Peace and Justice Post

Information Clearing House, January 24, 2008

By John Pilger

The former president of Tanzania Julius Nyerere once asked, “Why haven’t we all got a vote in the US election? Surely everyone with a TV set has earned that right just for enduring the merciless bombardment every four years.” Having reported four presidential election campaigns, from the Kennedys to Nixon, Carter to Reagan, with their Zeppelins of platitudes, robotic followers and rictal wives, I can sympathize. But what difference would the vote make? Of the presidential candidates I have interviewed, only George C. Wallace, governor of Alabama, spoke the truth. “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and Republicans,” he said. And he was shot.

What struck me, living and working in the United States, was that presidential campaigns were a parody, entertaining and often grotesque. They are a ritual danse macabre of flags, balloons and bullsh*t, designed to camouflage a venal system based on money power, human division and a culture of permanent war.

Traveling with Robert Kennedy in 1968 was eye-opening for me. To audiences of the poor, Kennedy would present himself as a savior. The words “change” and “hope” were used relentlessly and cynically. For audiences of fearful whites, he would use racist codes, such as “law and order.” With those opposed to the invasion of Vietnam, he would attack “putting American boys in the line of fire,” but never say when he would withdraw them. That year (after Kennedy was assassinated), Richard Nixon used a version of the same, malleable speech to win the presidency. Thereafter, it was used successfully by Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and the two Bushes. Carter promised a foreign policy based on “human rights” – and practiced the very opposite. Reagan’s “freedom agenda” was a bloodbath in Central America. Clinton “solemnly pledged” universal health care and tore down the last safety net of the Depression.

Continued . . .

Osamah Khalil, The Electronic Intifada, 24 January 2008

President George W. Bush and Prince Salman bin Abdul Al-Aziz (right) join sword dancers during the President’s visit to Al Murabba Palace in Riyadh, 15 January 2008. (White House photo by Eric Draper)

A staggering disparity in images has emanated from the Middle East over the past two weeks. While US President George W. Bush received a warm welcome during his tour of the Persian Gulf, Israel pounded Gaza killing over 40 Palestinians, nearly half of them civilians. Bush participated in sword dancing ceremonies, watched the prowess of hunting falcons, and in the United Arab Emirates he was finally greeted with the flowers that he once believed American troops would receive in Iraq. The obscene displays of wealth and extravagant gifts by the Gulf states, whose coffers are flush with cash from near-record oil prices, contrasted sharply with the images of death and destruction unleashed on impoverished Gaza. This was compounded by Israel’s total closure of the tiny strip late last week, leaving the 1.5 million Palestinian inhabitants with dwindling food and fuel supplies. As the only power plant in Gaza shut down Sunday night, Palestinian children in a candle-light march covered by Al Jazeera asked, “Where are the Arabs?” Yet, the Arabs weren’t the only ones absent from the scene. Indeed, Gaza appears to have been abandoned by the entire world, further revealing the state of fragmentation and isolation of the Palestinian national movement.

Continued . . .

---

Arab regimes may have reconciled themselves to negotiating for negotiation’s sake but it is not something with which the Arab public should have to live with s. Negotiations are a means towards an end, not an end in itself: if they fail to achieve their objective within a reasonable period of time they lose all value and become a burden, even more so when the phase in conflict management is twisted into an instrument for imposing new de facto realities that intensify and complicate the conflict rather than containing or alleviating it. When negotiations drag on unjustifiably and appear, as is the case in the Arab- Israeli conflict, like a wheel that is set to perpetually spin in place then what we have is something akin to a mirage, designed to lure the thirsty yet remain irrevocably distant.The process that ostensibly aimed to resolve the Arab-Zionist conflict began in the immediate wake of the October 1973 War. It will soon be 35 years old. Even supposing that it only began seriously with the 1991 Madrid conference, i.e. when it became a collective process in which all Arab countries took part, it is still more than 15 years old. It is a long time for a negotiating process, though such a span of time could be tolerated should it offer a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. Rather than light, though, negotiations have brought only dismay and an intensifying gloom, to the extent that many now believe there will not be a viable peace settlement should negotiations continue for a millennium or more.

Continued . . .

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted January 24, 2008.

It seems naive to hope Bush’s successor will reject his most destructive policies.

