 maart 1941) is een Nederlandse generaal.b.d van het Korps Mariniers. Hij was Chef-Defensiestaf van augustus 1994 tot juni 1998.
Van den Breemen was de eerste uitwisselingsofficier van de Nederlandse strijdkrachten en heeft bijgedragen aan het tot stand komen van de Nederlands-Britse "Amphibious Force" die tussen 2006 en 2010 tot een "batlegroup" wordt uitgebouwd. Minister Henk Kamp noemde deze activiteiten als een reden waarom Generaal van den Breemen als eerste marinier tot Chef van de Defensiestaf werd benoemd.
Van den Breemen is voorzitter van de Raad van Advies van de Noaber Foundation, een organisatie die als venture philanthropist en social venturer actief is. Zijn lidmaatschap van de Raad van Commissarissen van Baan Company, een automatiseringsbedrijf, heeft van Breemen in 2000 om gezondheidsredenen beëindigd. Hij was aangezocht vanwege zijn "ervaring in het leiden van de herstructurering in grote organisaties" en "deskundigheid op het vlak van defensie en luchtvaarttechnologie".
Van den Breemen heeft verschillende onderscheidingen ontvangen. Zo is hij Commandeur in de Orde van Oranje-Nassau met de Zwaarden en Ridder in de Orde van de Nederlandse Leeuw". Hij ontving de Orde van Verdienste van de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland(Das Grosse Verdienstkreuz mit Stern und Schulterband deze Verdienstordens der Bunderrepublik Deutschland). In de USA werd hij benoemd tot "Commander in the Legion of Merit". Daarnaast kreeg hij het "Erekruis van Verdienste Eerste graad" van de Tsjechische Republiek en onderscheidingen in Noorwegen en Zweden. Tevens is van den Breemen ook Adjudant in Buitengewone Dienst van H.M. de Koningin.
Recent is Van den Breemen - samen met een aantal ex-collega's uit Duitsland (Generaal b.d. Klaus Naumann), Frankrijk (Admiraal b.d. Jacques Lanxade), Verenigd Koninkrijk (Field Marshal the Lord Peter Inge) en de USA (Generaal b.d. John Shaliskavili) - betrokken geweest bij het schrijven van een pamflet onder de titel: "Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World; Renewing Transatlantic Partnership". In deze publicatie wordt op basis van een analyse van trends, uitdagingen en mogelijkheden, gepleit voor een integrale strategie ("Grand Strategy") waarin niet alleen militair ingrijpen voorop staat. Er worden vier fasen onderscheiden. De eerste fase beoogt de mogelijke oorzaken van conflicten preventief aan te pakken. In de tweede fase zal er - in het geval er sprake is van een (latent) conflict, proactief aan crisis-management moeten worden gedaan. De derde fase behelst het daadwerkelijke ingrijpen (dat niet alleen militair hoeft te zijn). De vierde fase ten slotte legt de nadruk op de stabilisatie na de beëindiging van het conflict.
Het pamflet eindigt met een "agenda for change", bedoeld voor bijvoorbeeld de NAVO en de EU.

[bewerk] Externe links
Noaberschap op[http://www.noaber.com/Page/sp196/Index.html\
"Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World" op [1] '

Zie: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henk_van_den_Breemen

De Commerciele Massamedia 170

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/category/y-2009

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009

* #1. Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation
* # 2 Security and Prosperity Partnership: Militarized NAFTA
* # 3 InfraGard: The FBI Deputizes Business
* # 4 ILEA: Is the US Restarting Dirty Wars in Latin America?
* # 5 Seizing War Protesters’ Assets
* # 6 The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
* # 7 Guest Workers Inc.: Fraud and Human Trafficking
* # 8 Executive Orders Can Be Changed Secretly
* #9 Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Testify
* # 10 APA Complicit in CIA Torture
* # 11 El Salvador’s Water Privatization and the Global War on Terror
* # 12 Bush Profiteers Collect Billions From No Child Left Behind
* # 13 Tracking Billions of Dollars Lost in Iraq
* # 14 Mainstreaming Nuclear Waste
* # 15 Worldwide Slavery
* # 16 Annual Survey on Trade Union Rights
* # 17 UN’s Empty Declaration of Indigenous Rights
* # 18 Cruelty and Death in Juvenile Detention Centers
* # 19 Indigenous Herders and Small Farmers Fight Livestock Extinction
* # 20 Marijuana Arrests Set New Record
* # 21 NATO Considers "First Strike" Nuclear Option
* # 22 CARE Rejects US Food Aid
* # 23 FDA Complicit in Pushing Pharmaceutical Drugs
* # 24 Japan Questions 9/11 and the Global War on Terror
* # 25 Bush’s Real Problem with Eliot Spitzer

