Armed settler threatens farmers
Ma’an – 19/08/2010
NABLUS — An armed settler accompanied by settlement security guards prevented Palestinian farmers and peace activists from irrigating their land near Nablus on Thursday morning, witnesses said.
A resident of the illegal Itamar settlement, carrying a rifle and traveling in an armored vehicle with guards, approached farmers en route to water their recently planted olive trees. Witnesses said the settler threatened to shoot the farmers, from Awarta village, if they did not leave the area.
Israeli forces arrived and reiterated the settler’s orders, giving the farmers five minutes to evacuate the area, locals added.
An Israeli military spokeswoman said an armed security guard working at Itamar noticed a group of around 30 gathered near the settlement and notified the Israeli army, before approaching the group himself. Soldiers arrived and inspected the group’s documents, and permitted some farmers to work their land, she added. The spokeswoman was not aware of the presence of an armed settler.
Awarta Hassan Awad, head of Awarta village council, said that villagers will continue to work on their land every Thursday to protest the expansion of illegal settlements on their land.
Dark days in Al Buwayra: a week of settler attacks
August 19, 2010 | International Solidarity Movement
Al Buwayra is a small village located on the outskirts of Hebron, with about 560 inhabitants. Most people are farmers, growing grapes and vegetables to support themselves. The situation in the village is critical, and villagers are repeatedly being attacked by settlers from the illegal Kyriat Arba and Harzina settlements which surround the village as well as several illegal outposts.
The road into the village is blocked by a gate and an earth mound set up by the Israeli army, forcing the villagers to either climb or drive a long way in order to reach their homes. Since the Israeli army began demolishing two of the five illegal outposts around Buwayra, settlers have carried out several attacks both on the villagers, their farmland and their animals. Daily life is a struggle with good reason to be constantly afraid. The International Solidarity Movement (ISM), in close cooperation with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), has been going to Buwayra almost every day over the last 3 weeks, when the army removed the first illegal outpost and the settlers started to attack the Palestinians in response.
Thursday 5 August
Death threats towards two internationals, attack on Susan Sultan.
Early Thursday morning, around 6.30, soldiers from the Israeli army came to remove an illegal outpost near a settlement. ISM and CPT sent people there straight away to make sure the soldiers and settlers didn’t harass Palestinians. The settlers were really angry and the villagers feared that the settlers would retaliate against the Palestinians. The settlers set fire to a small piece of Palestinian farmland but luckily the Palestinians themselves were able to put out the fire. There were internationals present almost the whole day. Two internationals, one from Denmark and the other from England, received two death threats from settlers because of their presence in the area. The outpost was removed and the soldiers tried to block the way to the outpost but after the soldiers left the settlers started clearing the road and rebuilding the outpost.
Friday 6 August
Two internationals attacked. Three Palestinians arrested at night, while trying to defend a family from settler attack.
ISM sent two people to replace the people from CPT that had spent the night in Al Buwayra. The situation up until 12.00 was quiet
At 12.00 the two internationals were sitting in the shade under a tree when three masked soldiers appeared out of nowhere and attacked. They carried wooden and metal clubs. The internationals were severely beaten. After the attack, which lasted only 2 minutes, the settlers ran towards the outpost. Family members from the Sultani house helped the internationals to stop the bleeding and protected them from further attacks. They were taken to Al Khalil hospital and one needed surgery on a broken nose and is still recovering from his injuries.
That night 100 settlers threw stones at the Sultans house because the Sultans helped the two internationals that had been attacked. When soldiers arrive most of the settlers leave the crime scene but one settler stays back to tell the soldiers that it’s the Palestinians that have been attacking the settlers and not the other way around. Three Palestinians were arrested at night while they were trying to defend and protect the Sultan house from the settler attack. It is known that two of them have been released.
Saturday 7 August
Closed Military Zone. Settlers set fire to grape vines.
