Help Fight Judonia!

Please help sustain EAAZI in the battle against Jewish Zionist transnational political economic manipulation and corruption.

For more info click here or here!

Monday, August 10, 2009

[wvns] Gilad Atzmon: Fake Jewish Tolerance

Two previous blog entries that historic American Jewish commitment to civil rights was far from uneqivocal:

Fake Jewish Tolerance vs Vile Israeli Aggression
By Gilad Atzmon
Aug 3rd, 2009
http://palestinethinktank.com/2009/08/03/gilad-atzmon-fake-jewish-tolerance-vs-vile-israeli-aggression/


How many times have we heard about Islam, Muslims and Arabs being slammed for being reactionary on Gay Rights? How many times have we seen political lobbies mobilizing to address Gay Rights issues against Muslim and Arab states and institutions? Interestingly enough, it is actually in the Jewish state where Gays are murdered on the street. Two days ago in Tel Aviv, the Jewish metropolis that insists upon regarding itself as an international Gay capital proved to be a pretty dangerous place for people who happen to be homosexuals.

In fact, the attack on the Gay community in Tel Aviv should not take us by surprise. The Jewish state, in spite of its relentless effort to prove otherwise, is one of the least tolerant places on this planet. It is fuelled by hatred towards others and Otherness. Its politicians are defined particularly by their level of cruelty towards Palestinians.

As much as the Israelis do love to see themselves as being `tolerant and liberal', they hate their neighbors and would implement the most murderous lethal tactics against them. At the end of the day, it shouldn't take us by a complete surprise that in a country that pours white phosphorous on civilians and starves millions behind barbed wire, some people develop deadly inclinations.

The Jewish state is founded on negation. It hates everything that fails to be Jewish. It hates Arabs, it hates the Palestinians, it hates the Goyim, it hates criticism, it hates Islam, it hates the Pope, it hates Christianity. You name it, they hate it. As it happens, all it takes to hate Gays is for someone out there to think that Gay is not Jewish enough. And in fact it isn't. It is as non-Jewish as much as democracy and tolerance are totally foreign to the spirit of Jewishness.

A list of prominent Israeli leaders rushed yesterday to promote the fake notion of Jewish tolerance. Amongst them was opposition leader Tzipi Livni who just eight month ago flattened Gaza directly over its inhabitants. "We need to give strength to the child who comes to his parents and says: 'I am gay,' or 'I am a lesbian;' said Livni. Seemingly, just eight months ago, the same Livni didn't care much about the hundreds of children that were slaughtered in a criminal war she was enthusiastically pushing for. She appeared to not care much about the thousands of kids who were severely injured and broken for life.

Another Israeli prominent War Criminal, the man who introduced WMDs to the region is no other than President Shimon Peres. "The shocking murder in Tel Aviv last night," he said, "is the kind of murder that an enlightened and cultured people cannot accept." The man who prides himself as an enlightened and cultured Jewish ambassador is actually personally responsible for more Palestinian death and carnage than any other living politician.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the least tolerant leaders ever also had something to say about tolerance: "we are a democratic and tolerant country and we must respect every person as he is." I can only wish the Israeli PM would find the courage to listen to his own words next time he evicts Palestinians from their soil and dwellings.

This is really the crux of the matter. Israel is only tolerant symbolically. It is engaged solely in pseudo manifestations of liberalism, it is a `kind of' a democracy, it is `kind of' an open society, it is `kind of' a broadminded society. The more it praises itself for being tolerant and liberal, the more aggression is brewing within. The more open it pretends to be, the more murderous it becomes for real.

This may explain how it is that in such a `tolerant society' 94% of the population supported the slaughter of the Palestinians in the last Israeli campaign in Gaza. This may explain also how it is that in a `tolerant' society, sightseers flocked to the Gaza border to watch their army spreading death en masse.

The repellent duality between fake `tolerance' and vile aggression is the outcome of an unauthentic Jewish fictitious national fantasy. A fantasy that is grounded in mimicking some Western ideologies that are totally foreign to Jewish ideology (religious and secular). Tolerance, democracy and liberalism are foreign to Jewish political precepts which are all racially orientated and supremacist to the bone.

For those who cannot see it yet, Zionist aggression is turning against itself. Israel is imploding.

Sphere: Related Content

[JSF] Ethics 101: Compare and Contrast

A correspondent directed me to the following Jews sans frontieres article because he wanted me to understand that I was an anti-Semite unlike Sara Roy.

Ethics 101: Compare and Contrast

JSF readers, we have a quiz for you.

Please explain, in your own words, what each of the writers in the following passages perceives as a "moral dilemma." Can you articulate in each case the two 'lemmas' (horns) of the dilemma as competing moral principles? What are the proposed solutions? Are they satisfactory? Can you imagine a situation in which the proposed ways of solving the dilemma would be satisfactory for you? Where and how do you draw the line?
A. Sarah Roy writes that being Jewish means “bearing witness, raging against injustice and refusing silence. It means compassion, tolerance, and rescue. In the absence of these imperatives…we cease to be Jews.”

However, a deeper reading of Judaism shows that whilst Jews as a people have been defined by their capacity for compassion and tolerance of others, there are times when we are forbidden to act upon those feelings because such action would be destructive...


It is important to feel compassion for the residents of Gaza, but that feeling of concern and sympathy must not be confused with ethical and moral clarity. On the contrary, making a decision not to mount a defense against lethal terrorists based on a feeling of compassion is not only immoral and un-Jewish it is also idiotic and deeply irresponsible. (Rabbi Levi Brackman)

B. One basic principal must be the absolute rule for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else...We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals.

But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When someone comes to me and says, "I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it will kill them", then I would have to say, "you are a murderer of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are the sons of German mothers. They are our own blood". ( Heinrich Himmler )

Hat tip to a certain rabbi kook.
The article and the comments associated with the article are interesting because I know Sara and sometimes attend her seminars at Harvard. She has never impressed me with her knowledge of Jewish history and culture. The next time I see her -- probably in a month or so -- I will ask her why she believes "that being Jewish means 'bearing witness, raging against injustice and refusing silence. It means compassion, tolerance, and rescue. In the absence of these imperatives…we cease to be Jews.'"

Unlike Sara I have studied Judaism and associated history, literature, and political economics for 40 years, and I would never make such a claim.

In the 19th century many Jews abandoned Judaism or Yiddishkeit because they believed they could not otherwise bear witness and fight against injustice. Today the belief is probably even more true than back then.
Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, August 09, 2009

[wvns] US Kills Afghan Cucumber Farmers in Air Strike

Officials Assumed Farmers Were Loading 'Munitions,' Not
Cukes


US Kills Five Afghan Cucumber Farmers in Air Strike
by Jason Ditz
August 06, 2009
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/06/us-kills-five-afghan-cucumber-farmers-in-air-strike/


A US military helicopter launched an overnight attack on a group of what it believed were "militants loading munitions into a van," killing five of them. According to police in the rural district of the Kandahar Province, they weren't militants, and those weren't munitions.

Cucumbers are a fruit, not a munition

Instead, the Apache helicopter launched its attack on a group of farmers who were loading cucumbers they had grown into a van to be sent to a nearby bazaar. Despite police confirming the van it hit was full of cucumbers, NATO maintained that those it killed were militants. The attack is the second disputed incident of civilian killings in Kandahar Province in as many days.

The previous night, another helicopter launched an attack on a family's compound, killing four people, three of them children. The family insists the four were sleeping at the time of the attack, NATO insists they were carrying "plastic jugs" and that it assumes they were planting roadside bombs. NATO maintains the four were "insurgents" despite the young age of three of them.

The pair of incidents come as the new NATO chief is visiting the nation, and just a week after a UN report cautioned that the escalation of war in Afghanistan is taking a rising toll on the civilian population of the country. With the US trying to convince farmers to switch crops to stem the rising opium exports from the nation, the fact that they can't distinguish between cucumber and small arms is doubtless to make some farmers think twice.

===

Afghans Protest as NATO Insists Slain Civilians Were `Insurgents'
Latest in a Long Line of Disputes Over Civilian Killings
by Jason Ditz
August 05, 2009
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/05/nato-insists-slain-civilians-were-insurgents/


Following protests in rural Kandahar which sprang from a US air strike which killed four people, three of them children of varying age, NATO has officially disputed the villagers' claims that those slain were civilians, saying the four killed by the helicopter were "insurgents." NATO's official statement says the four killed were carrying "plastic jugs" and that they were assumed to be placing roadside bombs. The helicopter then attacked them with rockets and killed them. This disputes the report of civilian witnesses, who said the four were sleeping when the helicopter attacked their family's compound.

Denials of the killing of civilians are extremely common in Afghanistan, and officials regularly claim unspecified evidence that those it kills are insurgents or that the number of deaths is being artificially inflated as part of a Taliban conspiracy.

Usually, however, such denials are followed with quiet revisions of the official story months later. In the meantime, the rising civilian toll is creating growing unrest, and the NATO denial is unlikely to quiet the protests.

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] UN Mission in Sudan Hates Success

The UN in Sudan: A Mission that Hates Success
Abdelwahab El-Affendi

Reporting to the U.N. Security Council on the situation in Darfur last April, the U.N.-African Union Joint Special Representative to Darfur, Rodolphe Adada, revealed to members evidence of remarkable progress in the region during the past year. Compared to the murderous conflict which caused AU-UN troops to be send there in the first place, the current situation could be characterised as "in purely numerical terms [as] a low-intensity conflict."

