“No chance for two states”: Interview with Knesset member Haneen Zoabi
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 31 October 2010
There is now “no chance” for a two-state solution in Palestine. So said Haneen Zoabi, a Palestinian member of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, in an interview with The Electronic Intifada (EI) on 29 October in Chicago (video).
“The reality goes more toward the one state solution,” Zoabi said, “whether a democratic one-state solution, or a binational one-state solution.”
Elected in 2009, Zoabi represents the National Democratic Alliance, and is the first woman to be elected on the list of an Arab party in Israel.
“We are struggling for a normal state,” Zoabi explained, “which is a state for all of its citizens, [in] which the Palestinians and the Israeli Jews can have full equality. I recognize religious, cultural and national group rights for the Israelis, but inside a democratic and neutral state.”
Zoabi spoke to EI just before she addressed 120 students, faculty and community members in an event organized by Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Chicago. During her lecture, and in the interview with EI, Zoabi described the systematic legal, social and cultural discrimination Israel’s 1.2 million Palestinian citizens face. Zoabi said she strongly opposes Israel’s demand to be recognized as a “Jewish state” as this would legitimize and deepen these forms of discrimination.
Zoabi was among dozens of Palestinian citizens injured by Israeli police just two days before her interview with EI. On 27 October, Israeli extremists affiliated with the outlawed Kach movement, founded by the late Meir Kahane, marched through Umm al-Fahm, a Palestinian city within Israel. Kahane believed that all Palestinians should be expelled from Israel and the occupied territories. Zoabi described how police attacked Palestinian demonstrators and protected the Israeli extremists.
She arrived in Chicago on Thursday evening, 28 October, directly from Israel with bandages on the back of her neck and lower back, where she had been struck by projectiles fired at close range. She said Israeli police used a kind of weapon which she had not seen before, which caused an intense burning sensation, and showed EI the welts beneath the bandage on her neck.
In May, Zoabi participated in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and was aboard the Mavi Marmara when the ship was attacked by Israeli commandos in international waters. Nine activists were killed and dozens injured in the Israeli attack.
Zoabi strongly criticized Israel’s official inquiry into the incident. Although a member of Israel’s parliament and an eyewitness, Zoabi has not been asked to testify before the inquiry — called the Turkel Committee — but has attended its sessions with other witnesses. She told EI of the open bias and political statements of the committee members, stating “They do not look for the facts. They are just looking for a way to justify the Israeli attack.”
Asked about the prospects for the current US-brokered “peace process,” Zoabi said Israeli society and parliament “doesn’t feel the need for peace. They don’t perceive occupation as a problem. They don’t perceive the siege as a problem. They don’t perceive oppressing the Palestinians as a problem, and they don’t pay the price of occupation or the price of [the] siege [of Gaza].”
While Palestinians suffer intensely, Israel, Zoabi said, viewed its relationship with the Palestinians primarily as a “security problem,” which it has largely resolved through the siege of Gaza, the separation wall in the West Bank, and by “security coordination” with the Palestinian Authority.
Zoabi spoke about the global boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement which aims to pressure Israel to end its occupation and other human rights abuses against Palestinians, and to respect international law.
While she said the effect of BDS within Israel was still marginal, “this kind of campaign has the power raise the debate inside the Israeli society and inside the Knesset.” Israel, she said, “is so sensitive to international criticism and a situation of isolation.”
Even if BDS did not yet have much impact on Israel’s economy, it “can send a political message to the Israelis that we cannot just continue with the occupation, and continue with the siege and with oppressing the Palestinian people without the Israeli society paying a price.”
During her visit to the United States, Zoabi addressed the US Palestinian Community Network’s second Popular Conference for Arabs and Palestinians in the US and is scheduled to speak in the San Francisco Bay Area before returning home.
Oslo mayor joins protest against illegal Israeli wall
Bil’in Popular Committee Against the Wall and Settlements | October 31, 2010
Today’s demonstration in Bil’in against the Apartheid wall, organized by the Popular Committee of Bil’in, was joined by many local residents, Israeli activists as well as many internationals. As the group moved peacefully towards the Apartheid wall, they chanted to “Freedom to all Palestinian Political Prisoners”. Demonstrators carrying the Palestinian flag crossed through a gate to confront the awaiting soldiers with a simple question, “What are you doing here?”
When the soldiers eventually got tired of the presence of people demanding access to the agricultural lands belonging to Bil’in farmers, they began firing tear gas. The hot gas canisters ignited fires in the dry olive orchards, which residents hurried to extinguish to protect the trees from damage. For a while it was possible to avoid the tear gas, but eventually it became so excessive that the demonstrators had to retreat to the village.
It is a victory for the people every time they mobilize, without guns, to demand justice – an end to a racist wall that separates them from their ancestral lands and from the possibility of living peacefully with Israel. After the demonstration ended, the Israeli Army attacked Bil’in Village by firing tear gas and sound grenades into the village as well as directly in front of residential homes which lead to the people (locals, Israeli’s and Internationals) confronting the Army for over 30 minutes.
At today’s demonstration in Bilin, Iyad Burnat, Head of the Popular Committee Against the Wall along with two members of Popular Committee, Basel Mansor and Sameer Bornat, welcomed two representatives from Norway who joined in with the non-violent demonstration along with other internationals and Palestinians against the illegal Apartheid wall. They were Stine Renate Haheim, a Member of Parliament and Torunn Kanutte Husvik the Mayor of Oslo both members of the Norwegian Labour party.
For over 6 years the residents of Bilin along with internationals have been demonstrating against the illegal wall, with many injuries, arrests and the deaths of some non-violent protesters.
Arundhati Roy on Kashmir’s Independence
Democracy Now! |October 27, 2010
The award-winning Indian author Arundhati Roy is facing possible arrest in India on sedition charges after publicly advocating for Kashmir independence and challenging India’s claim that Kashmir is an “integral part of India.” If charged and convicted of sedition Roy could face up to life in prison.
For interview transcripts, podcast and more information, see http://www.DemocracyNow.org.