Early on Saturday morning six people from ISM went to Al Buwayra. At first things seemed calm but after a while, when sitting close to the outpost, activists were approached by soldiers who said the area was a closed military zone and that the internationals had to leave. They moved a little away.
At night the settlers set fire to a field of Palestinian grapevines and a fire truck was called. However, the Palestinians ended up putting out the fire themselves.
Sunday 8 August
In the morning internationals tried to go into Al Buwayra but were refused access by the soldiers saying once again that the village was a closed military zone and that the internationals could not go and visit families and take pictures of the damage caused by the settler attacks.
Later three internationals, one from CPT and two from ISM, go by car and enter the village. The border police spotted the internationals quickly but after a talk with the commander the internationals and the Palestinian driving the car were allowed to go and visit one family for half an hour. The family spoke about what it is like to live in constant danger and fear of the settlers. From the family house settlers could be seen walking in the hills close to the outpost.
Monday 9 August
On Monday internationals made it in to Al Buwayra. By taking the back way the internationals avoided being seen by the border police and were able to go and speak to different families. The internationals saw settlers walking around the outpost but overall things seemed to be calm. But the villagers live in constant fear. They have trouble sleeping because they never know when to expect a settler attack. They are really worried about the future and when things are quiet for a few days they know that this is only a brief respite before a new settler attack.
LATE VICTORIAN HOLOCAUSTS BY MIKE DAVIS
BOOK REVIEW
Critics of globalization point out with some justice that poor people around the world suffer far more than the citizens of industrialized nations during downturns in the global economy. Peasants in developing countries can find their lives hanging in the balance during a rise in food prices or a decline in the global market value of the goods they produce. Never was this more true than during the hey-day of the European imperialism in the last three decades of the nineteenth century. Aggressive trade practices and the ruthless use of military force effectively subdued nations in Asia, Africa, and South America and brought these countries into a global trade system. By the 1870s, and certainly by the turn of the century, many European countries, above all Great Britain, had created the world’s first global market economy. Financial markets in London, Paris, Amsterdam, and elsewhere were linked by telegraph to places where raw materials were produced for European consumption, while established trade routes were patrolled by European navies (particularly the Royal Navy). The economic power of the extensive British Empire was unparalleled and the inner workings of the global system dominated by London determined the fate of innumerable people around the world.
It is with the workings of the British economic system and their impact on indigenous populations in India, China, and elsewhere that Mike Davis’ book Late Victorian Holocausts is concerned. Davis’ point of departure is a simple question. Why is it that widespread hunger in Western Europe disappeared in the nineteenth century while famine and disease raged throughout multiple places in what today we would call the “Third World”? Davis provides a simple answer: European imperialism (especially British imperialism) created a global economic system through which the food and wealth of conquered nations (i.e. colonies) was siphoned off for the benefit of wealthy and powerful Europeans, while those in the colonies were left to starve and die. The result was mass death (what Davis calls “holocausts”) on an unprecedented scale in India, China, Brazil and other places, that was most intense during the El Niño drought years of 1876-77 and 1888-1902.
This imperial global economic system was certainly not a “free” market in any sense of the word. It was in fact bolstered by a long series of tariffs and unfavorable trade relationships that were forced by Europeans upon the peoples they conquered. Colonies were in turn subjected to economic pressure dictated by and manipulated from financial centers in Western Europe. It was these economic forces, as well as brutal gunboat diplomacy, that Davis argues created the Third World as we know it today.
THE “FREE MARKET” AS A MECHANISM OF MASS MURDER
Davis’ primary focus in fleshing out his story is the crown jewel of Britain’s colonial empire: India. Drought was the precipitating cause of the hardship faced by the Indian people. However, Davis demonstrates with statistics and anecdotes that it was the unregulated “free market” system imposed on India by Britain that led to the deaths of tens of millions in the mid-1870s and late 1880s.
