Boycott vote in Sydney suburb sparks media furor, death threats
Sarah Irving, The Electronic Intifada, 24 January 2011

Anne Paq/ActiveStills
On 15 December 2010, the councilors of Marrickville, a suburb of Sydney, Australia voted by a 10-2 majority to support the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). A month later, they have belatedly become the subjects of vilification in the press owned by international media proprietor Rupert Murdoch and death threats from Australia’s lunatic fringe.
“What does the desert theocracy of Saudi Arabia have in common with Marrickville Council in Sydney’s Inner West?” howls an article in Murdoch’s Telegraph, under a headline comparing the local authority to North Korea. The piece — which manages to be factually inaccurate on subjects as diverse as kosher food laws and Palestine Liberation Organization factions — goes on to hail Israel as “one of the most innovative and entrepreneurial countries in the world. Its products and inventions find their way into computers, mobile phones and medicines.” The online version of the article seeks to demonstrate Israel’s virtues by illustrating it with both a photo gallery of Israeli swimsuit model Bar Refaeli and a video of her writhing in the sand on a photo shoot.
“This is what passes for ‘journalism’ and commentary over Israel/Palestine in Australia,” laments Antony Loewenstein, the Sydney-based author of Australian best-seller My Israel Question and co-founder of Independent Australian Jewish Voices. His blog also points out the inconsistencies and omissions in recent coverage of the incident by The Australian, supposedly a more serious paper than the Telegraph. The Australian quotes Anthony Albanese, a member of the Australian federal parliament whose constituency covers Marrickville council’s turf. Albanese claims that “Foreign policy is a fair way outside the parameters of the role of Marrickville Council” and suggests that the local authority stick to “local” issues.
But Councilor Cathy Peters, who supported the boycott motion at Marrickville, rejects the suggestion that boycotting Israeli products is outside her remit as a council representative. “It’s not a matter of foreign policy at all, but rather the right of a council to make decisions regarding our purchasing policy and the relationships and engagements we have with outside organizations,” she said in an interview with The Electronic Intifada. “It’s completely within our purview to make those decisions. We’ve done it before. We have an ongoing boycott of companies involved in Burma. The council has a long, proud tradition of making ethical decisions.”
Peters also stressed that many Marrickville residents had expressed their concerns about Israeli actions towards the Palestinians to local councilors. Marrickville mayor Fiona Byrne, writing on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website, also described how “Marrickville Councilors interact with the people we represent on a day to day level. We have spoken with many local residents, with community and multi-faith groups who have told us of their feelings towards the unresolved issue of Palestine and Israel and their desire to be able to take direct action.” The boycott motion has also, she said, been supported by members of Jews Against the Occupation, and she cited the many Australian church and trade union organizations which have supported whole or partial boycotts of Israeli products and organizations.
Anthony Albanese has in the past been supportive of Palestine solidarity campaigns and critical of Israel’s human rights record, so his stance has surprised some local people. Jennifer Killen, a Marrickville resident who strongly supports the council’s twinning with Bethlehem and its boycott initiative, commented to The Electronic Intifada: “I’m very disappointed in my local member of parliament for not being more supportive of our hard-working local councilors at this time.” Killen also pointed out that the contact details of the councilors who voted for the boycott motion are on the website of the Sydney-based Coalition for Justice & Peace in Palestine, and called on international activists to support Marrickville where its MPs had failed to do so.
Councilor Cathy Peters, a Green Party member, emphasized that the boycott motion at Marrickville had cross-party support and that the former mayor of Marrickville, who visited its sister city of Bethlehem in 2010, was a member of the Australian Labor Party. But Antony Loewenstein and other Sydney commentators have suggested that the realpolitik of upcoming elections could be behind Albanese’s condemnation of the boycott vote. The Australian’s article mentions the risks to Albanese’s seat from the Green Party.
But it failed to highlight the fact that Carmel Tebbutt, the New South Wales state legislature member for Marrickville who is quoted in the same article, is also Albanese’s wife — and that her seat is under threat from Marrickville Green Mayor Fiona Byrne in upcoming state-level elections. The New South Wales Green Party adopted a strong boycott, divestment and sanctions position in December 2010 and Albanese’s attacks on the boycott motion could, Sydney commentators suggest, be an attempt to put some political space between himself and his spouse, and their Green challengers.