Haifa activist accepts plea deal
By Jared Malsin | Ma’an | October 27, 2010
GAZA — Ameer Makhoul, the Palestinian activist from Haifa, accepted a plea bargain on Wednesday, confessing to espionage charges leveled by the Israeli state.
Makhoul, an Israeli citizen, was detained by authorities during a nighttime raid on his home in May. He and his lawyers maintain that the charges against him are political, and that he was tortured while in prison. Makhoul was also banned from seeing a lawyer for the first 12 days of his detention.
The charges include conspiring to assist an enemy, contact with a foreign agent and spying for Hezbollah.
Orna Kohn, one of Makhoul’s lawyers from the legal rights group Adalah, said Makhoul decided to accept the plea deal after consultation with his defense team.
Under the deal, she said, the content of the indictment was reduced. The state is asking for 10 years imprisonment, while the defense is asking for seven, Kohn added.
Kohn said the decision to accept the deal was made after taking into consideration “the political climate now and the legal situation under Israeli law with so-called security charges, and given the history rulings in Israeli courts dealing with such charges.”
Kohn said she met Makhoul earlier on Wednesday. Asked about his condition, she said, “He’s well. He’s hopeful the court will rule for the minimal number of years.”
“He understands his chances of being acquitted are slim,” she added. She said the charges against him “in any other country should not have been basis for indictment.”
A hearing is set for 5 December, when the court will decide whether to accept the plea deal reached between the prosecution and the defense.
Makhoul is the director of Ittijah, the Union of Arab Community-Based Organizations, and also chaired the High Arab Monitoring Committee’s panel on defending Arab citizens’ freedoms. He was arrested in May along with Omar Saeed, an activist with the Balad party.
The plea bargain was agreed upon in the Haifa District Court after being submitted on Tuesday.
A representative for the prosecution told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: “The plea bargain was approved by the highest ranking levels of prosecution, including the state prosecutor. Most importantly Makhoul, who claimed he was being politically persecuted at the beginning of this, now stands in front of the court and admits to the charges attributed to him.”
How Much Money is Needed to Stop the BDS Movement?
By Alex Kane | October 27, 2010
$6 million dollars: enough to combat a largely grassroots, bottom-up and growing boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel? That’s what the Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs are hoping.
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:
The Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs are launching a multimillion-dollar joint initiative to combat anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns.
The JFNA and the rest of the Jewish federation system have agreed to invest $6 million over the next three years in the new initiative, which is being called the Israel Action Network. The federations will be working in conjunction with JCPA, an umbrella organization bringing together local Jewish community relations councils across North America.
The BDS movement–whose demands are based on international law–is clearly scaring Israel and the Jewish establishment, who have labeled the movement “the second most dangerous threat to Israel, after Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.”
The article also reports that the new anti-BDS initiative sprung from the urging of the Israeli government, which “has been advocating for this, especially over the past six months or eight months,” as Jerry Silverman, the head of the Jewish Federation of North America, told JTA.
It appears that the Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs are following the recommendations of the Reut Institute, an Israeli think tank with close ties to the Israeli government, who called on the Israeli government to “sabotage” and “attack” the BDS movement in a February 2010 report.
The investment of a large amount of money to combat what is essentially impossible to combat as long as Israel continually flouts international law is a recognition of the powerful effect the BDS movement is having. Members of the Israeli Knesset certainly see BDS as a threat, having introduced a bill that would make it illegal for Israelis to “launch or incite” a boycott against Israel.
When $6 million is apparently needed to attempt to halt the BDS movement, that means something. But all the money in the world can’t stop the movement for Palestinian justice. Couldn’t someone tell that to the Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs? Their money would be better spent on something else.
French strike costing €400mn daily
Press TV – October 25, 2010
France’s Finance Minister Christine Lagarde has warned that the country’s massive strikes are costing the French economy up to 400 million euros a day.
Lagarde said on Monday that the economic cost is between 200 million euro (£178 million) and 400 million euro (£356 million) every day the unions call for strikes protesting the pension reform law, the Associated Press reported. The French minister added that the media images showing street battles between the anti-riot police and protesters have damaged the country’s image. She warned that strikes against French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s pension reform have threatened to derail France’s still fragile economic recovery.
“Today, we shouldn’t be weighing down this recovery with campaigns that are painful for the French economy and very painful for a certain number of small and medium-sized businesses,” Lagarde noted.
Ongoing protests and strikes against the government’s pension reforms have led to fuel shortages and travel chaos throughout the country. A quarter of the country’s gas stations have run dry due to strikes at refineries and blockades of fuel depots by the protesters.
The strikers are hoping the disruptions will finally force Sarkozy’s government to cancel a plan to increase the retirement age from 60 to 62. But the government insists that the reform is necessary to reduce the country’s budget deficit.
The French Senate voted Friday to pass the proposed pension reform, which is expected to win final approval this week.
A recent opinion poll shows Sarkozy’s approval rating has sunk to a record low of 29 percent. The latest polls have also shown that a vast majority of the French people support the walkout.
France paralyzed as strikes enter day 12
Sarkozy’s approval rating has dropped below 30 percent
Press TV – October 24, 2010
Protesters in France decry Paris’ pension reforms for the 12th straight day, as the country witnesses its worst strikes and civil disobedience in 15 years.
“Just because an unjust law has been passed does not mean we passively accept it. All we wanted was discussions on how to improve the law. Even that was denied us. Now we are calling for its suspension,” The Hindu quoted Francois Chereque of the CFDT trade union as saying on Sunday.
Labor unions have called for two more strikes on next Thursday and November 6th to protest against the country’s pension reforms. A similar call brought millions of people into the streets early this week.
According to the AFP, the unions say they will continue to call on their workers and other French citizens to keep protesting until the French President Nicolas Sarkozy negotiates with them.
The French Upper House passed Sarkozy’s reform bill last Friday, raising the minimum retirement age two years, to 62 and full retirement from 65 to 67.
A joint parliamentary commission is to meet next week to give its final approval to the law, considered a mere formality.
The bill has sparked protests for more than two weeks, disrupting rail and airports services. A blockade on refineries, fuel depots and ports has also left many gas stations empty, forcing 30 percent of gas stations in the French capital of Paris to shut down.