The political calendar indicates that in one more year – on Jan. 20, 2009 – the presidency of George W. Bush will come to an end. However, the worst consequences of his disastrous reign, including the Iraq War, may be nowhere near ending.

Today’s presidential frontrunners, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, were early prominent supporters of the Iraq War and appear to have suffered little political damage for lining up behind Bush in 2002 when he was at the peak of his power.

For his part, McCain – who campaigns with neoconservative independent Sen. Joe Lieberman – has no plan to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, indeed talks about keeping U.S. troops there for centuries. Clinton, who was a late convert to an anti-war position, now vows to “start withdrawing” U.S. troops by early spring 2009.

So, it seems a sure bet that a McCain presidency would continue Bush’s Iraq policies indefinitely. And it looks like a gamble whether Clinton would press ahead with her “hope” of bringing “nearly all the troops out by the end of” 2009 – or revert to the neocon-lite position that she embraced from 2002 until the start of the Democratic campaign in 2007.

Might Hillary Clinton be to George W. Bush on Iraq what Richard Nixon was to Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam, a President who continued a war for years while gradually moving to wind it down?

Continued . . .

Ma’an News

The beating and arrest of a human rights worker by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank city of Hebron on Saturday were a part of “a policy of systematically harassing human rights defenders,” the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem said on Sunday.

B’Tselem fieldworker Issa Amro was assaulted, then detained by the Israeli military while filming a group of Israeli settlers while they attacked a Palestinian home.

Witnesses told Ma’an’s reporter that four women and two children were also injured when settlers pelted Palestinian homes with stones in Hebron’s Wadi Abu Hussain neighborhood.

“Although a large force of soldiers and police were present,” B’Tselem said “they did nothing to protect the Palestinians and remove the settlers. Two B’Tselem workers were filming the incident from across the street, where they stood along with a number of Palestinians and international activists.

A lieutenant colonel approached ‘Amro and “demanded that he stop filming. A group of settler women then gathered around the B’Tselem workers and two of them tried to grab Amro’s camera. A number of soldiers joined in the fray, beat ‘Amro and then arrested him. They then took him to an army jeep and beat him again.”

Link: imeu.net/news/article007663.shtml

Retired Military Group in Pakistan Tells President to Step Down

By John Ward Anderson and Robin Wright
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, January 24, 2008; A15

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Jan. 23 — As critical elections in Pakistan approach, President Pervez Musharraf is increasingly losing support from major constituencies, including his traditional military base, amid growing questions in both Pakistan and the United States about his ability to govern.

On Wednesday, a group of more than 100 retired military officers, including influential air marshals, admirals, generals and security agency chiefs, called on Musharraf to step down immediately in order to help restore democracy and deal with Islamic radicals who have made territorial inroads in recent months.

A statement from the Ex-Servicemen’s Society said that it had been monitoring recent events “with great concern and anguish” and that Musharraf’s resignation was “in the supreme national interest.”

Musharraf has repeatedly defied expectations of his political demise, and few observers believe that the parliamentary balloting Feb. 18 will lead to his immediate ouster.

But Pakistani analysts and U.S. officials said that the political challenges Musharraf faces are greater than they have been in the past and that his allies at home and abroad are fewer. While he has alienated former military leaders, there are signs that active-duty officers may be distancing themselves from him as well.

Keep reading . . .

The American Muslim (TAM), January 23, 2008

by Sheila Musaji

Geert Wilders is a Dutch politician who has made a 10 minute film on the Qur’an. He says that he wants to “expose” the Qur’an, and his previous statements about the Qur’an and Islam seem to show a commitment to provocation and bigotry that make it clear that this will not be a balanced or honest film.

“The maverick politician’s remarks about Islam have become increasingly radical. In February last year he said that if Muslims wanted to stay in the Netherlands, they should tear out half of the Koran and throw it away. In parliament he then called for the Koran and Hitler’s Mein Kampf to be banned, a proposal that was rejected.” Jason Burke, The Observer 1/20/08

“Wilders has a less-than-stellar record when it comes to cultural sensitivity on the issue of Islam. He has demanded an outright ban on Islam’s holiest book, which he calls a “fascist” text. And he means it when he says ban, according to his website: “Not only the sale, but also the use in mosques and ownership in a household context should be punishable. If the current legislation does not allow that, then a new law on banning the book should be introduced. This book incites hate and murder, and therefore does not fit in with our rule of law. If Muslims want to participate, they must distance themselves from the Koran. I know that is asking a great deal, but we have to stop making concessions.”” Borzou Daragahi, L.A. Times 1/22/08

There is some question as to whether or not the film will be shown on Dutch television.