Outside the mainstream media, Australia’s nastier extremists have also waded in on the Marrickville debate. An article on the Australian Islamist Monitor website entitled “Australian Council Disgraces Itself” berates the local authority, saying that “you have got it all wrong — you have sided with the aggressors, the bullies, the friends of Hitler and those whom Hitler considered his friends in their antisemitism [sic].” The writer goes on to claim that “Israel is a tiny land surrounded by aggressive Muslim nations and as David Horowitz has pointed out repeatedly, the aim of those nations is to deny Israel the right to exist.” David Horowitz, cited by the Australian Islamist Monitor author, is an American commentator and founder of the Freedom Center who claims that “free societies” are “under attack by leftist and Islamist enemies at home and abroad.” As well as attacking Arab and left-wing campaigners, he has also been accused of racism against African Americans.
And one comment following the article reads: “This is insane I hate these people. I would like to have a 22 and pick them off one by one for target practice. Better still a suicide bomber in their midst. In fact I might make a giant blow up of the photo and sell it to a shooting range.” A “smiley” emoticon follows the comment. Immediately after it, the same commenter, “Skipping Girl,” adds: “God Bless Israel.”
Despite its claims to be “anti-racist in all its forms” and to support freedom of speech when this does not lead to violence, the Australian Islamist Monitor site is rife with hysterical and sometimes violent comments about Muslim people. A number of its contributors have links to more extreme hate sites and have made openly racist comments in other forums. The website’s membership is strictly controlled, with potential members approved by a human moderator as well as by electronic tests. However, in more than three weeks it has made no move to remove Skipping Girl’s bloodthirsty comments.
Cathy Peters says that she has been made aware that some threatening comments have been made regarding Marrickville councilors, but that the matter has been turned over to the council’s general manager for consideration. For her, the larger concern is how the issue of Palestine is debated in Australia.
“I think it’s unfortunate that these kind of emotional comments have been triggered by an overall reluctance by the Board of Deputies and other groups to tolerate debate and criticism of Israeli policies regarding Palestine and the occupied territories,” she says, rejecting charges that Marrickville’s councilors have been influenced by “political correctness” or ideology. Her fellow members, she points out, include some “very experienced” local councilors with diverse backgrounds and political opinions.
“The problem at the moment is one of groups trying to close down dialogue on the subject,” Peters insists. “What is really needed at the moment is a mature, calm debate on Israel’s policies on Palestine and how Australians should respond to them.”
Sarah Irving is a freelance writer. She worked with the International Solidarity Movement in the occupied West Bank in 2001-02 and with Olive Co-op, promoting fair trade Palestinian products and solidarity visits, in 2004-06. She now writes full-time on a range of issues, including Palestine. Her first book, Gaza: Beneath the Bombs, co-authored with Sharyn Lock, was published in January 2010. She is currently working on a new edition of the Bradt Guide to Palestine and a biography of Leila Khaled.
Settlers Attack Internationals Escorting Palestinians in South Hebron Hills
By Ramona M. – IMEMC & Agencies – January 24, 2011
On Sunday, settlers assaulted internationals while they were escorting Palestinians to their pasture to graze their herds in Um al Hir , in South Hebron Hills.
Settlers threw stones and succeeded in hitting the international activists. Only the international escorts were targeted, who were specifically requested to be there due to recent tensions in the area.
One international had a stills camera stolen from him, however managed to hold on to his video camera and was able to film the event. When this international activist went to the police to file a report, the police told him that if he erased all his footage on the video camera, he would return the other camera to him.
After the incident, the army arrived and protected the Palestinian residents from settler disturbances, harassment and attacks. The grazing was completed with army protection.
Um al Hir is a Beduoin village close to Susya which has been suffering by the encroaching settlement of Carmel, which was first established in 1981 on their land and has since been closing in on them. The village was recently in Israeli news due to the army’s decision to issue a demolition order on the village’s “Taboon,” an outdoor stove used for baking bread. Apparently the stove was built without permit, and it must be destroyed.
Last Friday, settlers went to the pastures of Um al Hir to plant trees in honor of the Tu B’svhat holiday, which marks the beginning of the tree-planting season. They were escorted by large amounts of army protection.