Between January 2008 and end of March 2009, about 2,000 violent deaths occurred in the region, one third of them civilian. Of the rest, 573 were combatants, and 569 died in intertribal fighting. UNAMID suffered 14 fatalities. This is by all means a remarkable turn of events. The rate of killings in Darfur has dropped below the rate of murder in some American cities, such as Chicago. During the same period, UNMIS chief in Sudan, Ashraf Qazi complained that violent
deaths due to tribal conflict in the South of Sudan were much higher than casualties in Darfur.

Things continued to get better. Last June, UNAMID reported only 16 violent deaths in the whole of Darfur, almost all appeared to be the result of criminal activities not directly related to the conflict. New York usually has that number every 10 days, while Chicago nearly every week. At another level, recent UNICEF reports that infant mortality in Darfur is now lower than some other areas in Sudan, such as Kassala in the East.

The UN thus has every reason to celebrate these achievements. Its mission in Darfur has apparently achieved the impossible, in spite of limited resources and multiple constraints, and brought violence down dramatically. Self-congratulation was in order.

But New York was not at all in celebratory mood. In fact, the mood was emphatically vile, and the first thing New York did was to shoot the messenger who brought the good news. Adada became practically the victim of constructive dismissal as he was forced out of office by thinly disguised machinations. The AU, the supposed partner of the UN in the mission, was not even consulted. The mission's top general was also abruptly replaced. At the same time, New York was actively conspiring to effectively dissolve its partnership with the AU. Its lawyers drafted "secret" memos arguing that the AU does not have any privileged role to play in what was legally and practically a purely UN mission authorised by the Security Council.

On July 30, the Council issued Resolution 1881 (2009) renewing the UNAMID mission for one more year, and at the same time "expressing concern… at the continued seriousness of the security situation and deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Darfur, and at the recurring attacks on the civilian population." More ominously, the resolution called on UNAMID "to make full use of its mandate and capabilities" in order to protect civilians and ensure unhindered humanitarian access".

The resolution and its tone raises some disturbing questions, indicating that the mission was in serious crisis. For one thing, where did the UN Security Council got its information about the deteriorating situation in Darfur when its own mission on the ground is telling it that the situation is in fact improving, and dramatically so? And second, what is meant by the implied criticism of the current UNAMID leadership in urging the mission to use its full mandate? Is the implication that the mission is currently holding back? And does this imply a command to be more confrontational with the government in deference to the urging of some belligerent security Council members and their activist constituencies? And how is UNAMID to do that, when it is dependent of the Sudanese for its security, as evidenced by the military police standing guard outside its offices in Darfur cities? And how does this square with the resolution's preamble which affirms its commitment to the sovereignty of Sudan?

The mandarins in New York and the men who pull the purse strings appear oblivious to the fact the operation in Darfur is taking place in a sovereign country with a functioning government. This is not Kosovo or East Timor. And this is not Somalia or Sierra Leone either. Sudan is not –yet- a failed sate, despite the efforts of some. And Darfur is no longer the acute humanitarian crisis the UN appears –perversely- to want it to be to justify both its presence, and to appease the activists clamouring for blood.

It is clear from the "purges" UNAMID has suffered, and the belligerent tone of the resolution, together with the concerted effort to muscle the AU out of the mission in favour of more direct UN control of operations, that the top brass in New York, and the powers who run the organisation behind the scenes, are now intent on escalating matters in Darfur, a path that could at best be described as suicidal for the mission. The powers that be appear acutely uncomfortable with the mission's African character, which they have been forced to accept under duress. They do not regard this as "their" mission, and have continued to disparage its African component and blame it for all the shortcomings.

This in turn points to the fatal flaw in the very basis of the mission: it is a peace keeping mission with no peace to keep. Theoretically, the mission is here to enforce the 2006 Abuja Darfur Peace Agreement. But not even the most deluded person believes that fiction any more. The mission was supposed to work towards achieving peace, but its mediating function remains its weakest link. To date, the most high profile achievement of the Joint Chief Mediator has been to attend a mediation session organised by Qatar, in his input was minimal. To make matters worse, the Chief Mediator has been practically at war with the rest of the mission, and refused to invite any of his senior colleagues to the talks.

Without a serious effort to advance the peace process, the Council's affirmation of the need for "an inclusive political settlement" as the only viable solution for the crisis becomes vacuous. And with the apparent powerlessness to even bring some of the key actors to the negotiating table, let alone getting them to talk peace, such resolutions are just talk.

Up to now, the mission has been able to achieve tangible progress through the hard work of its staff and the patient wisdom of its key figures. The new gung-ho attitude and the assault on the mission is sure to have disastrous effects all round. Darfur does not need more of those.

Abdelwahab El-Affendi is an ESRC-AHRC Fellow in the Global Uncertainties Programme, UK. He is based at the University of Westminster

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] Saudis shut TV offices in sex row

Saudis shut TV offices in sex row
BBC NEWS
2009/08/09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/8192124.stm


The Jeddah offices of a Lebanon-based TV station which broadcast an interview with a Saudi man boasting about his sexual conquests have been closed.

Saudi Arabian authorities said the offices had been shut by order of the country's deputy prime minister.

The 32-year-old Saudi man's interview shocked conservative Saudi society, prompting calls for him to be punished.

Mazen Abdul Jawad talked about his sexual conquests and how he picks up women in the kingdom.

A spokesman at the information ministry confirmed the decision to close the offices of the LBC TV station in the kingdom's commercial capital.

"It was because of the interview with Mazen Abdul Jawad," Abdul Rahman al-Hazzaa said, according to AFP news agency.

Discreet society

Saudi media say officials are considering whether to charge Mr Abdul Jawad over the interview, which appeared on a programme called Red Lines and challenged Saudi taboos.

The Saudi daily newspaper al-Watan said authorities had also closed other offices of the channel, which is mainly owned by Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal.

Pre-marital sex is illegal in Saudi Arabia and Mr Abdul Jawad could
face imprisonment or flogging.

Saudi Arabia is not only the most conservative society in the Arab world, it is also the most discreet.

If people break its strict Islamic code they face punishment - lashes or imprisonment for drinking or non-marital sex.

These rules are flouted by locals as well as expatriates, correspondents say, but almost everyone who breaks the rules keeps quiet about it and hopes they will not be found out.

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?

Is It Now a Crime to Be Poor?
By BARBARA EHRENREICH
August 8, 2009
NEW YORK TIMES

IT'S too bad so many people are falling into poverty at a time when it's almost illegal to be poor. You won't be arrested for shopping in a Dollar Store, but if you are truly, deeply, in-the-streets poor, you're well advised not to engage in any of the biological necessities of life — like sitting, sleeping, lying down or loitering. City officials boast that there is nothing discriminatory about the ordinances that afflict the destitute, most of which goback to the dawn of gentrification in the '80s and '90s. "If you're lying on a sidewalk, whether you're homeless or a millionaire, you're in violation of the ordinance," a city attorney in St. Petersburg, Fla., said in June, echoing Anatole France's immortal observation that "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges."

In defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalization of poverty has actually been intensifying as the recession generates ever more poverty. So concludes a new study from the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which found that the number of ordinances against the publicly poor has been rising since 2006, along with ticketing and arrests for more "neutral" infractions like jaywalking, littering or carrying an open container of alcohol.
The report lists America's 10 "meanest" cities — the largest of which are Honolulu, Los Angeles and San Francisco — but new contestants are springing up every day. The City Council in Grand Junction, Colo., has been considering a ban on begging, and at the end of June, Tempe, Ariz., carried out a four-day crackdown on the indigent. How do you know when someone is indigent? As a Las Vegas statute puts it, "An indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive" public assistance.

That could be me before the blow-drying and eyeliner, and it's definitely Al Szekely at any time of day. A grizzled 62-year-old, he inhabits a wheelchair and is often found on G Street in Washington — the city that is ultimately responsible for the bullet he took in the spine in Fu Bai, Vietnam, in 1972. He had been enjoying the luxury of an indoor bed until last December, when the police swept through the shelter in the middle of the night looking for men with outstanding warrants.

It turned out that Mr. Szekely, who is an ordained minister and does not drink, do drugs or curse in front of ladies, did indeed have a warrant — for not appearing in court to face a charge of "criminal trespassing" (for sleeping on a sidewalk in a Washington suburb). So he was dragged out of the shelter and put in jail. "Can you imagine?" asked Eric Sheptock, the homeless advocate (himself a shelter resident) who introduced me to Mr. Szekely. "They arrested a homeless man in a shelter for being homeless."

The viciousness of the official animus toward the indigent can be breathtaking. A few years ago, a group called Food Not Bombs started handing out free vegan food to hungry people in public parks around the nation. A number of cities, led by Las Vegas, passed ordinances forbidding the sharing of food with the indigent in public places, and several members of the group were arrested. A federal judge just overturned the anti-sharing law in Orlando, Fla., but the city is appealing. And now Middletown, Conn., is cracking down on food sharing.

If poverty tends to criminalize people, it is also true that criminalization inexorably impoverishes them. Scott Lovell, another homeless man I interviewed in Washington, earned his record by committing a significant crime — by participating in the armed robbery of a steakhouse when he was 15. Although Mr. Lovell dresses and speaks more like a summer tourist from Ohio than a felon, his criminal record has made it extremely difficult for him to find a job.

For Al Szekely, the arrest for trespassing meant a further descent down the circles of hell. While in jail, he lost his slot in the shelter and now sleeps outside the Verizon Center sports arena, where the big problem, in addition to the security guards, is mosquitoes. His stick-thin arms are covered with pink crusty sores, which he treats with a regimen of frantic scratching.