How did death and human suffering on such a massive scale happen? Following the English conquest of India in the early nineteenth century, economic relationships in the sub-continent underwent revolutionary changes. Thousands of miles of railroad track were laid. Telegraph wire was strung between outlying areas and the capitol city of Bombay (Mumbai today). Central grain collection depots were created and Indian grain was exported in massive quantities to the British Isles. Also, Indian subsistence farmers were gradually forced out in favor of large land enclosures. Within these new enclosures cash crops like cotton were planted, which supplied the textile mills of Lancashire, but which could not feed the Indian peasants who farmed the land. Finally, the tax burden upon the Indian peasantry was increased exorbitantly to pay for these “improvements”. British authorities needed the revenue to finance war in neighboring Afghanistan.
The innovations imposed by the British on India re-directed the trajectory of Indian commerce and especially food production toward Great Britain and away from the local village markets where the food was needed. Rail lines and the adjacent grain depots enabled British authorities to stockpile grain and keep it under guard away from the people who needed it most, while telegraph lines dictated the price of grain on world commodities markets to local producers. When grain prices rose across the board in global trading, peasants could not afford to buy food.
In the face of these crippling economic forces, British colonial authorities did nothing, primarily because they would not “tamper” with the operation of the liberal “free” market that Britain had created. The Viceroy of India during the famine years of the 1870s was Lord Lytton, a mentally unbalanced English noble. Davis recounts that in the midst of widespread famine and the deaths of millions all around him, Lytton maintained a strict laissez-faire attitude toward famine relief. As Lytton wrote at the time, “there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of the Government with the object of reducing the price of food,” a policy proposal Lytton termed “humanitarian hysterics” and “cheap sentiment”. (p. 31)
Lytton and his fellow administrators preferred instead to blame the “laziness” of famine victims themselves for causing their own dire fate. Citing Lord Temple, “Nor will; many be inclined to grieve much for the fate which they brought upon themselves, and which terminated lives of idleness and too often of crime”. (p. 41) The task of saving life, therefore, was “beyond our power to undertake,” claimed Temple and Lytton, and it was “a mistake to spend so much money to save a lot of black fellows”. (p. 37)
British officials were thus completely unwilling to intervene in the operation of the “free” market despite seeing death on a massive scale all around them. Overall at least 7.1 million people, and perhaps as many as 10.3 million people, died during the famine years of 1876-1878. (p. 111) Furthermore, despite death on this scale and falling production caused by drought, British officials in India still managed to export 6.4 million cwt. of wheat to Great Britain. (p. 31)
LIFE AND DEATH FOLLOWS THE MARKET CYCLE
The years following 1879 were a time when the world market continued to expand. Monsoonal rains settled back into a normal pattern and grain production around the world rose considerably. These were also years when Britain and other colonial powers expanded their reach into the interior of the subjugated countries they held. In India, even more land is brought under cultivation. These lands are then connected to the market by expanded telegraph and rail lines. Then in 1888-89 and 1891-92, the bottom again fell out of the system as El Niño drought gripped the temperate regions of Asia once more.
The resulting death from famine and disease, caused by the very same factors operating in India and elsewhere in the 1870s, was unfathomably huge. By 1902 in India alone between 12.2 and 29.3 million people perished. In China, where the British, Americans, and other European powers controlled practically all trade using military force, between 19.5 and 30 million people died. In Brazil another 2 million perished over the same time span. (p. 7).
THE “FREE” MARKET AND THE MAKING OF THE THIRD WORLD
Mike Davis demonstrates beyond a doubt that the economic structure of exploitative globalization is not a new phenomenon in the world. The lives of millions of people who formerly had survived in localized economies based on subsistence farming were wiped out “in the process of being forcibly incorporated” into the modern world system. (p. 9) Davis reminds us that markets are never free and they never operate according to “iron laws” of economics. Rather, markets are created and often the power underpinning their operation is fiscal manipulation and simple brute force.