Lebanon: Miqati Reportedly Blessed by Syria, France, Qatar
Naharnet | January 24, 2011
Beirut – Najib Mikati’s candidacy for the premiership has reportedly won the blessing of France and Qatar in addition to Syria as the Opposition’s condition primarily called for the abolition of the international tribunal.
As-Safir newspaper on Monday said Miqati’s nomination came following intensive contacts between Paris and Doha that also included prominent regional capitals.
It said Miqati is expected to receive a “comfortable” percentage of votes against Hariri, particularly since at least two of his north Lebanon allies (Mohammad Safadi and Ahmad Karami) will vote for him and given that Druze leader Walid Jumblat will most likely secure 8 votes from his Democratic Gathering bloc in Miqati’s favor.
As-Safir said AMAL Movement and Hizbullah MPs Ali Hasan Khalil and Haj Hussein Khalil visited Miqati at his Verdun residence on Saturday and conveyed to him the Opposition’s desire to bring him as Lebanon’s new prime minister to head the next Government which would take upon itself the termination of the agreement between Lebanon and the international tribunal, the withdrawal of Lebanese judges from the tribunal and ending financing it, in addition to referring the false witnesses’ issue to the Judicial Council.
Mikqati, however, according to the report, considered that any commitment of this kind is to be taken unanimously by Cabinet.
“Cabinet can discuss these issues and decide which it deems appropriate,” Miqati reportedly told AMAL and Hizbullah delegates.
A senior Mustaqbal Movement official, on the other hand, acknowledged that Miqati has been named by the Opposition after he agreed to adopt a position against the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
The pro-Opposition Al-Akhbar newspaper, meanwhile, said Miqati also made a “brief” visit to Damascus where he met President Bashar Assad.
Would isolation of the US persuade Obama not to veto?
By Alan Hart | January 23, 2011
Despite strong US opposition, a proposed resolution condemning Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank did make it to the UN Security Council. It was not put to a vote and no vote is expected for some time, if ever, because of the probability as things stand of an American veto. But given growing global support for the resolution, there is a case for wondering if President Obama can remain Zionist-like in his own implicit defiance of international law on Israel’s behalf.
Introduced by Lebanon, the resolution states that “Israeli settlements established in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace”. And it demands that Israel cease “immediately and completely” not only all settlement construction in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, but also “all other measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the territory, in violation of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.”
US position ridiculous
Washington had hoped that signalling its opposition to the proposed resolution would be enough to cause its Palestinian and other Arab sponsors to back away from taking it to the Security Council. Deputy American UN Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo said the US opposed bringing the settlement issue to the Council “because such action moves us no closer to a goal of a negotiated final settlement and could even undermine progress towards it”. She also said the Security Council should not be the forum for resolving the issues at the heart of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In my view that has to be among the most ridiculous statements any diplomat has ever made in any place at any time.
When the Arab sponsors discovered that they do have testicles and refused to be intimidated by Uncle Sam, the result was a huge embarrassment for Obama because, as noted by Tony Karon in an article for Time, the resolution’s substance “largely echoes the administration’s own stated positions.” In Haaretz under the headline “Settlements issue isn’t Israel’s problem, it’s Obama’s”, Natasha Mozgovaya was more explicit. The resolution has put Washington “in the awkward position of having to veto a resolution it absolutely agrees with”.
That was why a number of former senior US diplomats and officials wrote to Obama urging him to support the resolution. They included former Reagan Defence Secretary Frank Carlucci and former assistant secretaries of state Thomas Pickering and James Dobbins. They said the resolution is not incompatible with negotiating an end to the conflict and does not deviate from the US commitment to Israel’s security. They added:
The proposed resolution is consistent with existing and established US policies; deploying a veto would severely undermine US credibility and interests, placing us firmly outside of the international consensus, and further diminishing our ability to mediate this conflict.
USA internationally isolated
How far outside the international consensus the US already is on account of its unconditional support for Israel right or wrong was demonstrated by the fact that the resolution attracted the support of 120 nations. Diplomats were certain that the US was the only one of the five permanent members on the 15-country Security Council with veto power that would have vetoed if the resolution had been put to a vote when it was introduced. In other words, without a US veto it would have passed. That would have more or less confirmed Israel’s pariah status in much of the world and just might have been a game-changer.
