Peace and Justice Post

By Yoginder Sikand, Countercurrents.org, Aug. 26, 2011

Some weeks ago, Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party and former Union Cabinet Minister of Commerce, Law and Justice, created a major stir by publishing what was widely denounced as a hard-hitting anti-Muslim article in a leading daily newspaper. The media was agog for a while with news about the story, and an irate National Commission for Minorities even threatened to take Swamy to court for it. However, the controversy appeared to have died soon out thereafter.

Scanning the Internet for material for a piece I was writing about the Swamy affair, I learned that he had written an entire tome detailing his Hindutva-grounded vision for India, and that his newspaper piece, devoted to his solution to the ‘Muslim problem’, was a modified version of a chapter of this book. I purchased the book, and forced myself to read it (despite finding it eminently avoidable) in order to learn how Swamy and folks like him who share a common commitment to Hindutva conceive of the future of this country.

Continues >>

In recent years, the extreme Israeli right has developed an alliance with heads of the evangelical movement, who define themselves as Christian Zionists, some of whom believe that another Holocaust of the Jews will ensure the resurrection of Jesus.

Haaretz Editorial, Aug. 25,  2011

Against the backdrop of what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his spokesmen call the “delegitimization” of Israel, a “support event” was held in Jerusalem yesterday evening led by American preacher-broadcaster Glenn Beck. Beck was accompanied by personages identified with the Republican Party’s extreme right and a group of Christian Zionist evangelical leaders.

Continues >>

Hard-line Israeli defenders have tried to shut down protests over how the Palestinians have been treated by accusing critics of “anti-Semitism” and by labeling dissenting Jews as “self-hating.” These intimidating tactics are now common on U.S. college campuses, Lawrence Davidson writes.

By Lawrence Davidson, Consortium News, Aug. 26, 2011

Can criticism of Israel, particularly a) criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people and b) criticism of the state ideology of Zionism that justifies that treatment, be labeled anti-Semitic?

This is not a hypothetical query. An affirmative answer to this question is being advocated by influential Zionist lobbies in the United States. The question is of particular importance on the nation’s college and university campuses.

In places like the University of California at Berkeley and Santa Cruz, and also at Rutgers University in New Jersey, Zionist students are now threatening to sue these institutions for failing to prevent an “atmosphere of anti-Semitic bigotry” allegedly created by the presence of pro-Palestinian student groups and faculty.

One might ask if it isn’t a stretch to assert that protesting Israeli and Zionist behavior is the same as anti-Semitism? Common sense certainly tells us this is so.

Continues >>

Mises Daily: Thursday, August 25, 2011 by Anthony Gregory

Obama said he would divert resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. To his everlasting shame, he has not broken this promise.

The real critique of the wars certainly goes beyond the numbers. It is good, however, to look at the figures. Most people in the country know that Obama hasn’t exactly ended the wars. I’m sure people say, Yeah, but Obama is ending the wars.

This claim is not obviously 100 percent false in every respect, perhaps. And so we need to be careful when we get into the details.

So, during the run-up to the ascension of Obama to the throne, he was critical of the Iraq war. He said things like This war’s lasted longer than World War I, II, the Civil War; 4,000 Americans have died (and of course Americans are the only people that matter in the war). More than 60,000 have been injured; we spent trillions of dollars; we’re less safe.

Continues >>

Pfc. Albert Melise was accused by the US Army of leaking classified information to Truthout during an interview about Guantanamo. (Photo courtesy of Albert Melise)

The US Army has told a reservist who has spent half his life in the military that he is barred from re-enlisting, asserting he “leaked” classified information to this reporter during an interview in which he spoke candidly about his experiences working as a guard at Guantanamo Bay eight years ago.

“In accordance with your security clearance agreement during 2003-2004, you are not authorized to freely talk to the press about your duties at GITMO or what you might think have occurred there to the press,” states an April 2 “developmental counseling form” presented to Pfc. Albert Melise that was signed by Alphonso Holt, a lieutenant colonel in the US Army reserves and the battalion commander of Melise’s reserve unit. “I have reported your actions to the security manager and I am initiating a bar to re-enlist.”

Continues >>

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) appreciates the efforts taken by the State Human Rights Commission of Jammu and Kashmir in conducting an enquiry and filing a report concerning the mass graves in the state. The 17-page report of the Commission’s special investigation team, headed by a Senior Superintendent of Police, reveals that 2,730 unidentified bodies are found buried in 38 sites in north Kashmir’s Bandipore, Baramulla, and Kupwara districts. This could of course just be a fraction of the real number of persons, reportedly disappeared or killed and buried, in unmarked or marked graves spread across the state. The question is, now that the Commission has filed its report, what will be done next?

