Peace and Justice Post

High Time for BDS

By OMAR BARGHOUTI

“The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger,” said Dov Weisglass, Sharon’s closest advisor, a few years ago. Today, Israel is slowly choking occupied Gaza, indeed bringing its civilian population to the brink of starvation and a planned humanitarian catastrophe.

If the US government is an obvious accomplice in financing, justifying and covering up Israel’s occupation and other forms of oppression, the European Union, Israel’s largest trade partner in the world, is not any less complicit in perpetuating Israel’s colonial oppression and special form of apartheid. At a time when Israel is cruelly besieging Gaza, collectively punishing 1.5 million Palestinian civilians, condemning them to devastation, and visiting imminent death upon hundreds of patients, prematurely born babies, and others, the EU is extending an invitation to Israel to open negotiations to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), instead of ending the EU-Israel association agreement due to Israel’s grave violation of its human rights clause. The US and European governments are not only providing Israel with massive economic aid and open markets, they are supplying it with weapons, diplomatic immunity and unlimited political support, and upgrading their relations with it specifically at a time when it is committing acts of genocide.

Continued . . .

Thursday 05 June 2008

by: Camillo “Mac” Bica, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

In the wake of Scott McClellan’s scathing indictment of the Bush regime’s sprint to war, some administration pundits argue that to continue to debate why and how our country went to war some five years ago is a distraction from the more crucial issues at hand. The details and minutia of the complex decision to invade Iraq is better left to the historians to untangle. Rather, we should concentrate our efforts and attention on how best to capitalize upon the more recent “successes” of the “new” military strategy in Iraq.

Even were such optimism regarding the surge warranted, however, what these pundits fail to realize, is that military success and improved strategy does not of itself afford a moral and legal basis for continuing the occupation. Understanding how and why we invaded Iraq is relevant not only to ensure the accuracy of the historical record but, more importantly, to decide whether to continue the occupation in the hope or achieving a yet to be defined “victory,” or in the words of John McCain, to “surrender,” accept defeat and withdraw.

Civilized nations and individuals accept, at least theoretically, that human beings have inalienable human rights – among them the right to life and to live in a nation that enjoys political sovereignty and territorial integrity (sometimes referred to as national rights). Such rights are the basis of “noncombatancy,” and provide a natural immunity from, among other things, being injured and killed unjustifiably and having one’s nation invaded and occupied without warrant. To kill an innocent person, a noncombatant, is murder, and “the (unprovoked and unjustified) invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack” is aggression.

Continued . . .

We may not want to admit it, but the war in Iraq is now primarily about murder.

Editor’s note: This piece has appeared on TomDispatch.com and has been adapted from the newly released book “Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians,” which Chris Hedges coauthored with Laila Al-Arian.

by Chris Hedges | Salon.com, June 5, 2008

Pages 1 2 3 4 5

Buzz up!
Troops, when they battle insurgent forces, as in Iraq, or Gaza or Vietnam, are placed in “atrocity-producing situations.” Being surrounded by a hostile population makes simple acts, such as going to a store to buy a can of Coke, dangerous. The fear and stress push troops to view everyone around them as the enemy. The hostility is compounded when the enemy, as in Iraq, is elusive, shadowy and hard to find. The rage soldiers feel after a roadside bomb explodes, killing or maiming their comrades, is one that is easily directed, over time, to innocent civilians who are seen to support the insurgents.

Civilians and combatants, in the eyes of the beleaguered troops, merge into one entity. These civilians, who rarely interact with soldiers or Marines, are to most of the occupation troops in Iraq nameless, faceless, and easily turned into abstractions of hate. They are dismissed as less than human. It is a short psychological leap, but a massive moral leap. It is a leap from killing — the shooting of someone who has the capacity to do you harm — to murder — the deadly assault against someone who cannot harm you.