In contrast to the Zionist lobby in America which has naturally been urging – ordering? – Obama to veto, J Street, the “dovish” Jewish advocacy group which is pro-Israel and more or less anti-AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee], is among those who understand that a veto would not be in America’s own best interests. Or Israel’s, despite what its deluded leaders assert to the contrary. In a statement J Street said:
As a pro-Israel organization and as Americans, we advocate for what we believe to be in the long-term interests of the state of Israel and of the United States… Ongoing settlement expansion runs counter to the interests of both countries and against commitments Israel itself has made. While we hope never to see the state of Israel publicly taken to task by the United Nations, we cannot support a US veto of a resolution that closely tracks long-standing American policy and that appropriately condemns Israeli settlement policy”.
Because J Street almost certainly speaks for far more silent and troubled American Jews than AIPAC does, that’s quite an important statement.
The advocacy group Americans for Peace Now was more explicit in its message to Obama. It not only urged him to avoid vetoing the resolution, it also said this:
It is indefensible that the Netanyahu government, heedless of the damage settlement activity does to Israel’s own interests and indifferent to the Obama administration’s peace efforts, has not only refused to halt settlement activity, but has opened the floodgates, including in the most sensitive areas of East Jerusalem. In this context, the move by the United Nations Security Council to censure Israel’s settlement activity should surprise no one… Vetoing this resolution would conflict with four decades of US policy. It would contribute to the dangerously naive view that Israeli settlement policies do no lasting harm to Israel. And it would send a message to the world that the US is not only acquiescing to Israel’s actions, but is implicitly supporting them.
It might well have been their fear of a Tunisian domino effect that helped to embolden the regimes of the sponsoring Arab states to defy a US administration on this occasion. Their challenge to America’s unconditional support for Israel was, as Tony Karon noted, “a low-cost gesture that will play well on the restive street”. At least for a while, I add. (The truth about the Arab street is that for the past 40 years very many people on it have been humiliated and angered not only by Israel’s arrogance of power and American support for it, but also by the complete failure of their own governments to use the leverage they do have to put real pressure on the US to oblige Israel to end its occupation of all the Arab territory it grabbed in 1967.)
Crunch time for Obama?
If the sponsoring Arab regimes have the will to keep the heat on Washington over the resolution and insist that there must be a vote on it at some point in the not too distant future, and if the number of nations who support the resolution stays firm and better still increases, crunch time for Obama on the Israel-Palestine conflict will arrive.
If and when it does he will have three options: to veto; to order America’s vote in the Security Council to be cast for the resolution; or to abstain. An American abstention would have the same practical effect as a “Yes” vote – the resolution would be passed.
A veto would protect Obama from the wrath of the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress. But it would also propel America further down the road to isolation, perhaps to the point where, like Israel, it was regarded as a pariah state by much of the world. Can Obama or any American president really afford that?
But an American vote for the resolution or even an abstention would, of course, put Obama into head-on confrontation with the Zionist lobby. Could he come out of it a winner (and, some will add, remain alive)?
My crystal ball doesn’t tell me the answer, but it does indicate how he could be the first American president to break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on America policy for the Middle East. If he went over the heads of Congress and used his rhetorical skill to explain to his people why it is not in America’s own best interests to go on supporting Israel right or wrong, there’s a chance that he could win the argument. Americans are not stupid. What they are, most of them, is extremely gullible because of the way they have been misinformed, lied to, by a mainstream media which, for a number of reasons, are content to peddle Zionist propaganda.
It’s your call, Mr President. The fate of the region – the Middle East – and quite possibly the whole world will be determined by it.
Footnote
If the US endorses the Whitewash Israeli inquiry into Israel’s deadly attack on the Free Gaza Flotilla last May, we’ll know that the prospects of Obama putting America’s own interest first at crunch time are very, very remote, to say the least.
Missing Persons and Intelligence Agencies
By Malik Ayub Sumbal | The New American | 20 January 2011
Missing persons are a major human-rights issue in various countries. One niche of the missing persons saga is Asian nationals who went missing after 9/11, kidnapped by the world’s intelligence agencies. There are hundreds of people who went missing in the last several years from Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippine, China, Thailand, and Singapore.