On August 15 this year, the Union Defence Minister, Mr A K Anthony, urged the country’s defence units to protect and respect human rights. Given the track record of the defence units stationed in states like Jammu and Kashmir and Manipur, the Defence Minister’s speech can only be viewed as an acknowledgment of the fact that human rights violations by the army units is a matter of concern for the government. . .

Continues >>

A protester faces Indian paramilitary forces in Srinagar, Kashmir on 19 August 2011 (ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Last Summer, during a massive unarmed revolt against Indian rule in Kashmir, the writer Pankaj Mishra posed the following question about the situation in the territory. It remains as valid today as a year ago – especially after the recent discovery of thousands of bodies in mass graves:

Once known for its extraordinary beauty, the valley of Kashmir now hosts the biggest, bloodiest and also the most obscure military occupation in the world. With more than 80,000 people dead in an anti-India insurgency backed by Pakistan, the killings fields of Kashmir dwarf those of Palestine and Tibet. In addition to the everyday regime of arbitrary arrests, curfews, raids, and checkpoints enforced by nearly 700,000 Indian soldiers, the valley’s 4 million Muslims are exposed to extra-judicial execution, rape and torture, with such barbaric variations as live electric wires inserted into penises.

Why then does the immense human suffering of Kashmir occupy such an imperceptible place in our moral imagination? After all, the Kashmiris demanding release from the degradations of military rule couldn’t be louder and clearer. India has contained the insurgency provoked in 1989 by its rigged elections and massacres of protestors. The hundreds of thousands of demonstrators that fill the streets of Kashmir’s cities today are overwhelmingly young, many in their teens, and armed with nothing more lethal than stones. Yet the Indian state seems determined to strangle their voices as it did of the old one. Already this summer, soldiers have shot dead more than 50 protestors, most of them teenagers.

Continues >>

The big question that President George W. Bush posed after the 9/11 attacks was “why do they hate us?” followed by his ridiculous answer, “they hate our freedoms.” A new book by BBC correspondent Deepak Tripathi offers a more realistic analysis, writes Marjorie Cohn.

By Marjorie Cohn, Consortium News, Aug. 23, 2011

After the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration rolled out its “Global War on Terror.” Although the Obama White House doesn’t use that moniker, many of its policies are indistinguishable from those of its predecessor.

Both administrations have focused on combating the symptoms of terrorism rather than grappling with its root causes.

Longtime BBC correspondent Deepak Tripathi was based in Kabul, Afghanistan for 15 months in the early 1990s, where he gained a unique perspective about the genesis of terrorism from his access to Afghan leaders and citizens during the civil war following the expulsion of the communist regime there.

His book Breeding Ground makes a significant contribution toward understanding the origins and triggers of terrorism. Tripathi traces the development of a “culture of violence” in Afghanistan — largely due to resistance against foreign invasion — from the “U.S.-led proxy war” against the USSR to the current U.S. war. Without such historical insight, efforts to make us safe from acts of terror will prove futile.

Continues >>

Islamic Jihad says ‘will halt rockets if Israel stops raids’ against Palestinians in besieged Gaza.

Middle East Online, Aug. 25, 2011

‘The truce is related to Israel action’

GAZA CITY – A series of Israeli air strikes on Gaza over a 24-hour period killed nine Palestinians and injured 30, a spokesman for the enclave’s emergency services told AFP on Thursday.

Adham Abu Selmiya said nine people had been killed in a series of raids across the strip that ended before dawn on Thursday.

Among the dead, at least two were Islamic Jihad militants.

The first attack on Wednesday hit a car in the southern city of Rafah, killing 34-year old Jihad militant Ismail al-Ismar.

Continues >>

By Paul Craig Roberts,  opednews.com, Aug. 24, 2011

In a few days it will be the tenth anniversary of September 11, 2001. How well has the US government’s official account of the event held up over the decade?

Not very well. The chairman, vice chairman, and senior legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books partially disassociating themselves from the commission’s report. They said that the Bush administration put obstacles in their path, that information was withheld from them, that President Bush agreed to testify only if he was chaperoned by Vice President Cheney and neither were put under oath, that Pentagon and FAA officials lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for investigation for obstruction of justice.

Continues >>