Great Britain’s global imperial economy was a case in point. It was never a “free” market. England imposed unfavorable trade terms and high tariff walls on India, China and on all of the other countries in its empire. Local economies forced open by the British were sucked dry of their vital raw materials and in return peasants were forced to buy expensive British manufactured goods. This practice was put into place throughout the colonial world by France, Portugal, Spain, Germany and other colonial powers. If anything, the economies of European colonies were more captive markets than free markets.
The latter point is perhaps the most important conclusion of Late Victorian Holocausts; specifically, that what we call the Third World today was a product of European and, to a lesser extent, American economic exploitation. The incorporation of formerly powerful countries like China and India into the global economy by Great Britain and others effectively destroyed indigenous production. Contrary to conventional wisdom, until around 1850, India and China had actually held their own against Europeans when it came to industrial production. The localized production of wealth and industry, however, was halted and then reversed by the imposition of the global economic system. It is for this reason, Davis concludes, that India’s per capita income did not increase between 1757 and 1947; and in fact declined by more than 50% between 1850 and 1900. (p. 311).
Israel & The Anti-Muslim Blow-Up
August 18, 2010 — MJ Rosenberg
I don’t know why I am at all surprised that the American Right — including the Republican Party — has decided that scapegoating Muslims is the ticket to success. After all, it’s nothing new.
I remember right after 9/11 when the columnist Charles Krauthammer, now one of the most vocal anti-Muslim demagogues, almost literally flipped out in my Chevy Chase, Maryland synagogue when the rabbi said something about the importance of not associating the terrorist attacks with Muslims in general.
It was on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, but that did not stop Krauthammer from bellowing out his disagreement with the rabbi. Krauthammer’s point: Israel and America are at war with Muslims and that war must be won.
It was shocking, not only because Krauthammer’s outburst was so utterly out of place but also because the man was actually chastising the rabbi for not spouting hate against all Muslims — on the Day of Atonement.
The following year, the visiting rabbi from Israel gave a sermon about the intifada that was then raging in Israel and the West Bank.
The sermon was a nutty affair that tearfully made the transition from intifada to Holocaust and back again. I remember thinking, “this guy is actually blaming the Palestinians for the suffering of his parents during the Holocaust.” I thought I had missed something because it was so ridiculous.
Then came the sermon’s ending which was unforgettable. The rabbi concluded with the words from Ecclesiastes. “To everything there is a season. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap…A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance….”
He then looked up and said: “Now is the time to hate.”
At first, I thought I had not heard him correctly. He could not be calling on the congregation to hate. There were dozens of children in the room. It wasn’t possible.
But it was. To their credit, many of the congregants I spoke with as we left the sanctuary were appalled. Even the right-wingers were uncomfortable with endorsing hate as a virtue. Yet, the rabbi was unrepentant. I emailed him to complain and he told me that he said what he believed. Nice.
One could ask what the Middle East has to do with the vicious outbreak of Islamophobia (actually Islamo-hatred) that has seemingly seized segments of this country.
The answer is everything. Although the hate is directed at Arab-Americans (which makes it worse) it is justified by invoking [the mass media/official narrative of] 9/11, an attack [supposedly carried out] by Muslims from the Middle East.
This hate is buttressed by the hatred of Muslims and Arabs that has been routinely uttered (or shouted from the rooftops) in the name of defending Israel for decades Just watch what goes on in Congress, where liberals from New York, Florida, California and elsewhere never miss an opportunity to explain that no matter what Israel does, it is right, and no matter what Muslims do, they are wrong.
Can anyone possibly argue that such insidious rhetoric has no impact on public opinion? At the very least, it gives anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim bias a legitimacy that other forms of hate no longer have. Bigots who hate African-Americans or Jews, for instance, feel that they must claim that they don’t. That is not the case with Muslims who can be despised with impunity.
And here the liberals are worse than the conservatives because liberals exempt Muslims and Arabs (and now Turks) from the humanitarian instincts that inform their views of all other groups. Conservatives combine their Arab-bashing with a general xenophobia…
Liberals, on the other hand, single out Muslims for contempt. They do it actively — i.e., by defending every single Israeli action against Arabs with vehement enthusiasm. And they do it passively, by refusing to evince an iota of sympathy for Muslims who suffer and die at the hands of Israelis — like the 432 Palestinian children killed in the 2008 Gaza war.