The relatives of these missing people are sure that their loved ones were abducted by the intelligence agencies of their countries. In Pakistan the issue of missing persons was raised in 2002 when Dr. Amir Aziz mysteriously disappeared, abducted by state-run intelligence agencies. Pakistan’s Daily Times reported:
Leading orthopaedic surgeon Dr Amir Aziz, picked up on Oct 21 over suspected links with Al Qaeda, was dramatically released in the early hours of Tuesday after being thoroughly investigated by the US FBI and the Pakistani intelligence agencies.
The missing persons issue was again highlighted when Amna Masood Janjua’s husband was picked up by an intelligence agency on July 30, 2005. The brave lady raised her voice against the powerful intelligence agencies and decided to devote herself to the cause of missing persons in Pakistan. She started her own organization for the legal and financial aid of the heirs of the missing persons, called the Defense of Human Rights.
When contacted by this correspondent, she asserted:
I know where my husband is in the illegal confinement of ISI [Pakistani intelligence], and he is in cell No. 20 in sector I-9/3 of Islamabad, where there are the offices and some residential apartments of this intelligence agency.
His detention by the ISI was confirmed by eyewitnesses to his abduction, as well by affidavits of other released detainees. Amna maintained that she wants her husband released at any cost. She commented that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has formed a commission to probe the missing persons issue and also a Joint Investigation Team, but both are powerless to summon the intelligence agencies.
The commission was formed on May 1, 2010, and 203 fresh cases of kidnapping have been reported since then.
In Pakistan the reason behind the sacking of the judiciary by the former dictator and now-exiled President General Pervaiz Musharraf was the same issue of missing persons. The court sought to recover all the missing persons who were illegally abducted by the intelligence agencies. The masses restored the judiciary of Pakistan, and now again the Chief Justice of Pakistan is encountering roadblocks in recovering the missing persons from the custody of the intelligence agencies.
Amna claims that at least 392 people have gone missing in Pakistan who are in the hands of the intelligence agencies. According to her sources, the kidnapped people are being brutally tortured and interrogated by both local intelligence agencies and the U.S. CIA. The sources confirmed that there are several people who are interrogated solely by the CIA.
Claims have also been made that there are covert CIA prisons on ships and on the islands of Indonesia — the most notorious, according to numerous Asian periodicals, being Smarata, where the CIA’s “Most Wanted” are being kept. The purpose of keeping kidnapped persons on ships is apparently to remove them from the territorial boundaries and laws of any specific country.
Internationally, for the last decade, the issue of missing persons has been in the headlines of the world media. There have been hundreds of protests launched by relatives and loved ones of these missing persons, but the international community has done nothing to help these people.
According to the United Nations’ constitution, enforced disappearance and genocide are the two major crimes against humanity; yet despite the organization’s vaunted interest in peace and justice in the world, with these particular crimes, the UN’s apathy and uselessness are overwhelming.
On the surface the UN would appear to be concerned with missing persons: It has a Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, and it does hold meetings on missing persons. The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances concluded its 92nd session this past November at the United Nations office in Geneva.
The summary of the 92nd session indicates that the UN took the following actions:
During its 92nd session, the Working Group examined 23 reported cases under its urgent action procedure, 284 newly submitted cases of enforced disappearances and information on previously accepted cases concerning the following countries: Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cameroon, Chad, China, Colombia, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, France, Georgia, India, Iraq, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.
The summary added, “The Working Group also examined allegations submitted by credible sources regarding obstacles encountered in the implementation of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and decided to transmit general allegations to the concerned governments.”
And it stated:
During the 92nd session, the Working Group received delegations from the Governments of Iraq, Japan, Nepal, and Rwanda to exchange views on individual cases and on the issue of enforced disappearance in general. It also met with members of the Committee Against Torture as well as with non-governmental organizations and family members of disappeared persons regarding obstacles encountered in the implementation of the Declaration in their respective countries. Members of the Working Group also held a series of informal bilateral meetings with some States with a view to enhance cooperation.
But despite all these efforts, no progress has been made in the recovery of missing persons, and all of the countries scorn the laws of the United Nations. The Working Group has failed to recover a single person that has been abducted by state intelligence agencies, including those taken by the CIA.