For the not-yet-homeless, there are two main paths to criminalization — one involving debt, and the other skin color. Anyone of any color or pre-recession financial status can fall into debt, and although we pride ourselves on the abolition of debtors' prison, in at least one state, Texas, people who can't afford to pay their traffic fines may be made to "sit out their tickets" in jail.

Often the path to legal trouble begins when one of your creditors has a court issue a summons for you, which you fail to honor for one reason or another. (Maybe your address has changed or you never received it.) Now you're in contempt of court. Or suppose you miss a payment and, before you realize it, your car insurance lapses; then you're stopped for something like a broken headlight. Depending on the state, you may have your car impounded or face a steep fine — again, exposing you to a possible summons. "There's just no end to it once the cycle starts," said Robert Solomon of Yale Law School. "It just keeps accelerating."

By far the most reliable way to be criminalized by poverty is to have the wrong-color skin. Indignation runs high when a celebrity professor encounters racial profiling, but for decades whole communities have been effectively "profiled" for the suspicious combination of being both dark-skinned and poor, thanks to the "broken windows" or "zero tolerance" theory of policing popularized by Rudy Giuliani, when he was mayor of New York City, and his police chief William Bratton.

Flick a cigarette in a heavily patrolled community of color and you're littering; wear the wrong color T-shirt and you're displaying gang allegiance.

Just strolling around in a dodgy neighborhood can mark you as a potential suspect, according to "Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice," an eye-opening new book by Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor in Washington. If you seem at all evasive, which I suppose is like looking "overly anxious" in an airport, Mr. Butler writes, the police "can force you to stop just to investigate why you don't want to talk to them." And don't get grumpy about it or you could be "resisting arrest."

There's no minimum age for being sucked into what the Children's Defense Fund calls "the cradle-to-prison pipeline." In New York City, a teenager caught in public housing without an ID — say, while visiting a friend or relative — can be charged with criminal trespassing and wind up in juvenile detention, Mishi Faruqee, the director of youth justice programs for the Children's Defense Fund of New York, told me. In just the past few months, a growing number of cities have taken to ticketing and sometimes handcuffing teenagers found on the streets during school hours.

In Los Angeles, the fine for truancy is $250; in Dallas, it can be as much as $500 — crushing amounts for people living near the poverty level. According to the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union, an advocacy group, 12,000 students were ticketed for truancy in 2008.

Why does the Bus Riders Union care? Because it estimates that 80 percent of the "truants," especially those who are black or Latino, are merely late for school, thanks to the way that over-filled buses whiz by them without stopping. I met people in Los Angeles who told me they keep their children home if there's the slightest chance of their being late. It's an ingenious anti-truancy policy that discourages parents from sending their youngsters to school.

The pattern is to curtail financing for services that might help the poor while ramping up law enforcement: starve school and public transportation budgets, then make truancy illegal. Shut down public housing, then make it a crime to be homeless. Be sure to harass street vendors when there are few other opportunities for employment. The experience of the poor, and especially poor minorities, comes to resemble that of a rat in a cage scrambling to avoid erratically administered electric shocks.

And if you should make the mistake of trying to escape via a brief marijuana-induced high, it's "gotcha" all over again, because that of course is illegal too. One result is our staggering level of incarceration, the highest in the world. Today the same number of Americans — 2.3 million — reside in prison as in public housing.

Meanwhile, the public housing that remains has become ever more prisonlike, with residents subjected to drug testing and random police sweeps. The safety net, or what's left of it, has been transformed into a dragnet.

Some of the community organizers I've talked to around the country think they know why "zero tolerance" policing has ratcheted up since the recession began. Leonardo Vilchis of the Union de Vecinos, a community organization in Los Angeles, suspects that "poor people have become a source of revenue" for recession-starved cities, and that the police can always find a violation leading to a fine. If so, this is a singularly demented fund-raising strategy.

At a Congressional hearing in June, the president of the National Association ofCriminal Defense Lawyers testified about the pervasive "overcriminalization of crimes that are not a risk to public safety," like sleeping in a cardboard box or jumping turnstiles, which leads to expensively clogged courts and prisons.

A Pew Center study released in March found states spending a record $51.7 billion on corrections, an amount that the center judged, with an excess of moderation, to be "too much."

But will it be enough — the collision of rising prison populations that we can't afford and the criminalization of poverty — to force us to break the mad cycle of poverty and punishment? With the number of people in poverty increasing (some estimates suggest it's up to 45 million to 50 million, from 37 million in 2007) several states are beginning to ease up on the criminalization of poverty — for example, by sending drug offenders to treatment rather than jail, shortening probation and reducing the number of people locked up for technical violations like missed court appointments. But others are tightening the screws: not only increasing the number of "crimes" but also charging prisoners for their room and board — assuring that they'll be released with potentially criminalizing levels of debt.

Maybe we can't afford the measures that would begin to alleviate America's growing poverty — affordable housing, good schools, reliable public transportation and so forth. I would argue otherwise, but for now I'd be content with a consensus that, if we can't afford to truly help the poor, neither can we afford to go on tormenting them.


Barbara Ehrenreich is the author, most recently, of "This Land Is Their Land: Reports From a Divided Nation."

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] Islamophobia, the Israel lobby & Western media

Islamophobia, the Israel lobby and the Western media
Monday, August 3, 2009
http://jnoubiyeh.blogspot.com/2009/08/islamophobia-israel-lobby-and-western.html


Paul J. Balles considers the roles of Israel lobby propagandists and hate-mongers in the US media, such as writer Daniel Pipes and broadcasters Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, in promoting and irrational fear of Muslims and Arabs.


Most of us have had fears of one kind or another. Some fears are quite rational. If someone threatens you, and you have reason to believe that person will carry out his threat, your fear is rational. Not all fears are rational.

Have you ever been short of breath, shaking, nauseated and light-headed within elevators, closed rooms or crowded places? Experienced a panic attack in a high-rise building? Do you have an irrational fear of germs? Of strangers or foreigners? Of shadows? Of thunder or lightening? Of spiders? Of public speaking? Afraid of flying?

If you've experienced any of these, you're suffering from a type of irrational fear called a phobia. These are some of the most common phobias. People suffer from literally hundreds of phobias.

A relatively recent irrational phobia that hasn't even appeared on all the lists is Islamophobia – fear of Islam.

Kofi Annan told a UN conference on Islamophobia in 2004: "When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry, that is a sad and troubling development. Such is the case with Islamophobia."

In 1996, the Runnymede Trust established the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. The term was defined by the trust as "an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination".

The Runnymede report identified eight perceptions related to Islamophobia:

Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
It is seen as separate and "other". It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.

It is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.

It is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a clash of civilizations.

It is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.

Criticisms made of "the West" by Muslims are rejected out of hand.
Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

Of course, Muslims and others who have lived in Muslim countries know how absurd these perceptions are. Why, after more than a decade, do Westerners still believe these false assumptions about Islam? What are the sources of the baseless fears feeding these perceptions?

Many of the distorted impressions come from Zionist propaganda:

Israel's use of words like disputed territory rather than occupied, redeeming for stealing land, terrorists rather than resistance fighters for Palestinians, anti-Semites for critics of Israel (self-hating Jews if the critics are Jewish).

American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) bulletins and lobbying – AIPAC's only purpose is to ensure American support for Israel. No matter what Israel does, it cannot do any wrong.

American Jewish Committee (AJC) newsletters – despite efforts by Jewish organizations to stifle criticism of Israel and objections to Zionism, anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Not all Jews are Semites. Most Arabs are.

ZOA - Zionist Organization of America.

Western brainwashing comes from the media:

Articles by writers like Daniel Pipes, (who claims an Islamist goal is to take over the United States and replace the constitution with the Koran).

Anti-Arab, anti-black radio broadcasts by Rush Limbaugh and Arab-hater Ann Coulter.

TV influence of Fox News anchors, like Bill O'Reilly, labelling Arabs as anti-Semites and terrorists.

Hollywood films have been vilifying Arabs for more than 50 years.
As Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "Fear always springs from ignorance. "


Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. For more information, see http://www.pballes.com.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, August 08, 2009

[wvns] BP expands in Algeria

BP - The largest investor in Algeria to expand $2 billion
Mark Newton
Monday, 03 August 2009 http://www.english.globalarabnetwork.com/200908032029/Energy/bp-the-largest-investor-in-algeria-to-expand-2-billion.html

In interview with Reuters, the head of the BP's Algeria said that his company plans to invest $2 billion over the next 5 years in the oil and gas projects in Algeria.

The investments will include drilling three new exploration wells at a promising gas field, maintaining production at two large gas fields that BP jointly operates, and the world's first industrial scale project to capture and store the carbon dioxide released from gas production.

"BP is still committed to invest in Algeria and just in our existing projects, we plan to invest $2 billion over the next five years," Akli Brihi, head of BP Algeria, told Reuters.

Algeria is the world's fourth largest gas exporter and its eighth biggest exporter of crude. BP says its investments in the north African country in the past 12 years have totaled $5 billion, making it one of the biggest foreign investors.

The gas exported from the large In Salah and In Amenas gas fields -- both of which BP operates jointly with Norway's StatoilHydro (STL.OL) and Algerian state firm Sonatrach -- is equivalent to one third of Algeria's annual gas exports.

Brihi said the company, in conjunction with StatoilHydro and Sonatrach, would deliver an $800 million compression project at the In Salah field early next year, and was planning to drill new production wells in the south of the block.

The aim was to sustain production at the current level of about 9 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas a year, said Brihi.