The war in Iraq is now primarily about murder. There is very little killing. The savagery and brutality of the occupation is tearing apart those who have been deployed to Iraq. As news reports have just informed us, 115 American soldiers committed suicide in 2007. This is a 13 percent increase in suicides over 2006. And the suicides, as they did in the Vietnam War years, will only rise as distraught veterans come home, unwrap the self-protective layers of cotton wool that keep them from feeling, and face the awful reality of what they did to innocents in Iraq.

American Marines and soldiers have become socialized to atrocity. The killing project is not described in these terms to a distant public. The politicians still speak in the abstract terms of glory, honor and heroism, in the necessity of improving the world, in lofty phrases of political and spiritual renewal. Those who kill large numbers of people always claim it as a virtue. The campaign to rid the world of terror is expressed within the confines of this rhetoric, as if once all terrorists are destroyed, evil itself will vanish.

Continued . . .

uruknet.info, June 4, 2008

Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI)

The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) in its statement said that the missionary activities of the occupation forces in Iraq affirm beyond any this is a systematic policy of the U.S. administration in the dissemination of the Zionist-Christian. HEYET Net – In its statement AMSI said that religious crusade has taken root in the minds of a large number of employees of these (occupation) forces officers and soldiers and the classes are motivated to use their military might to serve this trend. The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) warned zealous employers of the current political process on a convention of long-term treaty with these forces of the danger of these crusader practices, and ominous consequence. At the same time the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) confirmed that the sons of the homeland of the religion of Christianity are dissatisfied with the practices of America. They expressed their displeasure for many times, and their views that the occupation intended to establish the task force and discord among the sons of one homeland. “While in the minds there is still some remembrance of drawing of crosses on the covers of the Mushaf-i-Sharif (the Holy Qur’an) the others are still being remembered. Bombed mosques amid cries of joy and jubilation of some soldiers, raids of a large number of mosques in barbarity indicated a genuine hatred. As well as the establishment of a number of evangelical churches with the Zionists in the land of Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, these forces appear to exercise other acts of preaching in this time publicly by the audacity. On 10 May 2008 U.S. forces invited the residents of al Madain to the center of the town to an emergency meeting at the Institute of Technical Training Center – formerly Center for the Holy Qur’an – to provide relief aid, attended by a number of residents and their student children. When they have attended to this meeting the American forces was accompanied by civil personalities subsequently found to be of missionary duties talked to the attendees about peaceful coexistence and religious tolerance. After then they distributed aid and children’s toys surprising people with the copies of the book “Is God really my Father” – that is a missionary presented them with gifts and aid.” The press statement went on as: “the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) strongly condemns such practices which add another face of the object of ugly occupation. This event stresses that these forces lost balance, leaving nothing in its interest only harms religion, morals, values and principles of natural human relations in general after damaging the infrastructure of Iraq, its wealth and human life. Continued . . .

Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

The Independent, Thursday, 5 June 2008

By Patrick Cockburn

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Continued . . .

Simon Cameron-Moore
Reuters North American News Service

Jun 04, 2008 05:40 EST

ISLAMABAD, June 4 (Reuters) – Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf, threatened by possible impeachment, is reconciled to stepping down before he is hounded out of office, according to a senior adviser to the new government.

U.S. ally Musharraf, who came to power as a general after a coup in 1999, has probably got a matter of weeks, at most a few months, before the curtain falls, political insiders say.

“He is prepared to go and go with dignity,” said the source close to the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which heads the 2-month-old coalition government.

“We will try to make it very dignified,” the PPP source said, adding it was politically difficult to be seen helping the disliked president as such a stance risked losing popular support.

Although Musharraf has been a staunch ally in the U.S.-led “war on terror” and launched a peace initiative with India, his exit is unlikely to disturb either so long as Pakistan stabilises.

The United States has good communications with Musharraf’s successor as army chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the PPP-led government is following through on the peace process.