De Israelische Terreur 496

'HUMAN RIGHTS
Championing global human rights: interview with Richard Falk

Victor Kattan,

The Electronic Intifada,

24 December 2008

Earlier this month, Israeli authorities deported Professor Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who had arrived in the country to conduct his duties to investigate rights abuses in the Israeli- occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Electronic Intifada contributor Victor Kattan interviewed Falk about the motivation behind his deportation, comparisons he has made between Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and Nazi crimes committed during World War II, his dual role as an academic and a human rights advocate, and how defenders of Israel deflect attention from what is happening on the ground by attacking critics of the state's policies.
Richard Falk is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice, Emeritus, Princeton University and a member of the New York Bar. He is currently Visiting Distinguished Professor of Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has, since March 2008, been the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Falk is the author of over 20 books on international law and served on the MacBride Commission of Inquiry to investigate the atrocities in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut in 1982, as well as a UN Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights violations at the onset of the second Palestinian intifada in September 2001. His latest book Achieving Human Rights was published by Routledge in October 2008.
Victor Kattan: You were recently deported by the government of Israel when you landed at Ben-Gurion airport in your role as UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights even though the two assistants traveling with you had been given visas to enter the country, and despite the fact that Israel's foreign ministry had advance notification of your travel itinerary, which included a meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Why do you think you were detained for 20 hours and then deported?
Richard Falk: Of course I can only speculate on the Israeli motivations. The representative of the Ministry of Interior at the airport insisted that she was merely implementing an instruction from the foreign ministry to deny me entry. Yet, this fails to explain why there was no effort to inform the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in advance of the visit. My best guess is that Israel was eager to teach me a lesson for my prior outspoken criticism, and more importantly, to send the UN a message that Israel was not willing to cooperate with a UN representative who was unacceptable to the government. Of course, the real significance of my experience involves asserting the authority of a member state to claim authority to determine who can represent the UN in evaluating contested behavior.
If Israel succeeds it would be an unfortunate precedent, and for this reason I will resist the temptation to resign, and will work hard to be an effective Special Rapporteur despite my unfortunate inability to visit the Palestinian territories under occupation.
VK: In June 2007, you wrote an article entitled "Slouching Towards a Palestinian Holocaust." In the article, you posed the following
question: "Is it an irresponsible overstatement to associate the treatment of Palestinians with [the] criminalized Nazi record of collective atrocity?" You answered by saying:
"I think not. The recent developments in Gaza are especially disturbing because they express so vividly a deliberate intention on the part of Israel and its allies to subject an entire human community to life-endangering conditions of utmost cruelty. The suggestion that this pattern of conduct is a holocaust-in-the-making represents a rather desperate appeal to the governments of the world and to international public opinion to act urgently to prevent these current genocidal tendencies from culminating in a collective tragedy. If ever the ethos of 'a responsibility to protect,' recently adopted by the UN Security Council as the basis of 'humanitarian intervention' is applicable, it would be to act now to start protecting the people of Gaza from further pain and suffering."
Do you regret writing these words? If not, why not?
RF: This is a complicated question for me. I wrote those quoted words before I was appointed as Special Rapporteur, as an engaged citizen deeply concerned because the desperate plight of the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza was being ignored in international circles. I felt at the time that it was both an unfolding humanitarian catastrophe, and that it could at any moment morph into a tragedy of massive proportions resulting from famine and disease. In retrospect, I think it was unfortunate to link explicitly these concerns, which remain as acute as before, with the historical experience of Jews in the Holocaust. Pragmatically, it played into the hands of apologists for the Israeli occupation tactics by shifting the debate from the Palestinian ordeal to the inflammatory implications of the linkage to the events of the Nazi era. This is consistent with a wider Israeli pattern of shifting debate from the realities of the occupation to the alleged bias of those who are reporting on these realities. I insist that the test of bias should be based on the truth or falsity of what is observed, and that is a debate I would welcome. On the level of principle I also regret my connecting the Gaza situation with the Nazi memories as it is hurtful to many people, and facilitates distraction from my objective of calling attention to the situation in Gaza. I have tried to avoid using this kind of rhetoric in my subsequent observations on the Palestinian reality, but I would stress that the underlying condition of massive collective punishment of the entire Palestinian civilian population is an ongoing reality that is both immoral and unlawful.