He said the three partners had similar projects in the pipeline for the In Amenas field, which also has a production capacity of 9 bcm a year, plus about 50,000 barrels a day of gas condensate and liquid petroleum gas.

BP is conducting seismic studies and also plans to drill three new exploratory wells starting late this year on its Bourarhet exploration block to gauge the size of gas reserves.

"We made a promising gas discovery last year," said Brihi. "By 2012, we hope to get a clear picture about the potential of gas reserves in the Bourarhet block."

However, BP's decisions on whether to invest in new Algerian acreage are linked to a large extent to the terms the government puts on the table, said Brihi.

The company, alongside other foreign firms, is looking at 10 oil and gas contract areas for which Algeria is inviting bids. The areas on offer in the bid round include one gas field with big potential reserves.

In a previous bid round last year, only a quarter of the contracts on offer were awarded.

That round was the first held since Algeria adopted a new law giving Sonatrach a minimum 51 percent stake in any project and changing the tax terms -- reforms some energy analysts said could discourage investment.

"We will of course be eager to look at the potential of the blocks offered by Algeria," said Brihi.

BP is the largest foreign investor in Algeria. It has delivered two world-class gas developments: In Salah Gas and In Amenas.

In Salah Gas is one of the largest dry gas joint-venture projects in the country. The venture involves the development of seven proven gas fields in the southern Sahara, 1,200km south of Algiers. On-stream since July 2004, the project produces around 9 billion cubic metres of gas a year. In Salah is also the world's first full-scale carbon dioxide capture project at a gas field. Around 1 million tonnes of CO2 is being injected into the reservoir each year.

In Amenas is also one of the largest wet gas projects in the country. In Amenas involves the development and production of natural gas and gas liquids from wet gas fields in the Illizi basin of south eastern Algeria. This project came on stream in 2007 and is expected to produce around 9 billion cubic metres of gas and 50,000 barrels of liquids a year.(Reuters, BP, Oil&Gas mag)

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] Biden & Clinton Mutiny

The blog entries, Petroleum: Driving Force in Zionism and Chabad (Lubavitch), Putin, Russian Oligarchs, are relevant to some of the discussion of Georgia in the article below.

The Biden and Clinton Mutinies
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
July 31 - August 2, 2009
http://counterpunch.com/cockburn07312009.html

Time bombs tossed seemingly casually in the past month by his vice president and his secretary of state disclose president Obama, in the dawn of his first term, already the target of carefully meditated onslaughts by senior members of his own cabinet.

At the superficial level Obama is presiding over an undisciplined administration; on a more realistic and sinister construction, he is facing mutiny, publicly conducted by two people who only a year ago were claiming that their qualifications to be in the Oval Office were far superior to those of the junior senator from Illinois .

The great danger to Obama posed by Biden's and Clinton's "time bombs" (a precisely correct description if we call them political, not diplomatic time bombs) is not international confusion and ridicule over what precisely are the US government's policies, but a direct onslaught on his presidency by a domestic Israeli lobby that is so out of control that it renders ridiculous Obama's puny attempt to stop settlements--or to curb Israeli aggression in any other way.


Take Joe Biden. Three weeks ago he gave Israel the green light to bomb Iran, only to be swiftly corrected by his boss. At the time it seemed yet another,somewhat comical mile marker in a lifetime of gaffes, perpetrated in the cause of self-promotion and personal political advantage.


But Biden's subsequent activities invite a darker construction. In the immediate aftermath of Obama's Moscow visit, the air still soft with honeyed words about a new era of trust and cooperation, Biden headed for Ukraine and Georgia, harshly ridiculing Russia as an economic basket case with no future. In Tbilisi he told the Georgian parliament that the U.S. would continue helping Georgia "to modernize" its military and that Washington "fully supports" Georgia's aspiration to join NATO and would help Tbilisi meet the alliance's standards. This elicited a furious reaction from Moscow, pledging sanctions against any power rearming Georgia.

Georgia could play a vital, enabling role, in the event that Israel decides to attack Iran's nuclear complex. The flight path from Israel to Iran is diplomatically and geographically challenging. On the other hand, Georgia is perfectly situated as the take-off point for any such raid. Israel has been heavily involved in supplying and training Georgia's armed forces. President Saakashvili has boasted that his Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili and also Temur Yakobashvili , the minister responsible for negotiations over South Ossetia, lived in Israel before moving to Georgia, adding "Both war and peace are in the hands of Israeli Jews."

On the heels of Biden's shameless pandering in Tbilisi, Secretary of State Clinton took herself off to Thailand for an international confab with Asian leaders and let drop to a tv chat show that "a nuclear Iran could be contained by a U.S. `defense umbrella,'" actually a nuclear defense umbrella for Israel and for Egypt and Saudi Arabia too.

The Israel lobby has been promoting the idea of a US "nuclear umbrella" for some years, with one of its leading exponents being Dennis Ross, now in charge of Middle Eastern policy at Obama's National Security Council. In her campaign last year Clinton flourished the notion as an example of the sort of policy initiative that set her apart from that novice in foreign affairs, Barack Obama.
From any rational point of view the "nuclear umbrella" is an awful idea, redolent with all the gimcrack theology of the high cold war era, about "first strike", "second strike", "stable deterrence" ,"controlled escalation" and "mutual assured destruction", used to sell US escalations in nuclear arms production, from Kennedy and the late Robert McNamara("the Missile Gap") to Reagan ("Star Wars").

Indeed, as one Pentagon veteran remarked to me earlier this week, "the Administration's whole nuclear stance is turning into a cheesy rerun of the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction, all based on a horrible exaggeration of one or two Iranian nuclear bombs that the Persians may be too incompetent to build and most certainly are too incompetent to deliver."

The Biden and Clinton "foreign" policy is:

1) to recreate the same old Cold War (with a new appendage, the US versus Iran nuclear confrontation) for the same old reasons: to pump up domestic defense spending; and

2) to continue sixty years of supporting Israeli imperialism for the same reasons that every president from Harry to Dubya (perhaps barring Ike) did so: to corner Israel lobby money and votes.

Regarding the latter, Obama did the same by grabbing the Chicago-based Crown and Pritzker family money very early in his campaign and by making Rahm Emanuel his very first appointment (the two are hardly unrelated).

So right from the start Obama was already an Israel lobby fellow traveler. The Mitchell appointment and the toothless blather about settlements were simply cosmetic, bones tossed to the increasing proportion of the American electorate that's grossed out by the ethnic cleansing of the Arabs from the Holy Land. Obama does have a coherent strategy: keep the defense money flowing and increasing, but without making so much noise as the older generation did about ancient Cold War enemies (e.g. Russia and Cuba). The F-22 -- to date, the one and only presidential issue on which he's shown any toughness at all -- is in no sense a departure from keeping the money flowing, since he is indeed increasing the defense budget, in part by using the F-22 cancellation to push spending on the even worse F-35 and to hide his acquiescence to all the other pork in the Congressional defense budget.

The window for any new president to impose a decisive change in foreign policy comes in the first three months, before opposition has time to solidify. Obama squandered that opportunity, stocking his foreign policy team with tarnished players such as Ross. As the calculated indiscretions of Biden and Clinton suggest, not to mention the arrogance of Netanyahu and his political associates, the window of opportunity has closed.

Would it have been that hard to signal a change in course? Not really. Obama could have excited the world by renouncing the Bush administration's assertion, in the "National Defense Strategy of the United States" of 2002 -- preserved in its essence in ensuing years -- of the right and intention of the United States to preëmptively attack any country "at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing." As William Polk, the State Department's middle east advisor in the Kennedy era, wrote last year: "As long as this remains a valid statement of American policy, the Iranian government would be foolish not to seek a nuclear weapon."

But Obama, surrounded with Clinton-era veterans of NATO expansionism and, as his Accra speech indicated, hobbled with an impeccably conventional view of how the world works, is rapidly being overwhelmed by the press of events. He's bailed out the banks. He's transferred war from Iraq to Afghanistan. The big lobbies know they have him on the run.

Hence Biden and Clinton's mutinies, conducted on behalf of the Israel lobby and designed to seize administration policy as Obama's popularity weakens. When the results of the latest Rasmussen presidential poll were published, showing Obama's declining numbers, there were news reports of cheering in Tel Aviv. And remember two useful guiding principles: first, it is impossible to overestimate the vanity of politicians, particularly of Joe Biden. Maybe he secretly entertains some mad notion of challenging Obama in 2012, propelled by Israel Lobby money withheld from Obama. Maybe Bill is reminding HRC that he reached the White House in 1992 partly because the Israel lobby turned against George Bush Sr. Second principle: there is no such thing as foreign policy, neither in democratic governments nor in dictatorships. As Thalheimer's Law* decrees. All policy is domestic.

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] Political violence in Sri Lanka - Part One

[Note that Modern Identity Creates Ancient Origins addresses some related issues.]

Political violence in Sri Lanka - Part One
By Lionel Bopage
Monday, August 3, 2009
http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2009/08/political-violence-in-sri-lanka-part.html

"Political violence cannot be properly understood without recognizing the complex internecine establishment politics in Sri Lanka. When new social groups vied for access to state power, the establishment used repressive and violent force against them."
___________

1. Introduction

(August 04, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) The last six decades have witnessed many violent conflicts1 across the world; only a few of which have been successfully resolved2. The protracted conflict in Sri Lanka continues to cause death, destruction and devastation, particularly to those living in the north and the east.