Strikes at France’s oil refineries, which began in Marseille in September, caused panic buying and nationwide shortages.
Marseille, France’s oldest city, has been crippled by the walkouts. Protesters have barricaded roads leading to Marseille Airport, forcing passengers to abandon their cars and drag suitcases to the terminal on foot to catch flights.
A fleet of huge ships, cruising offshore, are unable to dock in the southern coastal city as railway staff and dock workers join the strikes.
A recent public opinion poll by a French television network showed that nearly 70 percent of French citizens support the ongoing strikes.
The French government has said on numerous occasions that the reform is needed to save the indebted pension system from collapse.
Police repress convergence on UK weapons factory
Bridget Chappell, The Electronic Intifada, 22 October 2010
 |
Police cordoned off activists and outnumbered them three to one. (Tom Wills) |
As Israeli warplanes flew over Gaza on 13 October, activists converged on Brighton, United Kingdom for the annual mass action against the local EDO/ITT factory that produces components used in weapons by the Israeli Air Force, amongst others, to devastating effect.
Faces clad, dozens of protesters attempted to break through police lines. Outnumbered by police three to one, the activists were chased down, detained and arrested. The surreal background symphony continued: photographers’ flashes, stubborn traffic attempting to worm its way through police lines, the chants of “Free Palestine!” and the unmistakable sound of a police chopper circling overhead.
The campaign against EDO/ITT is now in its sixth year and this was the fifth convergence of its kind. The British police’s heavy-handed crackdown on the action should perhaps be no surprise given the success of past Smash EDO convergences and the ongoing weekly protests against the factory. The repression began in the early hours of the morning as dozens of activists sleeping in an accommodation center in Stanmer Park, located twenty minutes from the planned protest site, awoke to find the building surrounded by 27 riot police vans. Those trapped inside were only permitted to leave inside a police cordon — a mobile means of detention. Protesters who were able to reach the planned convergence space, a park close to the EDO/ITT factory, quickly met with an overwhelming force of riot police on foot and horseback.
Undeterred, protesters, numbering around 300, splintered off into smaller groups as the day quickly developed into an elaborate, and wholly unequal game of pursuit between activists and police. Sights such as a group of protesters, pursued by police, taking off into the woods carrying a large papier-mache airplane and inflatable hammers underlined the tragicomic nature of the demonstration. Two Israeli activists taking part in the action held an impromptu talk about the realities of day-to-day life for Palestinians under Israeli occupation to those held captive alongside them in a police cordon.
The day finally drew to a close late that afternoon with 53 arrests. Despite the overwhelming police presence at the protest site, the activists responded with spontaneous actions. This included successful rallies outside both Barclays Bank and the Royal Bank of Scotland (where protesters even glued themselves to the building), both known investors in the ITT corporation. Spirits were mixed as events wound down; factory production had been shut down for the day, but police repression saw the streets controlled and hopes of a successful siege of the factory were dashed. In spite of the massive police presence, the protest’s message resonated throughout the streets of Brighton: no war machine, not in my backyard.
Brighton’s long, loud and colorful history of activism against the war machine and those who profit from it continues to manifest itself in a slew of campaigns. New projects include a successful community guerrilla gardening takeover of the urban space earmarked for the opening of a supermarket giant Tesco store — known for stocking Israeli products produced in settlements in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights. Activists have also initiated a “No Borders” campaign against the establishment of a new incinerator in the area slated to be run by the French multinational Veolia, which has been involved in the illegal Jerusalem light rail project. Established in 2006, the Brighton Jordan Valley Solidarity group continues to see many local activists travel to the Palestinian town of Tubas in the occupied West Bank each year as part of a strong ongoing solidarity campaign and unofficial partnering of the two cities.
The Smash EDO campaign embodies the growth of the new anti-militarist movement in the UK in recent years that hits back against the government’s thinly-veiled complicity with, and profiteering from, illegal occupations in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan. Activists with the campaign also say its a response to the mainstream anti-war movement’s politicking and well-behaved protest marches. The Smash EDO campaign relates to the successful campaign in the UK and Ireland against Raytheon, which culminated in the 2006 destruction of the American defense contractor’s offices in Derry, Northern Ireland during Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon.
The underlying momentum of the movement is founded in the belief that war crimes can and must be stopped, but not through the petitioning of arms traders or political hand-wringing. Speaking about EDO/ITT, Smash EDO spokeswoman Chloe Marsh says that “since the campaign started they [EDO/ITT] have closed down around 25 percent of the business from their main site plus sold off one other location which was also targeted by direct action activists. They might just be a small part of the war machine, but they are one that exists in our local community, making them a ‘doable’ target. Every bomb that is dropped, every bullet that is fired in the name of this war of terror has to be made somewhere — and wherever that is it can be resisted.”
“We will be there until they’re not,” says Marsh. “In other words, the ultimate goal is the factory’s closure.” Considering the odds that the campaign continues to stack against the weapons manufacturer, this not only seems a tangible victory, but highlights the universal wisdom in “think globally, act locally.”
Bridget Chappell is an Australian activist and writer who worked with the International Solidarity Movement in Palestine from August 2009 through May 2010.
French Fury in the EU Cage
“Work Harder to Earn Less”
By DIANA JOHNSTONE | CounterPunch | October 21, 2010
The French are at it again – out on strike, blocking transport, raising hell in the streets, and all that merely because the government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62. They must be crazy.
That, I suppose, is the way the current mass movement in France is seen – or at least shown – in much of the world, and above all in the Anglo-Saxon world.
Perhaps the first thing that needs to be said about the current mass strikes in France is that they are not really about “raising the retirement age from 60 to 62”. This is rather like describing the capitalist free market as a sort of lemonade stand. A propaganda simplification of very complex issues.
It allows the commentators to go crashing through open doors. After all, they observe sagely, people in other countries work until 65 or beyond, so why should the French balk at 62? The population is aging, and if the retirement age isn’t raised, the pension system will go broke paying out pensions to so many ancients.
However, the current protest movement is not about “raising the retirement age from 60 to 62”. It is about much more.