Liberals join conservatives in rushing to the floor of the House and Senate to defend the Israelis against any accusation (remember how they robotically attacked the Goldstone report on Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, not caring at about the horrors Goldstone described). And then they read their AIPAC talking points, enumerating all the terrible things Arabs have done while Israel has, Gandhi-like, consistently offered the hand of friendship. It would be laughable if the effect of all this was not so ugly.
Why wouldn’t all this hatred affect the perception of Arab-Americans too? Hate invariably overflows its containers, just like hatred of Israel sometimes crosses over into pure old-fashioned anti-Semitism.
Bottom line: it’s a witches’ brew that is being stirred up, and it is one that will no doubt produce violence. But the witches are not all on the right. Just as many liberals are stirring the pot to please some of their donors.
I’m not saying you should not blame Beck and Limbaugh for all this hate. But don’t forget to blame your favorite liberal and progressive politicians. With a few (very few) exceptions, they are just as bad.
India employing Israeli oppression tactics in Kashmir
Jimmy Johnson, The Electronic Intifada, 19 August 2010
The 2010 summer in the disputed area of Jammu and Kashmir, administered by India, has been marked by popular protests by Kashmiris and crackdowns by India’s military. The stream of violence has left more than fifty dead, mostly young protestors. The situation in Kashmir has some parallels with Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, even borrowing the term intifada to describe the uprising. But the connection is more than analogy — Israel’s pacification efforts against Palestinians have proven valuable for the Indian police, army and intelligence services in their campaigns to pacify Jammu and Kashmir with numerous Indian military and security imports from Israel leading the way.
India and Israel had a limited relationship prior to 1992. India, as a prominent member of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), had helped to form the NAM political positions on Palestine as part of the “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, apartheid, racism, including Zionism and all forms of expansionism, foreign occupation and domination and hegemony” (1979, Havana Declaration). Beyond its anti-colonial and Third World solidarity politics, India also had realpolitik reasons for keeping a distance from Israel. The nation had a developing economy with a huge need for petroleum resources, of which it had no domestic source. Good relations with the Arab League and the Soviet Union helped to secure access to resources necessary for India to become the regional and global economic power it aspires to be.
With the beginning of the Oslo negotiations process between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the mid-1990s and the end of the Cold War, India was free to pursue relations with Israel from a NAM standpoint. An end to the Israeli occupation was assumed a formality under Oslo by most international observers, especially early on — and had, by that time, gained the economic strength to pursue a policy taking it, as described in a US Army War College (USAWC) analysis, “from a position of nonalignment and noncommitment to having specific strategic interests taking it on a path of ‘poly-alignment.'” The report states that India has been in a “scramble to establish ‘strategic relationships’ with most of the major powers and many of the middle powers,” including Israel.
Israel rendered limited military assistance to India in its 1962 war with China and the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan. It was not until after the Oslo process began though, that the limited military contacts developed into a fuller strategic relationship. According to The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, in 1994 “India requested equipment to guard the de facto Indo-Pakistan Kashmiri border. New Delhi was interested in Israeli fences, which use electronic sensors to track human movements” (Thomas Withington, “Israel and India partner up,” January/February 2001, pp.18-19). The remaining years of the decade were peppered with arms sales from Jerusalem to New Delhi, most notably unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and electronic warfare systems.
The strategic military relationship picked up even more steam in the new millennium and annual arms sales average in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The shift of Israel being a major defense supplier to a strategic partner was formalized in a September 2003 state visit by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to India where the Hindu nationalist government then in power, the Bharatiya Janata Party led by then-Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, hosted the Israeli delegation and coauthored the Delhi Statement on Friendship and Cooperation between India and Israel. The statement’s longest segment is on terrorism. It declares that “Israel and India are partners in the battle against this scourge” and that “there cannot be any compromise in the war against terrorism.” The relationship has expanded drastically since 2000 with, in some recent years, Israel even supplanting Russia as India’s largest arms supplier. Surface-to-air missile systems, naval craft, advanced radar systems and other remote sensing technologies, artillery systems and numerous joint production initiatives ranging from munitions to avionics systems have all further boosted the relationship.