VK: Some international lawyers consider academic scholarship and human rights advocacy to be mutually incompatible: they say one cannot be a serious scholar and an activist. As an eminent American international lawyer with a long and distinguished track record of academic scholarship and human rights advocacy for almost half a century, which has included, among other things, opposition to the Vietnam war, apartheid in Southern Africa, the nuclear weapons industry, Israel's invasion of Lebanon and its military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as NATO's intervention in Kosovo, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, do you think that international lawyers should speak out more often? Is it possible to be a serious scholar of international law and a human rights activist?
RF: This is an important question that I have pondered throughout my career. As mentioned earlier, the true test of either scholarship and advocacy is truthfulness and accuracy, and I have always endeavored to be objective in this fundamental sense. I believe we all have multiple identities, and that it is perfectly consistent to be a scholar writing and speaking for academic audiences and an engaged citizen doing the same for the general public. In some respects, it is a matter of translating one form of communication to the other. I believe it is an important contribution to the vitality of democratic society to have the benefit of the views of academic specialists. At the same time I believe that in a classroom it is essential for a professor to be receptive to viewpoints that contradict his or her own, and I have always tried to do this. I have jokingly pointed out that among my Princeton students were Richard Perle and David Petraeus, which proves that I do not indoctrinate my students, but happily I think, they didn't manage to convert me to their viewpoints either. What counts in the end is a belief in the importance of informed deliberation on the important policy issues of the day whether dealing with students, with scholars, or with the citizenry.
VK: John Dugard, your predecessor as UN Special Rapporteur compared the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories with Apartheid.
You served on the legal team in the South-West Africa (Namibia) cases for Ethiopia before the International Court of Justice in the 1960s.
Although the court in a controversial decision ruled that Ethiopia and Liberia did not have "any legal right or interest appertaining to them" as regards the illegality of South Africa's occupation of Namibia do you see any similarities between Pretoria's policy of Grand Apartheid in southern Africa and what is happening in the Palestinian territories today? If so, what lessons can the Palestinians learn from the anti-Apartheid movement in highlighting the injustices of Israel's four decade's long occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza? Is there a role for international law?
RF: Yes, my background includes a rather intimate set of encounters with the realities of South African Apartheid. Not long after my role in the World Court case I went to South Africa in 1968 as an official observer on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists of a major political trial held in Pretoria. While in the country for several weeks I had the opportunity to visit (unlawfully) the dismal African townships, coincidentally in the company of John Dugard. It helped me appreciate some aspects of extreme political realities that are relevant to an understanding of the Palestinian struggle. I was struck at the time by the sincere failure of "decent" white South Africans to realize the misery and humiliation of the apartheid system although it was part of their immediate surrounding. The politics of denial meant that an outsider like myself could "see" this reality more clearly than could many insiders. It reminds me of a saying of Israeli peace activists: "The West Bank is further from Israel than Thailand." In my experience, Gaza is even further away. I have been hesitant to draw the analogy between Apartheid South Africa and the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories because I did not want a second controversy about my provocative language. At the same time there are some instructive aspects of the successful South African struggle that might be relevant for the Palestinians.