For one thing, this movement is an expression of exasperation with the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, which blatantly favors the super-rich over the majority of working people in this country. He was elected on the slogan, “Work more to earn more”, and the reality turns out to be work harder to earn less. The Labor Minister who introduced the reform, Eric Woerth, got a job for his wife on the office staff of the richest woman in France, Liliane Bettencourt, heir to the Oreal cosmetics giant, at the same time that, as budget minister, he was overlooking her massive tax evasions. While tax benefits for the rich help empty the public coffers, this government is doing what it can to tear down the whole social security system that emerged after World War II on the pretext that “we can’t afford it”.
The retirement issue is far more complex than “the age of retirement”. The legal age of retirement means the age at which one may retire. But the pension depends on the number of years worked, or to be more precise, on the number of cotisations (payments) into the joint pension scheme. On the grounds of “saving the system from bankruptcy”, the government is gradually raising the number of years of cotisations from 40 to 43 years, with indications that this will be stretched out further in the future.
As education is prolonged, and employment begins later, to get a full pension most people will have to work until 65 or 67. A “full pension” comes to about 40 per cent of wages at the time of retirement.
But even so, that may not be possible. Full time jobs are harder and harder to get, and employers do not necessarily want to retain older employees. Or the enterprise goes out of business and the 58-year old employee finds himself permanently out of work. It is becoming harder and harder to work full-time in a salaried job for over 40 years, however much one may want to. Thus in practice, the Sarkozy-Woerth reform simply means reducing pensions.
That, in fact, is what the European Union has recommended to all member states as an economy measure, intended, as with most current reforms, to reduce social costs in the name of “competitivity” – meaning competition to attract investment capital.
Less qualified workers, who instead of pursuing studies may have entered the work force young, say at age eighteen, will have subscribed to the scheme for forty-two years at age 60 if indeed they manage to be employed all that time. Statistics show that their life expectancy is relatively short, so they need to leave early in order to enjoy any retirement at all.
The French system is based on solidarity between generations, in that the cotisations of today’s workers go to pay today’s retired people’s pensions. The government has subtly tried to pit one generation against another, by claiming that it is necessary to protect the future of today’s youth, who are paying for the “baby boom” pensioners. It is therefore extremely significant that this week, high school and university students massively began to enter the protest strike movement. This solidarity between generations is a major blow to the government.
The youth are even much more radical than the older trade unionists. They are very aware of the increasing difficulty of building a career. The trend is for qualified personnel to enter the work force later and later, having spent years getting an education. With the difficulty of finding a stable, full-time job, many depend on their parents until age 30. It is simple arithmetic to see that in this case, there will be no full retirement until after age 70.
Productivity and De-industrialization
As has become standard practice, the authors of the neo-liberal reforms present them not as a choice but as a necessity. There is no alternative. We must compete on the global market. Do it our way or we go broke. And this reform was essentially dictated by the European Union, in a 2003 report, concluding that making people work longer was necessary to cut pension costs.
These dictates prevent any discussion of the two basic factors underlying the pension problem: productivity and de-industrialization.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the former Socialist Party man who heads the relatively new Left Party, is about the only political leader to point out that even if there are fewer workers to contribute to pension schemes, the difference can be made up by the rise in productivity. Indeed, French worker productivity is among the very highest in the world (higher than Germany, for example). Moreover, although France has the second longest life expectancy in Europe, it also has the highest birth rate. And even if jobholders are fewer, because of unemployment, the wealth they produce should be adequate to maintain pension levels.
Aha, but here’s the catch: for decades, as productivity goes up, wages stagnate. The profits from increased productivity are siphoned off into the financial sector. The bloating of the financial sector and the stagnation of purchasing power has led to the financial crisis – and the government has preserved the imbalance by bailing out the profligate financiers.
So logically, preserving the pension system basically calls for raising wages to account for higher productivity – a very major policy change.
But there is another critical problem linked to the pension issue: de-industrialization. In order to maintain the high profits drained by the financial sector, and avoid paying higher wages, one industry after another has moved its production to cheap labor countries. Profitable enterprises shut down as capital goes looking for even higher profit.
Is this merely the inevitable result of the rise of new industrial powers in Asia? Is a lowering of living standards in the West inevitable due to their rise in the East?
Perhaps. However, if shifting industrial production to China ends up lowering purchasing power in the West, then Chinese exports will suffer. China itself is taking the first steps toward strengthening its own domestic market. “Export-led growth” cannot be a strategy for everyone. World prosperity actually depends on strengthening both domestic production and domestic markets. But this requires the sort of deliberate industrial policy which is banned by the bureaucracies of globalization: the World Trade Organization and the European Union. They operate on the dogmas of “comparative advantage” and “free competition”… The world economy is being treated as a big game, where following the “rules of the free market” are more important than the environment or the basic vital necessities of human beings.
Only the financiers can win this game. And if they lose, well, they just get more chips for another game from servile governments.
Impasse?
Where will it all end?
It should end in something like a democratic revolution: a complete overhaul of economic policy. But there are very strong reasons why this will not happen.
For one thing, there is no political leadership in France ready and able to lead a truly radical movement. Mélenchon comes the closest, but his party is new and its base is still narrow. The radical left is hamstrung by its chronic sectarianism. And there is great confusion among people revolting without clear programs and leaders.
Labor leaders are well aware that employees lose a day’s pay for every day they go on strike, and they are in fact always anxious to find ways to end a strike. Only the students do not suffer from that restraint. The trade unionists and Socialist Party leaders are demanding nothing more drastic than that the government open negotiations about details of the reform. If Sarkozy weren’t so stubborn, this is a concession the government could make which might restore calm without changing very much.
It would take the miraculous emergence of new leaders to carry the movement forward.
But even if this should happen, there is a more formidable obstacle to basic change: the European Union. The EU, built on popular dreams of peaceful and prosperous united Europe, has turned into a mechanism of economic and social control on behalf of capital, and especially of financial capital. Moreover, it is linked to a powerful military alliance, NATO.
If left to its own devices, France might experiment in a more socially just economic system. But the EU is there precisely to prevent such experiments.