Continued . . .

INI, January 23, 2008

By Jeff Halper

The people of Palestine have done it again, taking their own fate in their hands after being let down by their own “moderate” political leadership and, indeed, the entire international community in their struggle for freedom. Early this morning they simply blew up the wall separating Gaza from Egypt, breaking a siege imposed on them by an Arab government in collaboration with Israel. We, the peoples of the world, should take great pride and encouragement in this quintessentially civil society refusal to accept subjugation, to abandon their fate to governments, including their own, for whom the lives of ordinary people are simply grist for their political charades – Annapolis and its subsequent “peace process” being but the last cynical expression. For the Palestinians represent far more than just themselves. Their refusal to submit to the dictates of governments, or to governments’ lack of interest in the well-being of people in general, reflects the desire of billions of oppressed people for identity, freedom, a decent life and actualization of their collective and individual rights and potentials. Most of the oppressed, the “wretched of the earth” as Franz Fanon called them a half-century ago, are too preoccupied with the daunting daily struggle for survival to organize and resist. Others do resist in a myriad of ways, but are most often repressed by their own political and economic “leaders,” disappearing anonymously from view. In a few cases they have managed to mount effective resistance to oppression, even to prevail – though the billions spent on “counterinsurgency” warfare by the US, Europe, Russia, Israel and many “developing” nations augur ill for peoples attempting to overthrow oppressive regimes. Continued . . .

Telegraph.co.uk, January 24, 2008

By Joan Clements in The Hague

A politician has warned that a “fear of Islam” is governing Holland after he delayed the release of a short film attacking the Koran.

Geert Wilders, 44, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, who compares the Muslim holy book to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, sparked government panic after saying the anti-Islam film would be released tomorrow.

As Dutch police prepared for a weekend of riots and Mr Wilders was told by the authorities that he would have to leave country, he launched a new attack on “intolerant” Islam while announcing that his 10-minute film attacking the Muslim faith would be postponed for two weeks.

“If I had announced that I was going to make a film about the fascist character of the Bible would there have been a crisis meeting of Holland’s security forces?” he wrote to the Volkskrant newspaper.

“Would I have received as many death threats as I have done since announcing I was making a film about the Koran? Of course not.”

Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, this week warned of “extensive repercussions from Muslims throughout the globe” if the film was broadcast.

In an attempt to defuse tensions, the Dutch government will tomorrow announce that it will not implement a ban on the Islamic burqa dress.

Highly touted increase in U.S. troops impetus for surge in civilian casualties

American Free Press, Issue No. 3, January 21, 2008

By Richard Walker

While the Pentagon and White House, as well as many in Congress declare the “surge” in Iraq a success, little is said about the fact that as many as 24,000 Iraqi civilians died in 2007, representing the second highest casualty figure since the invasion in 2003.

Most of the dead were from areas outside of the capital, Baghdad, where the surge has been concentrated, obscuring a drastic increase in violence in other parts of the country. While the surge has reduced high levels of sectarian deaths in the capital, there is a drastic increase in killings elsewhere.

The problem with representing the surge as a major success is that the overall picture of life in the country is obscured and the level of human tragedy minimized.

In comparing last year’s death toll with that of 9-11, Iraqi civilian casualties in 2007 were 800% higher. That does not include civilians injured and maimed for life, or the dead and wounded within the ranks of the U.S. military and its coalition partners. In 2007, there were close to 900 U.S. military deaths and 5,648 wounded. Forty-seven British soldiers were killed. Those figures hid another statistic: the number of soldiers evacuated from Iraq for treatment related to behavioral and psychiatric issues.

Some reports suggested that close to 1,000 soldiers from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have been treated at the Army medical facilities at Landsthul in Germany. Most were from Iraq and fell into the category of victims of “mental trauma.”

Continued . . .