In fact, those seeking the UN’s aid find that the rules and methods of the Working Group are so complicated that it is difficult to even report a missing person case. The United Nations’ actions are a demonstration of doing nothing while looking busy. There is so little sway held by the UN over countries that in some countries people are afraid to even utter the name of these powerful intelligence agencies which have captured their relatives.
Malik Ayub Sumbal is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad, Pakistan.
Canadian Police Repression
By Yves Engler / Dissident Voice / January 22nd, 2011
In Argentina they threw leftists out of airplanes while in Chile thousands were detained in stadiums, some tortured and some killed. In Brazil and Uruguay the story was similar. When threatened by progressive forces, the elite in many countries resorted to illegal acts and certainly never felt constrained by constitutional rights.
How about Canada?
For more than three decades the RCMP ran PROFUNC (PROminent FUNCtionaries of the Communist Party), a highly secretive espionage operation and internment plan. In October CBC’s Fifth Estate and Radio-Canada’s Enquête aired shows on “this secret contingency plan, called PROFUNC, [which] allowed police to round up and indefinitely detain Canadians believed to be Communist sympathizers.”
In case of a “national security” threat up to 16,000 suspected communists and 50,000 sympathizers were to be apprehended and interned in one of eight camps across the country. Initiated by RCMP Commissioner Stuart Taylor Wood in 1950, the plan continued until 1983.
The plan was highly detailed. Police stations across the country would receive a signal to open their PROFUNC lists and apprehend said individuals. The “communists” would then be taken to “reception centres” where they would be restricted from talking and anyone attempting to flee would be shot. Eventually, the “communists” would be moved to one of the regional internment camps where their contact with the outside world would be limited to a single 1-page letter each week. Their children would be sent to live with other family members.
Thousands of officers collected information for PROFUNC at one time or another. Each potential internee had an arrest document (C-215 form) that was regularly updated with the person’s physical description, age, photos, vehicle information, housing and sometimes the location of doors they might use to escape arrest.
Only a small number of the names on the list are public, but it clearly didn’t take much to be put on it. Enquête uncovered the name of a 13-year girl who was on the list because she attended an anti-nuclear protest in 1964. Many prominent individuals were also on the PROFUNC list, including a former Manitoba cabinet minister, Roland Penner, CBC President Robert Rabinovitch, and NDP leader Tommy Douglas (who was voted greatest Canadian in a CBC poll).
Enquête focused on the presumed use of PROFUNC lists during the 1970 October Crisis when Pierre Trudeau’s government implemented the War Measures Act. The head of the Montreal police’s anti-terrorism squad when the Front de libération du Québec kidnapped two government officials, Julien Giguère, told Enquête that his department had a list of 60 suspected FLQ sympathizers that they wanted to investigate. But the federal government wanted to justify their suspension of civil liberties and their claim of an “apprehended insurrection” so the RCMP and Sureté du Québec added many names to the Montreal police list. These added names appear to have come from PROFUNC lists. In subsequent days police agencies carried out almost 4,000 raids and made 500 arrests. Many of those detained were held without charge for weeks or months.
Robert Kaplan, Solicitor General from 1980 to 1984, ended PROFUNC when he ordered the RCMP to stop whatever they were doing that blocked elderly Canadians from entering the US. Kaplan claims the Fifth Estate informed him of the program.
PROFUNC was disbanded at about the same time as the Trudeau government opened the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the RCMP (or Macdonald Commission), which investigated the RCMP’s “theft of the membership list of the Parti Québécois, several break-ins; illegal opening of mail; burning a barn in Quebec where the Black Panther Party and Front de libération du Québec were rumoured to be planning a rendezvous; forging documents; and conducting illegal electronic surveillance.”
As a result of the Macdonald Commission, Ottawa reduced the RCMP’s role in security and intelligence gathering. In 1984 they created the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to carry out security and intelligence gathering work that had previously been the RCMP’s responsibility.
CSIS may not continue all of the functions of PROFUNC, but they definitely still monitor individuals based upon their political beliefs. The focus may no longer be solely on leftists. Politicized Muslims are definitely also on the list.