Anglo-Saxon Attitudes
On October 19, the French international TV channel France 24 ran a discussion of the strikes between four non-French observers. The Portuguese woman and the Indian man seemed to be trying, with moderate success, to understand what was going on. In contrast, the two Anglo-Americans (the Paris correspondent of Time magazine and Stephen Clarke, author of 1000 Years of Annoying the French) amused themselves demonstrating self-satisfied inability to understand the country they write about for a living.
Their quick and easy explanation: “The French are always going on strike for fun because they enjoy it.”
A little later in the program the moderator showed a brief interview with a lycée student who offered serious comments on pensions issue. Did that give pause to the Anglo-Saxons?
The response was instantaneous. How sad to see an 18-year-old thinking about pensions when he should be thinking about girls!
So whether they do it for fun, or whether they do it instead of having fun, the French are absurd to Anglo-Americans accustomed to telling the whole world what it should do.
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. Write her for the French version of this article, or to comment, at diana.josto@yahoo.fr
A new stage in the war on dissent
Socialist Worker | October 19, 2010
Michael Ratner is the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a leading organization in opposing the dismantling of civil liberties under the Bush, and now Obama, administrations.
He spoke with Nicole Colson about the recent raids on the homes and offices of antiwar and socialist activists in Chicago, Minneapolis and North Carolina–and why the Obama administration, despite claims to the contrary, has been disastrous when it comes to promises to protect our civil liberties.
NC: RECENTLY, ANTIWAR and socialist activists in Chicago, Minneapolis and North Carolina have had their homes and offices raided, and were given grand jury subpoenas. What is your take on these raids? What’s your sense of what the government is after?
THE RAIDS have all the earmarks of a fishing expedition–both the search warrants as well as grand jury subpoenas. They all claimed to be investigating “material support to terrorism,” in particular around both the Middle East and the country of Colombia. It appears to be a fishing expedition because the materials that were authorized to be seized and the subjects about which questions were to be asked were quite broad.
The search warrants were like wholesale seizure warrants. The FBI goes into five or six houses in Minneapolis, two houses in Chicago, some houses in North Carolina and Michigan as well, and seize everything. They take people’s cell phones, they take all the computers out, they take every document out. This broad language in the search warrants purports to allow the FBI to take everything in those offices.
And then the subpoenas, which require people to testify in front of the grand jury, they also are very open ended. Asking for everything people know about certain organizations, phone numbers, associates, friends, etc. So you would think if it was a narrowly tailored prosecution in which they thought there might be real criminal conduct, the focus would be much narrower.
So while it appears from the warrants they might have some suspicion about something (but who even knows if that suspicion is valid), they certainly don’t have very much, because they are going very, very broadly.
It’s something like looking for a needle in a haystack, in which they destroy many lives and chill people’s rights–and there may not even be a needle. And because of that, they are clearly encroaching on the First Amendment rights of people who are doing antiwar organizing and working to change U.S. foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East and in South America.
There are many problems, but one of the problems here is that the search warrants and subpoenas are so that broad, they cut directly into all kinds of First Amendment activities. So the people in Minneapolis, who were among the main organizers of some of the Republican National Convention demonstrations in 2008, then become the targets of the FBI or the Joint Terrorism Task Force–and their First Amendment activities, and their right to organize and oppose the government are therefore chilled or even prevented all together.
A broad, wholesale attack like this on the antiwar movement and on activists is bad for the people who were directly attacked, and it also tells all of us that the activities we undertake are subject to government surveillance and much more in this case–the actual seizure of the documents and grand jury subpoenas.
So it’s quite serious. It makes you very suspicious because it’s so broad. It was so coordinated, it was across the country, and they don’t really have that much, if anything.
A second problem is the ostensible reason for the search. The various warrants and subpoenas cite the law concerning material support for terrorism. And of course, that’s the material support statute.
A case arguing the unconstitutionality of that statute was recently argued by the Center for Constitutional Rights in the Supreme Court [Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project]. We lost. The Supreme Court, for the first time since 9/11, said advocacy or speech on behalf of an organization on the attorney general’s terrorist list is covered by the criminal statute–the material support of terrorism statute–if that speech is coordinated with, or you work with or have contact with, people in the alleged terrorist organization.
So once an organization is put on the terrorist list, if I only write an op-ed, and if I gather the information from the designated organization or have any contact with anybody there, even if it’s just asking for information, that might be interpreted as “coordination” with them, or some kind of material support for that organization. And there is no due process given before an organization is put on the list. It’s almost impossible to challenge. Oftentimes, placement on the terrorist list is a political decision.
So first you have the Supreme Court decision in June 2010, and then you have these raids a couple of months afterward. It makes you very suspicious that the current government is pushing the boundaries of the material support statute and reading it very broadly.
Organizations are going to be put in fear of any kind of opposition to U.S. foreign policy if there is a claim by the government that there is contact with organizations that are designated terrorists. Domestic American organizations that oppose U.S. foreign policy may well be chilled in their work.
COULD YOU say a little bit more about the way that the material support provision has been used since 9/11? There have been a number of really high-profile cases–particularly of Islamic charities, for example–where no violence was ever alleged to have occurred as a result of the so-called “material support,” so a lot of us on the left have seen this as a broader attempt to whip up support for the “war on terror.”
ONE OF the main uses of the material support statute, I think is to demonize organizations that the U.S. government doesn’t like. Had they had such a statue during the period of the African National Congress (ANC) opposition to the apartheid government in South Africa, they would have labeled that–and that’s how they thought of it in the U.S., under Reagan and before–as a terrorist organization. Any contacts with the ANC of any Americans opposed to apartheid would have been considered criminal.
There are two aspects to this. One is that the government can label, without any kind of hearing or way to challenge it, a foreign organization as a terrorist organization. The other is that any American contact with that organization or support for that organization is prohibited.