First, it is a crucial domain of struggle to establish the unlawful, and even criminal, nature of the prevailing set of arrangements, and thereby wage a battle for the hearts and minds of the peoples of the world. The US and Europe are particularly vital arenas in this struggle. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague can be helpful in establishing the legitimacy of claims for change. It is helpful to recall that on four occasions the ICJ was called upon to pronounce upon South African Apartheid, and although these judicial events did not achieve immediate results, they contributed to the discrediting of the Apartheid regime. Secondly, the site of struggle is outside as well as inside, and the possibilities of gaining the upper hand in relation to the legitimacy of demands is likely to be determined outside of the West Bank and Gaza, with the most important battlegrounds being pre-1967 Israel and the US. Thirdly, do not assess prospects of a successful outcome for the oppressed side by the current apparent relation of forces. An oppressive order is likely to appear all-powerful until it is on the verge of collapse. It is important to continue the struggle despite frustrations and disappointment based on an ultimate faith in the triumph of justice.
VK: Many international lawyers are afraid to openly criticize the government of Israel for its human rights violations because they believe it will affect their future job prospects through fear of being labeled anti-Semitic or a "self-hating Jew." As an American Jew, what has given you the strength to stand by your convictions for so many years despite the attacks upon your character? Do you have any regrets? And if you could go back in time, would you do it all again?
What advice would you give to others subjected to similar attacks upon their character?
RF: It is an unfortunate aspect of this debate about Israeli policy toward the Palestinians that smear tactics have been used. I have been increasingly the target of such attacks, which I console myself into believing, is a sign of a certain influence and effectiveness. Alan Dershowitz, the notorious Harvard law professor, has written a defamatory journalistic piece on my recent travails, that begins by comparing me to David Duke of Ku Klux Klan fame and [Iranian president Mahmoud] Ahmedinejad, suggesting that I am a comparable hate-monger.
Such irresponsible hostility is an unpleasant part of my controversial role and outspoken views, and unfortunately is given undue weight by a media culture that often treats anger and vicious character attacks as more convincing, and certainly more newsworthy than evidence and reasoning. Yet I have no regrets. My integrity and self-esteem are intimately tied to my lifelong identification with the oppressed, and my belief that if humanity is to flourish in the future it is essential for the strong to respect the global rule of law as much as the weak. At present, we have a global law that does not treat equals equally; the weak are held accountable, while the strong enjoy impunity. This represents law without justice, inviting charges of hypocrisy and double standards. My work as a scholar and engaged citizen has been dedicated to advancing the cause of global justice based on a legal order that learns to treat equals equally whether states or individuals.
As far as being a Jew is concerned, it informs my identity. I believe this commitment to justice is best articulated by the Old Testament prophets, and is the most timeless contribution of the Jewish tradition to human understanding and ethical practice. I had the privilege as an undergraduate of studying Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, and hearing him deliver a series of lectures at Haverford College. His message stayed with me and reverberates to this day. Against this background I can hardly comprehend the accusations of "self-hating Jew" or of somehow being "anti-Semitic." I respond to such attacks on my credibility by pointing out that I never feel anti- American when I criticize the foreign policy of the US government. It is an unfortunate tactic of many Zionists to treat any criticism of the state of Israel or its policies as tantamount to anti-Semitism. In my view, this is a profoundly anti-democratic attitude that tries to turn the "citizen" into a "subject." I believe that the test of good citizenship is conscience not obedience. For these various reasons, I have no regrets, and although it might not have been prudent from a careerist perspective, I would do it all over again without the slightest hesitation. In essence, I could do no other!
Victor Kattan is a tutor at the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London where he teaches international law to postgraduate students.
His book From Coexistence to Conquest: International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1891-1949 will be published by Pluto Books in June 2009. Victor is the editor of The Palestine Question in International Law which was published by British Institute of International and Comparative Law in May 2008 and which features a collection of articles by leading scholars of international law on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Related Links
. "A state cannot indefinitely stand against the world": An interview with UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard, Victor Kattan (23 September
2004)
. UN head reports death threats after Israel criticism, Thalif Deen
(16 December 2008)
. UN assembly head hailed for slamming Israel, Thalif Deen (3 December 2008)'