But as the Kashmiri uprising enters its third decade, the most telling part of the relationship is the export of Israeli pacification efforts against Palestinians to India, and their use in Jammu and Kashmir (and elsewhere as India faces multiple popular revolts). Israel has trained thousands of Indian military personnel in counterinsurgency since 2003. According to a 2003 JINSA analysis, “Presumably to equip these soldiers, India recently concluded a $30 million agreement with Israel Military Industries (IMI) for 3,400 Tavor assault rifles, 200 Galil sniper rifles, as well as night vision and laser range finding and targeting equipment.”
In 2004, the Israeli intelligence agencies Mossad and General Security Services (Shin Bet) arrived in India “to conduct the first field security surveillance course for Indian Army Intelligence Corps sleuths.” The Globes article on the topic cites an Indian source stating “The course has been designed to look at methods of intelligence gathering in insurgency affected areas, in keeping with the challenges that Israel has faced.” The further acquisition of UAVs, their joint production and the acquisition of other surveillance systems, notably 2010 agreements for both spy satellites and satellite communications systems, have all helped to further India’s pacification campaigns in Jammu and Kashmir. A notable example of how deeply embedded in India the Israeli counterinsurgency and homeland security industries are is the May 2010 agreement whereby Ra’anana-based Nice Systems will provide security systems and a command and control center for India’s parliament. Parliament security head Sandeep Salunke noted the context for the $5 million contract being “In light of the recent increase in global terrorism” (Nice Systems press release, 25 May 2010).
India’s political trend towards poly-alignment whereby it can have both strategic energy agreements with Iran and strategic defense agreements with Israel is part of a broader strategy the USAWC report noted by which “India will fiercely protect its own internal and bilateral issues from becoming part of the international dialog (Kashmir being the most obvious example).” This hostility towards international engagement with its occupation is not the only resemblance to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Both were born out the the end of the British colonialism, both are seen as front lines of the “War on Terror,” both the Kashmiri and Palestinian armed groups are erroneously seen as illegitimate in their own right, being mere tools of a foreign aggressor (Pakistan for Kashmir and Iran or Syria for Palestine), both have widespread abuses of human rights, and the Israeli public’s general apathy about or hostility towards Palestinian self-determination is surpassed by the domestic discussion in India, where Kashmiri self-determination isn’t even an issue, though pacifying Kashmir and securing the border with Pakistan is.
The analogy between the two conflicts can only be taken so far, but the direct connection by which Israel’s pacification industry exports tools of control developed for use against the Palestinians (and Lebanese) to be deployed against Kashmiris (as well as against the Naxalites and others in India) shows a deep linkage between the two conflicts and how one feeds the other. So long as Israel seeks to maintain control over Palestine it will continue to develop pacification tools, and so long as India continues its campaigns in Jammu and Kashmir, Kashmiris can expect to taste the fruits of Palestinian pacification.
Jimmy Johnson is a Detroit-based mechanic and an organizer with the Palestine Cultural Office in Dearborn. He can be reached at johnson [dot] jimmy [at] gmail [dot] com.
American Professor Charges Israel with Genocide — Publisher Censors Title!
By Kevin Barrett | August 18, 2010
William A. Cook, professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California, has charged the state of Israel with genocide — but his publisher won’t let him use the G word in the title of his new book!
Discussing the brand-new The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Dr. Cook said that the publishers, Palgrave-McMillan, told him: “‘We can’t use the original title As the World Watches: Genocide in Palestine.'” Dr. Cook added that the book’s contents, which provide ample proof that Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians, were not censored.