This is true even if that support is, as I said, by writings that are at all coordinated; by giving blankets to their hospital; by, according to the case we lost in Supreme Court, wanting to teach the [Kurdistan Workers Party] or the Tamil Tigers about the Geneva Conventions. Wanting to teach people peaceful means of resolving disputes, or wanting to get them to the negotiating table–when Jimmy Carter negotiates questions in the Middle East and he has contacts with Hamas or Hezbollah–those all are now prohibited.
So this statute is the favorite of prosecutors to go after people, because the smallest kind of contact with a designated terrorist organization can be considered material support. It’s an easy way to intimidate, wipe out and jail opponents of U.S. foreign policy, and an easy way to demonize organizations that many would call liberation organizations in other countries.
The provision has been used often. It is a favorite among prosecutors because you have to prove so little. So the Holy Land Foundation, which was the biggest Muslim charity in the United States, was accused of giving money to Hamas, but so indirectly that it’s hard to believe any of the facts in the case–it was giving it to groups that I think even the UN was giving to in Gaza. But somehow, they were supposed to believe or know that those groups were connected to Hamas, which has been put on the U.S. terrorist list.
The statute is used very broadly to say, “Muslims in this country and all their charities, what they’re doing is supporting terrorism.” When in fact, the vast majority of those charities–I obviously don’t know every one, but from what I know–gave aid to organizations they didn’t think were terrorist for starters, or on the list, and, secondly, they were giving humanitarian aid or doing things like teaching the Geneva Conventions.
I WANTED to go back to this recent Supreme Court case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, that was argued for the Obama administration by former Solicitor General Elena Kagan–who is now, of course, sitting on the Supreme Court. What do you think that case signals about the court’s view of free speech issues and its efforts to broaden this statute?
THEY WERE pushing to broaden out this statute, of course. I was at the argument, and the solicitor general did make very broad arguments–broader than the case required for saying that certain kinds of what she called “material aid” should be criminally punished under the statute, or could be.
So, for example, let’s say an organization was designated as a terrorist organization, and it comes to you and says, “We were improperly designated, we want to try to challenge it.” I couldn’t do that, as a lawyer representing them. Elena Kagan said in the Supreme Court that such representation would be “materially aiding” a terrorist organizations.
So she took a very broad position in the court. The solicitor general does have some ability to say, “I’m not taking a position that’s broader than the case,” but she didn’t do that. The Supreme Court didn’t decide every question on this, but you’d be taking a real chance if you went and represented a designated terrorist organization that was on the list. So it doesn’t bode particularly well that Elena Kagan argued in that case that she was willing to go for a very broad reading of the statute.
The other issue had to do with the plaintiff we represented, the Humanitarian Law Project, which wanted to teach the Geneva Conventions or explain to a designated terrorist group how to use the UN as a peaceful means of achieving their goals. Kagan argued that such teaching was “conduct,” and not “speech”–and therefore wasn’t protected by the First Amendment.
We argued that it was speech, and the court did agree that it was speech. So even on that issue, the government was willing to say that teaching the Geneva Conventions was speech.
But then they said this was one of the rare cases where we’re going to outlaw speech, which is what they did.
I THINK a lot of people felt some real hope that with Barack Obama’s election, civil liberties would be safer, given his promise to close Guantánamo, and to try detainees in civilian courts. But he’s really fallen far short of almost all of these promises, hasn’t he?
I WOULD say it’s a disaster. It’s a continuation of the Bush policies, and in some cases, the deepening of those policies. So Guantánamo is still open. We still have arbitrary detention, or detention without trial, and we have a number of people at Guantánamo who will never go to trial.
In a recent case that came up in federal court, the court barred testimony that might have been the result of torture. The Obama administration tried to use it. But the government still uses military commissions to try people, and those commissions can still use evidence derived from torture.
The Obama administration still uses the “state secrets” defense to get cases dismissed. They just did it again in a case of ours, in which we’re suing Obama to stop the assassination by drone or otherwise of Imam (Anwar) al-Awlaki in Yemen. The government asserted the “state secrets” defense to that case. We don’t know what the court will decide.
But they have been pretty deferential to the Obama administration on the question of state secrets. We have not won a case. So on every issue–Guantánamo, preventive detention, state secrets, use of torture evidence, military commissions–there’s been an identical practice to that of the Bush administration. Some people would argue they’re surrounded with a few more procedural protections, or laws, but it’s the same policy.
And when it’s coming from a Democrat, it should be a particular lesson to people–that on these national security issues, there’s very, very little difference between the two administrations, Democratic or Republican. It’s also particularly bad, because if one had hopes that the Democrats were going to shift on these issues, it just demonstrates how deeply imbedded the erosion of civil liberties has become in the U.S. and the willingness to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of “national security” or “stopping terrorism.”
You would have trouble distinguishing the policies of Bush from Obama. Even on the issue of rendition, when you take a person from one country to another illegally, Obama has continued this. He claimed that he wouldn’t render people to countries where they would be tortured, but we haven’t seen that yet–the first person who was picked up to be rendered had the heck beaten out of them on the plane over here.
So even on rendition, they’re similar. One difference, you could say, is that there isn’t the open and notorious torture of people that there was under Bush–at least not that we know of.
I say that cautiously, because there are still some secret prisons out there–a section of Bagram that no one’s allowed into–so we don’t know everything that’s going on around the issue of torture. And there’s certainly been no accountability for the torture regime of the Bush administration. Many of those same people are still in the current administration.
I WAS reading a recent Rolling Stone interview with Obama, and he said that people need to vote for the Democrats in November if we want the kind of country that respects civil rights and civil liberties. It just seemed totally disconnected from the reality of what’s happened in the last two years under his administration.
IN EVERY case we’ve gone to court on regarding accountability, the Obama administration has stopped us.
We represent two people who allegedly committed suicide in Guantánamo. We have evidence now that they were murdered, and the Obama administration opposed our suit, and we lost. In another case, we went to court claiming that our Guantánamo lawyers at the Center were wiretapped without warrants. We just lost that case in the Supreme Court. They denied review. Again, the Obama administration opposed us.
The ACLU went to court to try and get at the rendition issue against a subsidiary of Boeing, which was involved in some of the flights. Again, the Obama administration opposed it.