Foreign allies, including both the United States and Saudi Arabia, are pressing for a transition to civilian-led democracy which avoids further upheaval in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

The army has ruled Pakistan for more than half the country’s history since it was carved out of British-ruled India in 1947.

In the post-Musharraf era Pakistan faces challenges beyond the constant threat from Islamist militants linked to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The new government is grappling with a deteriorating macro-economic situation, and the stock market and rupee have fallen sharply in recent weeks.

PPP leader Asif Ali Zardari, the widower and political successor of the late Benazir Bhutto, has proposed a constitutional package that would strip Musharraf of power, but possibly afford him legal protection from foes who want to see him humiliated.

Continued . . .

Socialist Worker, June 5, 2008 | Issue 673

A 2007 Gallup poll showed 94 percent of U.S. respondents saying they would vote for a Black presidential candidate, while 88 percent indicated they would vote for a woman. A Newsweek poll released on May 26 showed roughly 70 percent of voters agreeing that the country is ready for a Black man to serve as president, up from just 37 percent in the 2000 election.

The political landscape has at long last shifted sharply away from the racist and sexist bigotry that have kept the popular majority so divided historically, ignoring their shared interests–and thereby allowing the political status quo to continue to flourish.

But this seismic shift in mass consciousness was nowhere to be seen in the Democratic primaries in recent months. On the contrary, as Hillary Clinton’s quest for the Democratic nomination succumbed to the momentum of Barack Obama’s, the multi-millionaire Clinton ludicrously posed as a populist spokesperson for that minority of stereotypical rural, racist whites who steadfastly refuse to vote for any Black candidate–complete with photo ops swilling shots of whiskey and posing on the back of pickup truck.

As New York Times columnist Bob Herbert noted, “There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way–any way–back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.”

Continued . . .

Bush’s War on Civil Liberties

Counterpunch, June 3, 2008

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
and LAWRENCE M. STRATTON

The George W. Bush administration responded to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon with an assault on U.S. civil liberty that Bush justified in the name of the “war on terror.” The government assured us that the draconian measures apply only to “terrorists.” The word terrorist, however, was not defined. The government claimed the discretionary power to decide who is a terrorist without having to present evidence or charges in a court of law.

Frankly, the Bush administration’s policy evades any notion of procedural due process of law. Administration assurances that harsh treatment is reserved only for terrorists is meaningless when the threshold process for determining who is and who is not a terrorist depends on executive discretion that is not subject to review. Substantive rights are useless without the procedural rights to enforce them.

Terrorist legislation and executive assertions created a basis upon which federal authorities claimed they were free to suspend suspects’ civil liberties in order to defend Americans from terrorism. Only after civil liberties groups and federal courts challenged some of the unconstitutional laws and procedures did realization spread that the Bush administration’s assault on the Bill of Rights is a greater threat to Americans than are terrorists.

The alacrity with which Congress accepted the initial assault from the administration is frightening. In 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act passed by a vote of 98 to 1 in the Senate and by 357 to 66 in the House. The act was already written and waiting on the shelf before the 9/11 attack. Indeed, the FBI and Department of Justice have tried for years to introduce PATRIOT Act provisions into the law. That act was introduced immediately after the attacks, and few members of Congress read its contents prior to passing it.

Continued . . .

Jonathan Freedland

The Guardian, Thursday June 5 2008

Carter described the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket as ‘the worst mistake that could be made’. Photograph: Getty Images

Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

“I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made,” Carter said, adding: “That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates.”

The former president, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator late on Tuesday, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Senator Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: “If you take that 50% who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds.”

Carter, who insisted he would have been equally against an Obama-Clinton pairing if she, not he, had won the nomination, makes the remarks in an interview with the Guardian’s Weekend magazine, to be published on Saturday. The interview was conducted before the final round of voting on Tuesday night confirmed Obama as the party’s presumptive nominee.

Link to this audio

Black Agenda Report, June 4, 2008