In recent years CSIS has been involved in the mistreatment of a number of innocent individuals. In 2003 the intelligence agency prodded Sudan to detain Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Sudanese-born Canadian citizen, who was then tortured and put through a harrowing six-year ordeal. CSIS is also largely responsible for the incarceration of more than a dozen Muslims on security certificates. These individuals (who are permanent residents, refugees or foreign nationals living in Canada) have been incarcerated without being able to see the evidence CSIS has put forward against them.
Of course, CSIS doesn’t only target Muslims. From last October to May 2010 at least seven friends of Stefan Christoff, one of Montreal’s most effective grassroots activists, were visited by CSIS agents. They arrived unannounced early in the morning and asked detailed and sometimes menacing questions about Christoff.
CSIS has also been actively spying on Aboriginal protesters. In the lead up to G8/G20 protests in Toronto CSIS was accused of trying to intimidate members of Red Power United.
Before, during and after the recent G8/G20 protests in Toronto Canada’s various security services demonstrated a flagrant disregard for individual’s civil liberties. Usually held in miserable conditions for 48 or 72 hours, about 1,100 people were picked up in the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. The vast majority of those arrested had their charges dropped because there was not a shred of evidence against them.
To protect against a plan such as PROFUNC or G8/G20 type police repression the Left needs to build a vibrant movement that doesn’t self marginalize. One way the Left can protect itself against security service attacks is to be known by as large of a segment of society as possible. We need to be seen as part of “normal” society.
Yves Engler is the author of Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid and The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. For more information visit yvesengler.com.
Gaza family remembers grandfather killed by Israeli bullet
Rami Almeghari writing from occupied Gaza Strip, Live from Palestine, 21 January 2011
Shaban Qarmout, a 65-year-old farmer from the Jabaliya refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip, got up early on Monday, 10 January and headed out to his farmland as he usually did, accompanied by his 22-year-old son Khaled. Their land is located about 500 meters from the boundary fence with Israel, near the Agriculture School in the town of Beit Hanoun. At about midday, as the two were working, a bullet fired from an Israeli watchtower ripped through the elder Qarmout’s chest, wounding him fatally.
Khaled Qarmout told The Electronic Intifada what happened: “My father and I were working normally, clearing some rocks from the land using a cart. At noon a number of people from a relief organization came to see my father. One of them wanted to take some pictures, but my father refused. He told them it might expose him to some danger from the Israeli military post nearby. Of course the area is dangerous, and my father was always keen to avoid any trouble with the Israelis.”
After the visitors left, Shaban Qarmout resumed his work and Khaled moved about a hundred meters away. “Suddenly I heard my father screaming, ‘Khaled!’ and I rushed to see what happened. I found him silent and blood began to drip from his mouth,” Khaled recalled.
Asked if he had observed any trouble or activity near the boundary, Khaled replied: “I kept silent, and looked around to see what was going on, but saw nothing. Then with the help of some neighboring farmers we carried my father on a bulldozer for a distance of about 300 meters until he was taken to a nearby hospital by ambulance. He died a few minutes after he was shot from the Israeli watchtower.”
At the Jabaliya refugee camp home of Shaban’s son Shaker, family members were gathered, including Shaban’s wife Umm Khaled, daughters Khulud (15), Rana (26), and daughter-in-law Umm Thaer.
Shaban Qarmout had a small house on his land, but the family left it two years ago during Israel’s winter 2008-2009 assault on Gaza and moved to Jabaliya refugee camp. Despite this, Khaled told The Electronic Intifada that he and his father continued to work their land during the past two years from the early morning until evening. According to Khaled, the Israeli soldiers at the watchtower that is close to their land know them well, yet, Khaled says, they shot his father in cold blood.
“Almost two weeks ago, my father received some financial assistance from a relief organization and he asked me to keep the small amount of money at the house on the farmland, telling me, ‘My son, maybe we will need this money some time in the future, so it is better that we keep it rather than spend it.’ He said these words as if he were aware that his destiny was awaiting him,” Khaled said, surrounded by family members in the home.
Umm Khaled spoke to The Electronic Intifada, her face pale, about what she called the “martyrdom” of her husband: “Let me tell you that my slain husband has been there in the same farmland for about 45 years and I personally spent almost half of this period with him along with our children. I am wondering why they killed him; I am sure they know him.”