I can name 20 cases where they’ve come into court, and they’ve made sure that there will not be exposure, much less liability, of the torture regime, and violations of fundamental Constitutional rights that occurred under Bush. And many of these violations are still occurring today. You don’t have an outcry about Guantánamo now, yet we have 40 some people there facing indefinite permanent detention without trial.
GIVEN WHAT you’re saying about these recent raids being about demonizing organizations the government doesn’t like, what kind of advice would you give to activists in this kind of climate?
I CERTAINLY think it’s not a time to cut back on actions, that’s for sure. If there is a need for action, it is now–whether it’s on the wars or civil liberties or immigration or otherwise. Otherwise, you’ll be basically conceding this territory to the government. So I don’t think one should pull back on major activity.
I do think one has to assume, in whatever you do, that most of what you do is wiretapped or surveilled, and there’s no doubt that the FBI guidelines are very broad on that. You have to assume that there’s an informant of some sort in a group, and that therefore what you say is going to be heard–whether by the government through surveillance or by someone in the group. And because of the breadth of the statute, you have to be extremely careful about your dealing with organizations on the [foreign terrorist] list.
When I say that, I mean your activities independent of those “terrorist” organizations are okay. So you shouldn’t pull back from that. So, for example, I can write an op-ed article tomorrow supporting the FARC in Colombia, but what I can’t do is have contact with the FARC in terms of saying that I need some help or something like that. Now, where it gets into real journalism is a harder issue.
I think organizations have to be extremely careful dealing with groups on the various terrorist lists that our government keeps. But you can do independent activities. Tomorrow, I can write an article saying “Hezbollah should be the legitimate rulers of Lebanon.” But I can’t contact Hezbollah and say, “Well I’m going to write this article, what do you think about this?” As soon as I do that, I cross a line.
I think organizations have to be extremely careful about contacts, if any, with designated terrorist organizations, and I wouldn’t recommend it. Not the way this government is acting right now and not with these decisions.
IN TERMS of the response to the FBI raids, I know there were several demonstrations in cities in the days following the raids, and when the first grand jury appearance was scheduled, even though all the activists refused to testify, people came out for that as well. Do you think that kind of public pressure is important?
I THINK those have been very helpful. I was really excited to see that there were 27 cities that had demonstrations around the raids and the grand jury appearances. And the fact that everybody decided to take the Fifth Amendment and not testify I think surprised the government. The government didn’t come back immediately and give certain people immunity, or maybe it realized they overreached a bit, and that it was a fishing expedition.
I think the demonstrations made a difference in that. That’s not saying that something more won’t happen, because you know they don’t do these things and then just walk away. But I think demonstrations did help, and protests really limit the scope that the government can act on in these kinds of raids. I think they are absolutely a crucial part of opposition.
I think that if there weren’t those protests, for all I know the government would have enforced those subpoenas right away and dragged those people right in to the grand jury. But now, maybe they’re rethinking it. They may still do it selectively–I don’t have any idea–but I certainly believe that making this into the civil liberties fight that it really is, is crucial.
France Erupts
Sarkozy Under Siege
By PHILIPPE MARLIÈRE | Counterpunch | October 20, 2010
When he entered the Elysée palace in 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy dreamed of a glorious destiny. Enthusiastic commentators predicted that his casual populism would revamp the Bonapartist right, and that his Gallic brand of neoliberal policies would sell the “American dream” to a mistrustful population. Things have not gone according to plan. Sarkozy wanted to be the French JFK; today he looks more like Louis XVI awaiting trial in 1793. He may escape the guillotine, but his presidency is now under siege.
The French are deeply unhappy with the way they have been governed, but their main grievance is about pension reform, which is seen as a cynical ploy to make ordinary people work more for inferior entitlements, while bailed-out bankers and the rich get tax rebates and continue to enjoy the high life. Over the past month, six national demonstrations have gathered together an estimated average of 3.5 million per action day. The latest, on Tuesday, was again a big success.
The movement is popular: 69% of the nation back the strikes and demonstrations; 73% want the government to withdraw the reform. And high school pupils have now joined the fray. Over 1,000 high schools are on strike as the youngsters take to the streets to protest against mass unemployment and the raising of the retirement age. The government has patronisingly labelled them as “manipulated kids”, but these comments have backfired and served only to galvanise the young, who have hardened their resistance and taken further interest in the reform. When interviewed by the media, pupils come across as articulate and knowledgable. Parents worry about their children’s future, so they will not stop them from striking.
In France, strikes and demonstrations are seen as a civilised and effective way to enact one’s citizenship. Students are expected to join marches from an early age, receiving by the same token a “political education”. France’s youth have always scared governments because of their radical potential. Student demonstrations of late have been invariably popular because people know that the young have been badly hit by unemployment over the past 30 years.
University students are preparing to strike as well. Sarkozy, like Louis XVI in 1789, does not seem to have grasped how volatile the situation has become. He should know better. Since May 1968, all governments have been forced on the ropes every time youngsters have entered a social movement. This time it could prove crucial in helping to reach a tipping point; a stage in the conflict where the balance of power switches from the government toward those opposing the pension reform.
Last week, Sarkozy had to send in riot police to reopen fuel depots blocked by strikes in several places. Yet several hundred filling stations had to shut because they had run out of supplies. Lorry and train drivers are also starting strike actions.
How can the current situation be interpreted? Undoubtedly, the rebellion seems durable and runs deeper than the question of pensions. The reform has triggered a web of collective actions that are now spreading fast. Discontent is fuelled by low incomes and unemployment, but also by the impact of the crisis on people’s daily life, the arrogance of the Sarkozy presidency, corruption cases and police brutality.
There is a sense of moral outrage at the imposition of a neoliberal medicine to cure an illness caused by the same neoliberal policies. The French are not hostile to reforms: they just demand those that redistribute wealth allocate resources to those who need it the most. Any comparison with May ’68, however, may be hasty. Then, France was experiencing a period of economic prosperity. Today, events occur in the context of a deep economic depression. This is why the political situation is potentially explosive. Radicalised workers and youngsters are forcing the unions to up their game. The normally toothless Socialist party has pledged to return the retirement age to 60, should it come back to power in 2012.