I asked Dr. Cook: “There does seem to be a taboo against calling what is being done to the Palestinians genocide. And yet, according to the internationally-accepted definition of genocide… as I recall, there is a strong argument that it does fit what’s happening in Palestine.”
Dr Cook responded:
“The book deals with that point quite extensively in at least three different places (including my article). The Christisons‘ article deals with it as well. In the article that I wrote, ‘The Rape of Palestine’… I refer to the 1944 genocide term, which was a neologism created by Raphael Lemkin in The Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. Frank Chalk and Kurt Jonassohn summarized Lemkin’s meaning. And let me read that paragraph because I think it’s essential to grasp the fulness of the intent the UN grappled with and passed in its accepted definition of genocide.
Under Lemkin’s definition genocide was ‘the coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a variety of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group as a group.’ That’s group, it is not state. Lemkin conceived of genocide as ‘a composite of different acts of persecution or destruction.’ That’s a quote. His definition included ‘attacks on political and social institutions, culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of the group.’
Even non-lethal acts that undermined the liberty, dignity, and personal security of members of the group constituted genocide, if they contributed to weakening the viability of the group. Under Lemkin’s definition, acts of ethnocide, a term coined by the French after the war to cover the destruction of a culture without the killing of its bearers, also qualified as genocide.
You take that composite understanding, and everything looking back from today — the siege on Gaza, going back to the various intentional destructions and massacres in Janin or Rafa, Ramallah, you realize that what’s taking place, including the building of the wall, which makes the independent economic condition of the Palestinian people impossible — that is genocide.”
Listen to my interview with Dr. William Cook.
The quoted segment begins about 14:40.
Disney tells Muslim woman to work out back where she won’t be seen
By Josh Cain | OC Weekly | August 18 2010
As we reported earlier, a Muslim woman who works as a hostess in the Grand Californian Hotel at the Disneyland Resort was not allowed to come to work today because she was wearing her hijab, a traditional Islamic headscarf.
This was the fourth time that the woman, 26-year-old Anaheim resident Imane Boudlal, attempted to work in the headscarf. Each time, she’s been told to remove the scarf or leave.
This time, however, she showed up with some back up.

Boudlal as she attempted to go to work for the fourth time.
Boudlal was accompanied by representatives of Unite Here Local 11, a union representing hotel workers involved in a contract dispute with Disney, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the rights group whose state office is in Anaheim.
She and her support team insisted that Disney did not allow her to work because of discriminatory policies against Muslims.
However, theme park officials insisted in a press release that Disney offered Boudlal “reasonable accommodations” on her request to wear the headscarf.
Boudlal said those accommodations would have forced her to work in the back of the hotel, where she wouldn’t be seen, rather than greeting guests in her job as a hostess.
“Why should I have to hide?” Boudlal asked at a press conference conveniently Unite Here and CAIR organized at the intersection of Disney Way and the driveway leading to the Grand Californian.
“I’m not here to scare anyone,” she continued. She explained that she had requested that she be allowed to wear the headscarf in a written letter to her Disney employers. When she didn’t hear back for two months, she went to work anyway in early August.
Boudlal said when she went to work wearing the hijab, her manager told her early that day she could wear the headscarf, but she was later escorted from the hotel by security.
She said she understood that the headscarf didn’t comply with the “Disney look,” but she felt she was being discriminated against because other workers were allowed to wear symbols of Christian faith, tattoos and other symbols that didn’t comply with the rules.
Basically, things don’t look very good for Disney from a public relations standpoint. It doesn’t help that Boudlal’s supporters, Unite Here, have made it known they don’t like the way Goofy and Co. do business.
Neither does CAIR, apparently. Ameena Qazi, deputy executive director and staff attorney for the group, seemed downright hostile to Disney when she stood up to speak at the press conference.
“Disney is positioning itself as a company that discriminates,” Qazi said. “I suggest [Disney] take a ride on ‘It’s A Small World,’ a ride that celebrates diversity.”