Recent infantile and chauvinist statements of the country's elite express their belief that the current phase of political violence is mainly due to the LTTE's terrorist activities and that once the LTTE is defeated militarily so will the national question (National Post 2008). History tells a different story. Unless the root causes of the conflict are genuinely addressed, political violence will continue to grow.

The island's post-1948 political leadership did not come into being as a result of a coherent anti-colonial struggle that unified its people. The neo-colonial establishment not only carried forward the policies and practices of the exclusively colonial, mono-cultural and unitary administration, which were not only incongruent with the culturally and linguistically diverse nature of its inhabitants, but also their socio-economic, political and cultural expectations.

The post-colonial Sri Lankan state never considered it significant to protect the dignity and security of marginalised and disadvantaged social groups. Domestic issues were viewed and dealt with in a mindset of a conflict paradigm3. Peaceful demands for social equity, justice, security and dignity were continuously disregarded and/or violently suppressed. The indignity and insecurity caused by such attacks on the physical and psychological integrity of individuals and communities thus motivated them to take up arms.

This paper looks at aspects of political violence in Sri Lanka such as its complexity, the radicalisation of youth, responses of the state and the left, current developments, and the need to view and deal with it on an interactionist paradigm, if an end to this destructive conflict is genuinely sought.

2. Complexity of the conflict

The roots of political violence in Sri Lanka can be traced back to its colonial days and reflect many national and global dimensions. The island is strategically located in the South Asian region in a geo-political, mercantile, and militaristic sense. Trans-national capital is competitively seeking investments, cheap labour, and natural resources to maximise their profits in this region. Therefore, political violence occurring in Sri Lanka (Alexander 2007) cannot be viewed in isolation. However, this paper is not an in depth study of the global aspects of the conflict. Yet, this needs to be kept in mind when reading this paper.

2.1. Simplification and manipulation of the conflict

Conventional simplifications of political violence in Sri Lanka to class, economic, cultural, ethnic, casteist, or military aspects seem inaccurate, since class boundaries are mixed up with other social caveats. Such simplifications prevent recognition and understanding of the internecine power struggles and manipulations that keep certain groups in control. Some intervene to block any form of power sharing, while others reject any devolution in the hope of achieving separation.

The underlying causes for political violence in Sri Lanka has simply been interpreted and presented as class / ethnicity based, or a terrorist problem, and even extending such analyses along casteist, religious, nationalist, and cultural lines. The youth insurrection in 1971 is labelled as Sinhala, Buddhist, low caste, low class, anti-Tamil, anti-Indian, or terrorist, while the ongoing Tamil youth insurrection is labelled Tamil, Hindu (or Christian), low caste, low- class, anti-Sinhala, anti-Indian, or terrorist.

Political violence cannot be properly understood without recognizing the complex internecine establishment politics in Sri Lanka. When new social groups vied for access to state power, the establishment used repressive and violent force against them. Pro-establishment forces closed ranks against the `common enemy' by unifying and coordinating their efforts, at times, across the whole political spectrum. Behind the political violence of the state one could witness strategies for the further plundering of the island's resources. Behind the political clichés of terrorism and counter-terrorism was the continuous march towards authoritarianism, in which people's hopes, aspirations, human rights and civil liberties were increasingly dashed. Existing social divisions such as nationality, language, religion, caste are manipulated to establish and maintain the political power of the ruling elite.

2.2. Interpretation of history

Current tensions between the Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities can be traced back to the fact that Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim communities have their own positivist interpretations of their historical roots. A sizable majority of Sinhalese believe their race is of Aryan stock dating back to the fifth century BC. The Tamils including Malaiyaha Tamils4, are of Dravidian origin. Some of the Tamils5 claim that they were part of the island's original inhabitants, a claim strongly disputed by the Sinhalese. Tamil incursions from South India trace back to the first century A.D., and a Tamil kingdom existed in the North commencing from the thirteenth century6. The identity of Malaiyaha Tamils is shaped by their social, economic, political and cultural lives centred primarily on plantations.

Some try to interpret the current violence as inevitably deriving from the ancient primordial ethnic hatreds of the `Mahawamsa' nature. The reality, however, was that the wars between Sinhalese and Tamil kings were launched mainly for expanding their feudal territories. Another interpretation points to the privileged positions provided to Tamils under colonial and neo-colonial administrations - that political violence was the eventual outcome of the Tamils losing those privileged positions. Nevertheless, these are often excuses used to blunt further analysis of majoritarian power politics. Besides, such approaches unashamedly justify and unconditionally support a policy of subjugation of opposing groups as adopted by the current ruling elite.

2.3. Basis of analysis

Political violence is not unique to Sri Lanka. The causes of political violence have been broadly categorised as caused by national fragmentation, inequitable development, cultural clashes and liberation movements (Steinbach 1980). These causes do not exist in isolation, but interact simultaneously leading to political violence. It is significant to note that in the post-1948 Sri Lanka, any major organised political violence was absent until 1956. Ethnic political violence that commenced in 1956 was mainly due to the machinations of modern `democratic' electoral politics, deliberately conceived and orchestrated as a means of capturing and keeping power in the hands of the bourgeoisie.

Post-colonial socio-economic and political developments brought about new social forces, but their expectations remained unfulfilled. Consequently, these forces turned to revolutionary practices against the elite's stronghold on the levers of political patronage and economics. In the south these revolutionary practices materialised in the form of class mobilisations. The attempts in the north and east, however, took the form of nationalist aspirations. These origins reflect the dual character of the youth movements that later came into being.

The post-1948 political establishment concentrated mainly on short term tactical electoral gains by engaging in nepotism, family bandyism and class collaboration. Political leaderships of all ethnicities in Sri Lanka have opportunistically used ethnicity as a bandwagon to establish, preserve and enhance their political, economic and social power, or to distract the people from the domestic policy and program failures of the establishment. Nevertheless, many analysts portray ethnicity as the central theme of the current conflict7. Though ethnicity is used as a label in the current conflict; politics based on economic manipulations is the root cause. Ethnic diversit y has always existed in the Sri Lankan society and will continue to do so. Good governance, therefore, means having a society free from violence and based on equity, participative democracy and pluralism.
_______________
1 The form of these conflicts vary from secession to re-unification, from autonomy to integration, from socialism to neo-liberalism, from economic to religious ones.


2 Marshall (2008) indicates that 24 conflicts are currently ongoing; four may end soon; ten are at high risk of returning to political violence.


3 What is seen in a conflict and how it is understood depend on the reference model or framework (paradigm) being used. Viewing conflicts in social behaviour through a positivist paradigmatic model (conflict paradigm) will be different to viewing it using a constructivist paradigmatic model (interactionist paradigm). One model will assist in understanding what policies and activities have assisted to bring conflicts to a close, while other policies and activities have made some conflicts protracted.


4 The so-called Indian or Estate Tamils, workers of Indian origin speaking Tamil who were brought by the British to work in their plantations in 1840s.

5 The so-called Jaffna or Ceylon Tamils

6 According to Professor K M de Silva, beginning in the thirteenth century and until the advent of the Portuguese, a Jaffna kingdom with shifting boundaries existed in the Northern Province.

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] The 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo

Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama
By Jeremy Scahill
http://www.alternet.org/rights/140022/little_known_military_thug_squad_still_brutalizing_prisoners_at_gitmo_under_obama/?page=entire

The 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals.

As the Obama administration continues to fight the release of some 2,000 photos that graphically document U.S. military abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, an ongoing Spanish investigation is adding harrowing details to the ever-emerging portrait of the torture inside and outside Guantánamo. Among them: "blows to [the] testicles;" "detention underground in total darkness for three weeks with deprivation of food and sleep;" being "inoculated … through injection with 'a disease for dog cysts;'" the smearing of feces on prisoners; and waterboarding. The torture, according to the Spanish investigation, all occurred "under the authority of American military personnel" and was sometimes conducted in the presence of medical professionals.

More significantly, however, the investigation could for the first time place an intense focus on a notorious, but seldom discussed, thug squad deployed by the U.S. military to retaliate with excessive violence to the slightest resistance by prisoners at Guantánamo.

The force is officially known as the the Immediate Reaction Force or Emergency Reaction Force, but inside the walls of Guantánamo, it is known to the prisoners as the Extreme Repression Force. Despite President Barack Obama's publicized pledge to close the prison camp and end torture -- and analysis from human rights lawyers who call these forces' actions illegal -- IRFs remain very much active at Guantánamo.

IRF: An Extrajudicial Terror Squad

The existence of these forces has been documented since the early days of Guantánamo, but it has rarely been mentioned in the U.S. media or in congressional inquiries into torture. On paper, IRF teams are made up of five military police officers who are on constant stand-by to respond to emergencies. "The IRF team is intended to be used primarily as a forced-extraction team, specializing in the extraction of a detainee who is combative, resistive, or if the possibility of a weapon is in the cell at the time of the extraction," according to a declassified copy of the Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta at Guantánamo. The document was signed on March 27, 2003, by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the man credited with eventually "Gitmoizing" Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons and who reportedly ordered subordinates to treat prisoners "like dogs." Gen. Miller ran Guantánamo from November 2002 until August 2003 before moving to Iraq in 2004.

When an IRF team is called in, its members are dressed in full riot gear, which some prisoners and their attorneys have compared to "Darth Vader" suits. Each officer is assigned a body part of the prisoner to restrain: head, right arm, left arm, left leg, right leg. According to the SOP memo, the teams are to give verbal warnings to prisoners before storming the cell: "Prior to the use of the IRF team, an interpreter will be used to tell the detainee of the discipline measures to be taken against him and ask whether he intends to resist. Regardless of his answer, his recent behavior and demeanor should be taken into account in determining the validity of his answer."The IRF team is authorized to spray the detainee in the face with mace twice before entering the cell.