One can envisage two possible scenarios. Opposition to the reform hardens, in which case Sarkozy may have to water it down or even withdraw it. This would mark the first major popular victory in Europe against the post-2008 neoliberal order. Alternatively, Sarkozy stays put and imposes a deeply unpopular reform, in which case the political price to pay for the incumbent president would be very high, should he decide to run again in 2012.
Philippe Marlière is professor of French and European politics at University College, London (UK). He can be reached at p.marliere@ucl.ac.uk.
France arrests over 1,000 protesters
Press TV – October 19, 2010
Since the start of the week, French police have arrested close to 1,200 demonstrators protesting the French government’s proposed pension reforms.
The government’s interior ministry said that a total of 1,158 protesters have been arrested, 163 of them on Tuesday morning, AFP reported.
Police in Lyon arrested 56 people on Tuesday, including nine youths who reportedly overturned cars and set one on fire.
The Guardian reported that four policeman and one protester suffered minor injuries during the incident, and that the worst clashes occurred in the Paris suburb of Nanterre.
The General Confederation of Labour Union (CGT), which is calling for another day of action on Wednesday, says at least 3.5 million people have participated in the national strikes on Tuesday, while government and police figures put the numbers at half a million, Reuters reported.
More than 2,600 petrol stations have been shut down nationwide, as more than 47 crude oil and oil product tankers were unable to discharge at the port of Marseille due to striking port workers, Bloomberg said.
President Sarkozy responded to the national unrest following a summit with Russian and German leaders, and said, “In a democracy, everyone can express themselves but you have to do so without violence or excesses.”
“I will hold a meeting as soon as I return to Paris to unblock a certain number of situations, because there are people who want to work and who must not be deprived of petrol,” said Sarkozy, who was speaking in Deauville at a summit with the leaders of Russia and Germany.
France has been hit by several coordinated strikes in the past two months in opposition to the proposed pension reforms that would increase the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62 and the full state pension age from 65 to 67.
Sarkozy has refused to back down from his pension reform bill, which is expected to pass through parliament by the end of the week.
Featured Video
Trump Announces Operation To Escort Ships – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Who Runs Our World?
Netanyahu addresses US Congress
By Richard Hugus | January 4, 2019
Our world is run by oligarchs, the holders of vast wealth from monopolies in banking, resource extraction, manufacturing, and technology. Oligarchs have such power that most of the world doesn’t even know of their influence over our lives. Their overall agenda is global power — a world government, run by them — to be achieved through planned steps of social engineering. The oligarchs remain in the background and have heads of state and entire governments acting in their service. Presidents and prime ministers are their puppets. Bureaucrats and politicians are their factotums.
Who are politicians? Politicians are people who work for the powerful while pretending to represent the people who voted for them. This double-dealing involves a lot of lying, so successful politicians must be good at it. It’s not an easy job to make the insane agenda of the powerful seem reasonable. Politicians can’t reveal this agenda because it almost always goes against the interests of their constituents, so they become adept at sophistry, mystification, and the appearance of authority. For example, wars for Israel have been part of the agenda of the powerful for years. Since 2001, wars for Israel have been sold as “the war on terror” and lots of lies had to be made up as to why the war on terror was a real thing. The visible faces promoting the war on terror were neoconservatives in the US, almost all of whom were advocates for Israel, or Zionists. Zionists are not the only members of the oligarchy, but they seem to be its lead actors. ... continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- How ‘Israel’s’ Iran regime change plot failed – again
- 1977 Influenza Pandemic Sequence Shows Signs of Laboratory Creation: Journal ‘Cell’
- China issues first prohibition order to safeguard international trade order under rule of law
- Iran rejects Trump’s ‘Project Freedom,’ warns US over Hormuz role
- TRUMP ANNOUNCES OPERATION TO ESCORT SHIPS – Fmr. CIA Analyst Larry Johnson
- A few observations on Iran’s latest proposal to Trump
- ‘I urged that our objective be regime change… so did Netanyahu’ – ex-Trump adviser on Iran
- “STAGED”: Conspiracy Theories Are Everywhere!
- NATO courts screenwriters to embed alliance messaging in film, TV
- Iran replaces UAE ports with Pakistan corridor to break US blockade
- If Americans Knew
- As Palestinians die, Ben-Gvir celebrates birthday with golden noose cake – Daily Update
- Israel’s New Ambassador to the ‘Christian World’ Served as Envoy to Azerbaijan During the Ethnic Cleansing of Christians from Nagorno-Karabakh
- US set to sell $1B “Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System” to Israel – Daily Update
- Israeli Strikes Kill at Least 32 Across S Lebanon, Including Children – Amid “Ceasefire”
- Israel to pour $730m into propaganda arm amid reputational crisis
- Real Cost of Iran War Likely Double the $25 Billion Figure the Pentagon Gave to Congress
- Israel conducts farthest-ever strike in long history of attacks on Gaza humanitarian aid flotillas
- In Gaza, Israel commits 10+ ceasefire violations a day – Daily Update
- US ships 6,500 tons of munitions, equipment to Israel in 24 hours
- A New Library in Gaza Rises From the Ashes of Destruction
- No Tricks Zone
- Another Study Links Warming To Cloud Forcing, Shortwave Radiation, Natural Atmospheric Circulation
- Wind Energy Is Toxic, Hazardous To Human Health, Scientific Review Shows
- Oversupply Of Volatile Solar Energy Leads To Record NEGATIVE Prices!
- New Study: Extreme Heat Records, Heatwaves, Extreme Cold Records Declining Across US Since 1899
- It’s The Cold, Stupid! Cold 20 Times More Lethal Than Heat, Multiple Studies Show
- European Institute For Climate And Energy: “Climate Debate is Seldom About Science”
- New Study: The Climate May Be 5 Times More Sensitive To Solar Forcing Than Commonly Assumed
- EV Industry Reached $70 Billion In Losses In 2024 Due To Delusional Green Ideologies
- Reality Check: Maldives Have Actually Grown In Size Or Remained Stable Over Recent Decades
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
Aletho News 