One week after the Israeli assault started in December 2008, Umm Khaled recalled, the Israelis using loud speakers ordered them to leave the area, and that was when they moved to Jabaliya.
“Shaban, my husband, was a very kind-hearted father,” Umm Khaled said. “He was so kind to his children and generous towards other people. When we used to live in the house on the farm, before the war broke out, Shaban used to welcome all the relatives who used to spend some time with us among the citrus trees, to the extent that he always insisted to serve them food. May God accept him as martyr and believe me I wish I were martyred along with him.”
“My father was the kindest to me,” said 15-year-old Khulud. “I am his youngest and I never felt deprived of anything — tenderness, food, pocket money or anything else. My father used to give me whatever I wanted and always cared for me.”
Reflecting on those who took her father away from her, Khulud added, “I don’t believe there is a chance for coexistence with such killers, the Israelis! Why did they kill him? Did he shoot at them with his 45-year-old axe?”
Rana spoke of her father as she held his infant grandchild in her arms and as neighbors and relatives came to offer condolences.
“My father used to be very generous with me and his grandsons despite the fact his economic situation was not that good,” Rana said. “Every now and then, he would give me some money to spend on my children, for he knew my husband is jobless. During Ramadan, he used to invite me and my children to iftar [the breaking of the fast], showing a great deal of kindness to us.”
Umm Thaer, Shaban Qarmout’s daughter-in-law and niece, said that her uncle was like a father to her. His loss was not the first tragedy she has suffered. On 29 December 2008, her 16-year-old son Thaer Shaker Qarmout was critically wounded in an Israeli missile strike. He died of his injuries on 4 January 2009. Two friends who were with Thaer, Muhammad Madi and Tareq Afani, were killed instantly.
On the terrible day her son died, Umm Thaer remembers her uncle Shaban telling her, “Dear daughter, Thaer has gone to the best place, to paradise, and believe me, may God take us the same way he took Thaer.”
It seems that God heard Shaban and in the same month in which Thaer went to paradise, his grandfather followed him two years later.
Rami Almeghari is a journalist and university lecturer based in the Gaza Strip.
MSM self-censorship on the Israel issue
By Philip Weiss on January 20, 2011
Tonight Chris Matthews used the retirement of Joe Lieberman as an opportunity to bash the “neocons” for the Iraq war. Matthews landed on Lieberman’s disgraceful answer to Pat Buchanan’s question on Morning Joe today, saying the Iraq war was worth it because of WMD and Al Qaeda and Saddam’s threat to the region. Matthews said this was all BS. He said that Saddam posed no threat apart from his support for “Hamas.”
Obviously Matthews thinks that Lieberman was thinking about Israel’s security, not the U.S.’s security. But you still can’t say this in the MSM. You can bash the NRA over the Tucson shootings, but you can’t talk about the role of the Israel lobby in our foreign policy. You can just think about it. Like Chris Matthews.
On this note, orthodoxy and self-censorship, I’d point out that Michelle Goldberg, who interviewed me for Tablet this week (the piece is here, I hear it’s mixed, still haven’t read it, I’m weird that way) asked me if I’d been worried for my career when I started being as critical of Israel as I am. I said Yes, and it had hurt my career. Goldberg made the same point a couple years back at the 92d Street Y: “Everybody knows that if you write certain things [about Israel] you put yourself beyond the pale of certain publications. And not just the obvious ones like the New Republic. I mean you take a certain stance and you consign yourself to the loony left. I think that is maybe becoming less and less true.” Goldberg said she has been told on some occasions, “You can’t write something,” and there “is a degree of self-censorship as well.”
The other day a friend told me of his conversation with a financial journalist in the MSM who had expressed sympathy for the Palestinians. He asked her why she didn’t write about it. She said, a, I figure I’m not going to be able to help them so they’re not losing anything by my silence, and b, even though I write financial journalism, if I take a strong stand on this issue, I might be blacklisted or brown-listed by publications for any work at all… (Consigned to looniness, to quote Goldberg.)
When Walt and Mearsheimer’s book came out, they said the same thing. Many journalists came up to them privately to express agreement, but said that it was career-cyanide to speak out about it.