According to Gen. Miller's memo: "The physical security of U.S. forces and detainees in U.S. care is paramount. Use the minimum force necessary for mission accomplishment and force protection ... Use of the IRF team and levels of force are not to be used as a method of punishment."

But human rights lawyers, former prisoners and former IRF team members with extensive experience at Guantánamo paint a very different picture of the role these teams played. "They are the Black Shirts of Guantánamo," says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented the most Guantánamo prisoners. "IRFs can't be separated from torture. They are a part of the brutalization of humans treated as less than human."

Clive Stafford Smith, who has represented 50 Guantánamo prisoners, including 31 still imprisoned there, has seen the IRF teams up close. "They're goons," he says. "They've played a huge role."

While much of the "torture debate" has emphasized the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" defined by the twisted legal framework of the Office of Legal Council memos, IRF teams in effect operate at Guantánamo as an extrajudicial terror squad that has regularly brutalized prisoners outside of the interrogation room, gang beating them, forcing their heads into toilets, breaking bones, gouging their eyes, squeezing their testicles, urinating on a prisoner's head, banging their heads on concrete floors and hog-tying them -- sometimes leaving prisoners tied in excruciating positions for hours on end.

The IRF teams "were fully approved at the highest levels [of the Bush administration], including the Secretary of Defense and with outside consultation of the Justice Department," says Scott Horton, one of the leading experts on U.S. Military and Constitutional law. This force "was designed to disabuse the prisoners of any idea that they would be free from physical assault while in U.S. custody," he says. "They were trained to brutally punish prisoners in a brief period of time, and ridiculous pretexts were taken to justify" the beatings.

So notorious are these teams that a new lexicon was created and used by prisoners and guards alike to describe the beatings: IRF-ing prisoners or to be IRF-ed.

Former Guantánamo Army Chaplain James Yee, who witnessed IRFings, described "the seemingly harmless behaviors that brought it on [like] not responding when a guard spoke." Yee said he believed that during daily cell sweeps, guards would intentionally do invasive searches of the Muslim prisoners' "private areas" and Korans to "rile the detainees," saying it "seemed like harassment for the sake of harassment, and the prisoners fought it. Those who did were always IRFed."

"I'll put it like this," Stafford Smith says. "My clients are afraid of them."

"Up to 15 people attempted to commit suicide at Camp Delta due to the abuses of the IRF officials," according to the Spanish investigation. Combined with other documentation, including prisoner testimony and legal memos, the IRF teams appear to be one of the most significant forces in the abuse of prisoners at Guantánamo, worthy of an investigation by U.S. prosecutors in and of themselves.

The IRF-ing of Omar Deghayes

Perhaps the worst abuses in the Spanish case involve Omar Deghayes, whose torture began long before he reached Guantánamo, and intensified upon his arrival.

A Libyan citizen who had lived in Britain since 1986, in the late 1990s, Deghayes was a law student when he traveled to Afghanistan, "for the simple reason that he is a Muslim and he wanted to see what it was like," according to his lawyer, Stafford Smith. While there, he met and married an Afghan woman with whom he had a son.

After 9/11, Deghayes was detained in Lahore, Pakistan, for a month, where he allegedly was subjected to "systematic beatings" and "electric shocks done with a tool that looked like a small gun."

He was then transferred to Islamabad, Pakistan,where he claims he was interrogated by both U.S. and British personnel. There, the torture continued; in a March 2005 memo written by a lawyer who later visited Deghayes at Guantánamo, he described a particularly ghoulish incident:

"One day they took me to a room that had very large snakes in glass boxes. The room was all painted black-and-white, with dim lights. They threatened to leave me there and let the snakes out with me in the room. This really got to me, as there were such sick people that they must have had this room specially made."

Deghayes was eventually moved to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, where he was beaten and "kept nude, as part of the process of humiliation due to his religion." U.S. personnel placed Deghayes "inside a closed box with a lock and limited air." He also described seeing U.S. guards sodomize an African prisoner and alleged guards "forced petrol and benzene up the anuses of the prisoners."

"The camp looked like the Nazi camps that I saw in films," Deghayes said.

When Deghayes finally arrived at Guantánamo in September 2002, he found himself the target of the feared IRF teams.

"The IRF team sprayed Mr. Deghayes with mace; they threw him in the air and let him fall on his face … " according to the Spanish investigation. Deghayes says he also endured a "sexual attack." In March 2004, after being "sprayed in the eyes with mace," Deghayes says authorities refused to provide him with medical attention, causing him to permanently lose sight in his right eye. Stafford Smith described the incident:

"They brought their pepper spray and held him down. They held both of his eyes open and sprayed it into his eyes and later took a towel soaked in pepper spray and rubbed it in his eyes.

"Omar could not see from either eye for two weeks, but he gradually got sight back in one eye.

"He's totally blind in the right eye. I can report that his right eye is all white and milky -- he can't see out of it because he has been blinded by the U.S. in Guantánamo."

In fact, Stafford Smith says his blindness was caused by a combination of the pepper spray and the fact that an IRF team member pushed his finger into Deghayes' eye.

The Spanish investigation into Deghayes' torture draws much from the March 2005 memo, which described several acts of abuse of Deghayes at the hands of the IRF teams. (The memo refers to IRF by its alternative acronym ERF):

ERF-ing Omar -- The Feces Incident

On one of the ERF-ing incidents where Omar was abused, the officer in charge himself came into the cell with the feces of another prisoners [sic] and smeared it onto Omar's face. While some prisoners had thrown feces at the abusive guards, Omar had always emphatically refused to sink to this level. The experience was one of the most disgusting in Omar's life.

ERF-ing Omar -- The Toilet Incident

In April or May 2004, when the Guantánamo administration insisted on taking Omar's English-language Quran, he objected. The ERF team came into Omar's cell and put him in shackles. He was not resisting. They then put his head in the toilet, pressed his face into the water. They repeatedly flushed it.

ERF-ing Omar -- The Beating

In one ERF-ing incident, Omar was shackled by three American soldiers in their black Darth Vader Star Wars uniforms. The first was going to punch Omar, but before he could, the second kneed Omar in the nose, trying to break it. The third queried this, and the second said, "If his nose is broken, that's good. We want to break his ******* nose." The third soldier then took him to hospital.

ERF-ing Omar -- The Drowning

The ERF team came into the cell with a water hose under very high pressure. He was totally shackled, and they would hold his head fixed still. They would force water up his nose until he was suffocating and would scream for them to stop. This was done with medical staff present, and they would join in. Omar is particularly affected by the fact that there was one nurse who "had been very beautiful and kind" to him to [sic] took part in the process. This happened three times.

ERF-ing Omar -- Tango Block

Omar was out on the Tango block rec yard when 15 ERF soldiers came, with two other soldiers in the towers, armed with guns. They grabbed him (and others) and sprayed him.

They then pulled him up into the air and slammed his face down, on the left side, on the concrete. They had someone from the hospital there, and she just watched. She then came up to him and asked whether he was OK. He was taken off to isolation after that.

A medical examination cited in the Spanish investigation confirmed that Deghayes suffered from blindness of the right eye, fracture of the nasal bone and fracture of the right index finger, as well as post-traumatic stress disorder and "profound" depression.

Evidence Destroyed?

At the Pentagon, an official paper trail should exist that documents the IRF-ing of Deghayes. What's more, according to Gen. Miller's SOP memo, all of the actions of the IRF teams were to be videotaped as well.

After a prisoner was IRF-ed, "The medical personnel on site will conduct a medical evaluation of the detainee to check for any injuries sustained during the IRF," and, "all IRF Team members are required to submit sworn statements." These statements, reports and video were "to be kept as evidence."

As of early 2005, there were reportedly 500 hours of video; the ACLU attempted to force their release, but they never have been produced.

"Where are those tapes?" asks CCR President Michael Ratner. In some cases, the answer may well be that they never existed or no longer do. "When an IRFing took place a camera was supposed to be present to capture the IRFing," said Army Spec. Brandon Neely, who was on one of the first IRF teams at Guantánamo. "Every time I witnessed an IRFing a camera was present, but one of two things would happen: (1) the camera would never be turned on, or (2) the camera would be on, but pointed straight at the ground."

Neeley recently gave testimony to the University of California, Davis' Guantánamo Testimonials Project. He also described one IRF-ing where the video of the incident was destroyed.

Regarding the videos, Stafford Smith says, "There are some things I can't talk about, but I will confirm there is photographic evidence. I am absolutely confident that if all of the photographs were revealed to the world, they would provide irrefutable physical evidence that the prisoners had been" abused by the IRFs.

As for the "sworn statements" by IRF team members, a review of hundreds of pages of declassified incident reports reveals an almost robotic uniformity in the handwritten accounts, overwhelmingly composed of succinct portrayals of operations that went off without a hitch. Almost all of them contain the phrases "minimum amount of force necessary" and the prisoner "received medical attention and evaluation" before being returned.

"All internal investigations of Gitmo so far have completely whitewashed the IRF process," says Horton. "They did so for obvious reasons."

"The IRF program was supported by advice secured from the Justice Department suggesting that insubordinate behavior could be cited to justify a departure from guidelines against physical force. It has a conspiratorial odor to it," says Horton. "In fact the use of IRFs was illegal, a violation of Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Convention] and a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which forbids the use of unnecessary force against prisoners."

While Spain will probably pursue the role the IRF teams played in the torture of its citizens or residents, its scope goes far beyond those specific incidents.