Zie: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10051.shtml

The Empire 386

Vliegtuigongelukken kunnen soms goed uitkomen. Lees de geschiedenis.

Rove's IT Guru Warned of Sabotage Before Fatal Plane Crash; Was Set to Testify
Monday 22 December 2008
by: Amy Goodman, Democracy Now

Mike Connell, the chief IT consultant to Karl Rove, reportedly asked for protective custody from the government before he died.
Amy Goodman: A top Republican internet strategist who was set to testify in a case alleging election tampering in 2004 in Ohio has died in a plane crash. Mike Connell was the chief IT consultant to Karl Rove and created websites for the Bush and McCain electoral campaigns. He also set up the official Ohio state election website reporting the 2004 presidential election returns.
Connell was reportedly an experienced pilot. He died instantly Friday night when his private plane crashed in a residential neighborhood near Akron, Ohio.
Michael Connell was deposed one day before the election this year by attorneys Cliff Arnebeck and Bob Fitrakis about his actions during the 2004 vote count and his access to Karl Rove's e-mail files and how they went missing.
Velvet Revolution, a non-profit investigating Connell's activities, revealed this weekend that Connell had recently said he was afraid George Bush and Dick Cheney would "throw [him] under the bus." Cliff Arnebeck had also previously alerted Attorney General Michael Mukasey to alleged threats from Karl Rove to Connell if he refused to "take the fall."
Well, Mark Crispin Miller joins us now, a professor of media culture and communication at New York University, the author of several books, including Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008 and Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They'll Steal the Next One Too. Mark Crispin Miller us now in our firehouse studio.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
Mark Crispin Miller: It's good to be here, Amy. Thank you.
AG: Alright, well, we had you on right before the election, because that's when Mike Connell was being deposed. This news that came out of his death in a plane crash on Friday night, talk about what you understand has happened.
MCM: Well, I cannot assert with perfect confidence that this was no accident, but I will say that the circumstances are so suspicious and so convenient for Rove and the White House that I think we're obliged to investigate this thing very, very thoroughly. And that means, first of all, taking a close look at some of the stories that were immediately circulated to account for what happened, that it was bad weather. That was the line they used when Wellstone's plane went down. There had been bad weather, but it had passed two hours before. And this comes from a woman at the airport information desk in Akron. We're told that his plane was running out of gas, which is a little bit odd for a highly experienced pilot like Connell, but apparently, when the plane went down, there was an explosion, a fireball that actually charred and pocked some of the house fronts in the neighborhood. People can go online and see the footage that news crews took. But beyond the, you know, dubiousness of the official story, we have to take a close look at - and a serious look at all the charges that Connell was set to make.
AG: Now, he had asked the Attorney General Mukasey for protective custody, because of threats to him and his wife?
MCM: He reported threats to his lawyer, Cliff Arnebeck, and Arnebeck - also, Velvet Revolution heard from tipsters, as well, tipsters who also claimed that Connell's life was at risk. Stephen Spoonamore, the whistleblower who was the first - who was the one to name Connell in the first place, also had an ear to the inside. He's also very connected. And all these people were saying Rove is making threats, the White House is very worried about this case.
Having heard all this, Arnebeck contacted Mukasey, he contacted Nancy Rogers, who is the Ohio Attorney General, and he wrote a letter to the court, telling all of them that "This man should be in protective custody. He is an important witness in a RICO case. Please do something to look after him." And they didn't respond to this.
AG: So, explain what this case is all about and exactly what Mike Connell has been doing over these last years. What does it mean to be Karl Rove's IT guru?
MCM: Well, the lawyers in the case refer to him as a high-IQ Forrest Gump, by which they mean that he seems to have been present at the scene of every dubious election of the last eight years. We're talking about Florida in 2000. We're talking about Ohio in 2004. We're talking about Alabama in 2002. He seems to have been involved in the theft of Don Siegelman's re-election for governor. There's some evidence that links him with the Saxby Chambliss-Max Cleland Senate race in Georgia in 2002. To be Karl Rove's IT guru seems to have meant basically setting it up so that votes could be electronically shaved to the disadvantage of the Democrats and the advantage of Republicans.'

Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/122408J