"I have seen detainees IRF'ed while they were praying, or for refusing medication."

Deghayes' treatment at the hands of the feared IRF teams mirrors that of several other released Guantánamo prisoners.

David Hicks, an Australian citizen held at Guantánamo, said in a sworn affidavit, "I have witnessed the activities of the [IRF], which consists of a squad of soldiers that enter a detainee's cell and brutalize him with the aid of an attack dog ... I have seen detainees suffer serious injuries as a result of being IRF'ed. I have seen detainees IRF'ed while they were praying, or for refusing medication."

Binyam Mohamed, released in February, has also described an IRF assault: "They nearly broke my back. The guy on top was twisting me one way, the guys on my legs the other. They marched me out of the cell to the fingerprint room, still cuffed. I clenched my fists behind me so they couldn't take [finger]prints, so they tried to take them by force. The guy at my head sticks his fingers up my nose and wrenches my head back, jerking it around by the nostrils. Then he put his fingers in my eyes. It felt as if he was trying to gouge them out. Another guy was punching my ribs, and another was squeezing my testicles. Finally, I couldn't take it any more. I let them take the prints."

A report prepared by British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce, documents the alleged abuse of a Bahraini citizen, Jumah al Dousari by an IRF team. Before being taken to Guantánamo, al Dousari was widely known to be "mentally ill." On one occasion, the IRF Team was called into his cell after al Dousari allegedly insulted a female soldier. Another prisoner who witnessed the incident described what happened:

"There were usually five people on an ERF team. On this occasion there were eight of them. When Jumah saw them coming, he realized something was wrong and was lying on the floor with his head in his hands. If you're on the floor with your hands on your head, then you would hope that all they would do would be to come in and put the chains on you. That is what they're supposed to do.

"The first man is meant to go in with a shield. On this occasion, the man with the shield threw the shield away, took his helmet off, when the door was unlocked ran in and did a knee drop onto Jumah's back just between his shoulder blades with his full weight. He must have been about 240 pounds in weight. His name was Smith. He was a sergeant E-5. Once he had done that, the others came in and were punching and kicking Jumah. While they were doing that the female officer then came in and was kicking his stomach. Jumah had had an operation and had metal rods in his stomach clamped together in the operation.

"The officer Smith was the MP sergeant who was punching him. He grabbed his head with one hand and with the other hand punched him repeatedly in the face. His nose was broken. He pushed his face, and he smashed it into the concrete floor. All of this should be on video. There was blood everywhere. When they took him out, they hosed the cell down and the water ran red with blood. We all saw it."

Force Feeding as a Form of Torture

The IRF teams were also used to force-feed hunger-striking prisoners at Guantánamo, including in August 2005. Deghayes was among the hunger strikers, writing in a letter, "I am slowly dying in this solitary prison cell, I have no rights, no hope. So why not take my destiny into my own hands, and die for a principle?"

While the U.S. government portrayed a situation where the hunger strikers were being given medical attention, lawyers for some of the men claim that the tubes used to force feed them were "the thickness of a finger" and "were viewed by the detainees as objects of torture."

According to attorney Julia Tarver, one of her clients, Yousef al-Shehri, had a tube inserted with "one [IRF member] holding his chin while the other held him back by his hair, and a medical staff member forcibly inserted the tube in his nose and down his throat" and into his stomach. "No anesthesia or sedative was provided to alleviate the obvious trauma of the procedure." Tarver said this method caused al-Shehri and others to vomit "substantial amounts of blood."

This was painful enough, but al-Shehri, described the removal of the tubes as "unbearable," causing him to pass out from the pain.

According to Tarver, "Nasal gastric (NG) tubes [were removed] by placing a foot on one end of the tube and yanking the detainee's head back by his hair, causing the tube to be painfully ejected from the detainee's nose. Then, in front of the Guantanamo physicians … the guards took NG tubes from one detainee, and with no sanitization whatsoever, reinserted it into the nose of a different detainee. When these tubes were reinserted, the detainees could see the blood and stomach bile from the other detainees remaining on the tubes." Medical staff, according to Tarver, made no effort to intervene. This was one of many incidents where IRF teams facilitated such force-feeding.

Aside from hunger strikes, other forms of resistance were met with brutal reprisal. Tarek Dergoul, a prisoner interviewed by Human Rights Watch, described how IRF teams beat him because he "often refused to cooperate with cell searches during prayer time. One reason was that they would abuse the Quran. Another was that the guards deliberately felt up my private parts under the guise of searching me."

Dergoul said, "If I refused a cell search, MPs would call the Extreme Reaction Force, who came in riot gear with plastic shields and pepper spray. The Extreme Reaction Force entered the cell, ran in and pinned me down after spraying me with pepper spray and attacked me. The pepper spray caused me to vomit on several occasions. They poked their fingers in my eyes, banged my head on the floor and kicked and punched me and tied me up like a beast. They often forced my head into the toilet."

Jamal al-Harith claims he was beaten by a five-man IRF team for refusing an injection: "I was terrified of what they were going to do. I had seen victims of [IRF] being paraded in front of my cell. They were battered and bruised into submission. It was a horrible sight and a frequent sight. … They were really gung-ho, hyped up and aggressive. One of them attacked me really hard and left me with a deep red mark from my backbone down to my knee. I thought I was bleeding, but it was just really bad bruising."

The IRF-ing of Army Sgt. 1st Class Sean Baker

Ironically, perhaps the most well-publicized case of abuse by this force was not inflicted on a Guantanamo prisoner, but on an active-duty U.S. soldier and Gulf War veteran.

In January 2003, Sgt. Sean Baker was ordered to participate in an IRF training drill at Guantánamo where he would play the role of an uncooperative prisoner. Sgt. Baker says he was ordered by his superior to take off his military uniform and put on an orange jumpsuit like those worn by prisoners. He was told to yell out the code word "red" if the situation became unbearable, or he wanted his fellow soldiers to stop.

According to sworn statements, upon entering his cell, IRF members thought they were restraining an actual prisoner. As Sgt. Baker later described:

They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and, unfortunately, one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down. Then he -- the same individual -- reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breathe. When I couldn't breathe, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was 'red.' … That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me. Somehow I got enough air. I muttered out: 'I'm a U.S. soldier. I'm a U.S. soldier.'

Sgt. Baker said his head was slammed once more, and after groaning "I'm a U.S. soldier" one more time, "I heard them say, 'Whoa, whoa, whoa,' you know, like … he was telling the other guy to stop."

According to CBS:

Bloodied and disoriented, Baker somehow made it back to his unit, and his first thought was to get hold of the videotape. "I said, 'Go get the tape,' " recalls Baker. " 'They've got a tape. Go get the tape.' My squad leader went to get the tape."

Every extraction drill at Guantanamo was routinely videotaped, and the tape of this drill would show what happened. But Baker says his squad leader came back and said, "There is no tape."

The New York Times later reported that the military "says it can't find a videotape that is believed to have been made of the incident." Baker was soon diagnosed with traumatic brain injury. He began suffering seizures, sometimes 10 to 12 per day.

"This was just one typical incident, and Baker was recognizable as an American," says Horton. "But it gives a good flavor of what the Gitmo detainees went through, which was generally worse."

IRF-ing Continues Under Obama

On Jan. 7, 2009, a prisoner named Yasin Ismael threw a shoe in frustration at the inside of a cage to which he had been confined. The guards accused Ismael of attacking them and called in an IRF team.

According to his attorneys, "The team shackled him, and he put up no resistance. They then beat him. They blocked his nose and mouth until he felt that he would suffocate and hit him repeatedly in the ribs and head. They then took him back to his cell. As he was being taken back, a guard urinated on his head. Mr. Ismael was badly injured, and his ear started to bleed, leaving a large stain on his pillow."

Less than two weeks later, on Jan. 22, newly inaugurated President Obama issued an executive order requiring the closure of Guantánamo within a year and also ordered a review of the status of the prisoners held there, requiring "humane standards of confinement" in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

But one month later, the Center for Constitutional Rights released a report titled "Conditions of Confinement at Guantánamo: Still In Violation of the Law," which found that abuses continued. In fact, one Guantanamo lawyer, Ahmed Ghappour, said that his clients were reporting "a ramping up in abuse" since Obama was elected, including "beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-force feeding detainees who are on hunger strike," according to Reuters.

"Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration," Ghappour said.

While the dominant media coverage of the U.S. torture apparatus has portrayed these tactics as part of a "Bush era" system that Obama has now ended, when it comes to the IRF teams, that is simply not true. "[D]etainees live in constant fear of physical violence. Frequent attacks by IRF teams heighten this anxiety and reinforce that violence can be inflicted by the guards at any moment for any perceived infraction, or sometimes without provocation or explanation," according to CCR.

In early February 2009, at least 16 men were on hunger strike at Guantanamo's Camp 6 and refused to leave their cells for "force feeding." IRF teams violently extracted them from their cells with the "men being dragged, beaten and stepped on, and their arms and fingers twisted painfully." Tubes were then forced down their noses, which one prisoner described as "torture, torture, torture."

In April, Mohammad al-Qurani, a 21-year-old Guantánamo prisoner from Chad managed to call Al-Jazeera and described a recent beating: "This treatment started about 20 days before Obama came into power, and since then I've been subjected to it almost every day," he said. "Since Obama took charge, he has not shown us that anything will change."

Al-Jazeera reported:

Describing a specific incident, which took place after change in the U.S. administration, al-Qurani said he had refused to leave his cell because they were "not granting me my rights," such as being able to walk around, interact with other inmates and have "normal food."

A group of six soldiers wearing protective gear and helmets entered his cell, accompanied by one soldier carrying a camera and one with tear gas, he said.

"They had a thick rubber or plastic baton they beat me with. They emptied out about two canisters of tear gas on me," he told Al-Jazeera.

"After I stopped talking, and tears were flowing from my eyes, I could hardly see or breathe.

"They then beat me again to the ground, one of them held my head and beat it against the ground. I started screaming to his senior 'see what he's doing, see what he's doing' [but] his senior started laughing and said 'he's doing his job.'"

In another incident after Obama's inauguration, prisoner Khan Tumani began smearing excrement on the walls of his cell to protest his treatment. According to his lawyer, when he "did not clean up the excrement, a large IRF team of 10 guards was ordered to his cell and beat him severely. The guards sprayed so much tear gas or other noxious substance after the beating that it made at least one of the guards vomit. Mr. Khan Tumani's skin was still red and burning from the gas days later."

The CCR has called on the Obama administration to immediately end the use of the IRF teams at Guantánamo. Horton, meanwhile, says "detainees should be entitled to compensation for injuries they suffered."

As the abuse continues at Guantánamo, and powerful congressional leaders from both parties and the White House fiercely resist the appointment of an independent special prosecutor, the sad fact is that the best chance for justice for the victims of U.S. torture may well be an ocean away in Madrid, Spain.

"The Obama administration should not need pressure from abroad to uphold our own laws and initiate a criminal investigation in the U.S.," says Vince Warren, CCR's executive director. "I hope the Spanish cases will impress on the president and Attorney General Eric Holder how seriously the rest of the world takes these crimes and show them the issue will not go away."

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His writing and reporting is available at Rebel Reports.

Sphere: Related Content

[wvns] Stories Jews Were Told:

Stories Jews Were Told:
Israel, Zionism, and Palestine
by Donna Nevel
mrzine.monthlyreview.org/nevel070209.html

What is the story American Jews have been told about Israel and Zionism, and how does it differ from the reality of what happened in Palestine? Like many American Jews, I was told by my teachers at Hebrew School and in the Jewish Day School I attended that the creation of Israel meant that Jews would never again have to live through another Holocaust. That slogan, "Never Again," popularized by the notorious Jewish Defense League, reverberated throughout the Jewish community. As part of the story, I learned that Arabs, like the Germans, hated Jews and wanted to destroy us. They were our enemies. The refrain, "they want to throw us into the sea," was etched into my consciousness. I was told that they -- the amorphous they -- didn't value human life and were not like us. The process of dehumanization wasn't subtle.

I learned about the Zionist dream, of deserts blooming, of our people, a third of whom had been murdered, able, at long last, to live freely and fully in our own homeland. I learned a variation of "a land without a people for a people without a land." And when I studied Zionism more seriously in college and afterwards, I learned a new variation of that refrain -- that, in fact, people were living there, but they were peasants, wanderers, who did not have a cultural or national identity. In other words, they weren't really a people so could easily integrate as a minority into the new Jewish state.

At home, I learned about Zionism and Israel without the hateful rhetoric. I grew up in a home imbued with Jewish culture and rooted in Jewish experience -- "Yiddishkeit" -- with parents who were civil and human rights activists and were extraordinarily ethical people. I learned Jewish history and to be proud of who I was without adhering to the concept of the "chosen people." Because my father served as an assistant to Jewish leader Rabbi Stephen Wise, who had trusted President Roosevelt to take action to save the Jews, I grew up hearing stories about the ways the U.S. government failed to rescue Jews and how Israel would be the safe haven that Jews desperately needed. I learned about struggles for self-determination and about Israel as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.

But, regardless of the tone or intention, this story that I and so many Jews accepted as a given was fundamentally flawed. That is, the story failed to include that, as Jews were migrating to Palestine to fulfill the Zionist dream, Palestinians were already living there, and, yes, they identified as a people with cultural and national identities and aspirations. And overwhelmingly and profoundly different from the Zionist dream, the Palestinians' expression of their cultural and national aspirations was being fulfilled in their homeland and didn't require displacing another people. But this reality did not become part of the Hebrew school curriculum or make it into the American Jewish psyche. This part of the story simply wasn't being acknowledged or told.

Today, when American Jews look at the Israeli massacre in Gaza and the occupation, and hear that, according to the Israeli government and American Jewish establishment, the Palestinians and Hamas want to destroy Israel, how can we forget that it was the Zionist movement that came and took over another people's homes and land? How can American Jews not understand the Palestinian yearning for their homeland, particularly a homeland that was taken from them by force?

Any discussion among American Jews of Israel and Palestine requires us to push ourselves as a community to reflect on our history and on the story many of us blindly digested; it requires us to understand that the current massacre grows out of a long history of dehumanization of a people and denial of their national rights in the land of Palestine. Understanding that reality -- that is, re-telling the story to include the impact of Zionism on the Palestinian people -- doesn't minimize or ignore the horror of the Holocaust or our commitment to insuring that it never happens again to Jews or to anyone else. Rather, the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust is best honored by our involvement, as Jews, in speaking the truth and participating in movements for justice that insure the right of the Palestinians and all peoples to live with dignity.

Donna Nevel, a community psychologist, is a long-time organizer for Israeli-Palestinian peace and justice. She was a co-coordinator of 1989's Road to Peace conference, which brought together representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israeli Knesset (Parliament) for the first time in the United States.

Sphere: Related Content

[Faster Times] Israel Tightens Noose on Palestinians

Israelis are already legally restricted from entering the OT. Israel also forces visitor entering the OT from Israel to renounce potential claims against the State of Israel for possible injury

or harm while in the OT. I can only assume that the next step will be closing off PA-controlled areas from visitors entering via the State of Israel.

“Palestinian Authority Only”: New Israeli Stamp Limits Travel For Tourists

pa-areas-only1 Palestinian Authority Only: New Israeli Stamp Limits Travel For Tourists

This is an image of a page from a French passport, whose owner recently went through the Allenby Bridge border crossing between Jordan and the Israeli occupied West Bank. It shows an Israeli-issued stamp that provides the passport owner with a three-month tourism visa. What makes this stamp unique however is that the Israeli border agents who issued it appear to have come up with a new criteria regarding the freedom of movement of its holder.

The presence of “Palestinian Authority only” on the stamp is what makes it unique.

Previous Israeli-issued tourism visas do not restrict the freedom of movement of tourists who are allowed passage into the country, and who originate from countries which Israel has diplomatic relations and reciprocal arrangements regarding travel. That meaning, as long as someone was allowed into the country, they were able to travel freely whether they chose to visit the Israeli city of Tel Aviv, or the Palestinian city of Nablus in the occupied West Bank.

“Palestinian Authority only” greatly restricts this freedom of movement, and thus undoes the former arrangement. It essentially precludes travel to areas of pre-1967 Israel, as well as to Israeli controlled areas in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

Israel exercises full control over 59 percent of the West Bank - areas known as “Area C.”

[To read the entire article, click here.]
Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, August 06, 2009

[wvns] Seven burnt alive in Gojra violence

Seven burnt alive in Gojra violence
By Tariq Saeed, Pakistan
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/seven-burnt-alive-in-gojra-violence-289


TOBA TEK SINGH, Aug 1: Seven people were burnt alive and 18 others injured in Gojra on Saturday after fresh violence erupted in the town over the alleged desecration of the Holy Quran three days ago.

More than 50 houses were set on fire and a place of worship belonging to a minority community was damaged by an angry mob. According to sources, most of the houses were burnt by a group of youths who had their faces covered with veils. They threw petrol bombs and fired indiscriminately.

The minority community announced that it would not retrieve bodies and bury them until Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif visited the area and gave assurance of protection to life and property.A complete strike was observed in Gojra town on the call of the Anjuman Tajiran in protest against the alleged desecration of the Holy Quran.

Contingents of Rangers were dispatched to the troubled area on the orders of the federal government.

Religious parties held a public meeting in Malkanwala Chowk, after which hundreds of angry people took out a procession, which marched to a residential area populated mainly by non-Muslims.

Some members of the minority community retaliated with gunshot fires. Ten people were injured.

Police failed to stop the enraged demonstrators from entering the colony in the afternoon and set ablaze over 50 houses. Most of the residents fled, but seven of them were trapped in their houses and burnt to death.

They were identified as Hameed Maseeh, 50, Asia Bibi, 20, Asifa Bibi, 19, Imamia Bibi, 22, Musa, 7, Akhlas Maseeh, 40, and Parveen, 50.

The protesters later burnt old tyres on the railway track and blocked traffic for several hours. They also blocked the Gojra-Samundri bypass.

Police used teargas and fired into the air to disperse the protesters. The mob pelted a police party with stones. Gojra TMO Rana Ahmad Nawaz, Kamalia DSP Akbar Niazi, Sub-Inspector Mukhtar Ahmad and ASI Tariq Mahmood were injured. Constable Usman Khan sustained a bullet wound.

Shabbir Ahmad, a leader of the Labour Qaumi Movement, told reporters that he and his friends rescued a number of people trapped in their houses.

The IG suspended Gojra DSP Raja Ghulam Abbas over police failure to control the violence.

Minorities Alliance leaders Atif Jamil Pagaan and Ashfaq Fateh held police responsible for the riots and demanded registration of a case against negligent officials.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY: The LHC chief justice, on the request of the Punjab chief minister, appointed District and Sessions Judge Mahmood Maqbool Bajwa to conduct a judicial probe into the clashes.
Sphere: Related Content