Israeli education ministry approves new ‘whites-only’ settlement school
IMEMC – August 26, 2010
Several months ago, a religious school in the illegal Israeli settlement of Immanuel was criticized for segregating white Jewish students from non-white Jewish students in classes.
Ethiopian Jewish student – not allowed to study at new school (photo by Jewish Middlesex)
Originally, the school was fined for this policy of racial segregation, because the school was state funded. Now, the Israeli education ministry has agreed with the white parents’ request to allow the school to continue with its racial discrimination under private funding.
There is no law preventing racial discrimination by private organizations, even schools, in Israel.
The Israeli court has interpreted these laws to also apply to illegal West bank settlements, like Immanuel, which are located in areas that are supposed to be under Palestinian control. The Palestinian Authority does not allow racial discrimination, but due to the Israeli military occupation of the Palestinian Territories, it has no authority over the area in question.
74 white girls who have been studying in a building next to the school will now be allowed to study in whites-only classrooms that are privately funded, as their parents claim they do not want their girls to study in racially-mixed classrooms.
See also:
Education Ministry approves new private school in West Bank settlement
Jordan presses ahead with energy programme despite US disapproval
Ammon News | August 25, 2010
AMMAN // Jordan’s civilian nuclear programme is gaining momentum, even as negotiations with Washington stall over a nuclear agreement that would allow US firms to transfer nuclear know-how, equipment and fuel to this nation of 6.4 million people.
The main impetus driving Jordan’s civilian nuclear programme is the growing demand for energy. Jordanian officials say nuclear power would reduce Jordan’s dependence on imported oil and serve as a long-term alternative for electricity generation, water desalination and energy security. It could also allow Jordan to export electricity to neighbouring countries.
Three years ago, Jordan imported 96 per cent of its energy at a cost of US$3.2 billion (Dh11.75bn), or 24 per cent of imports and 20 per cent of GDP. In the first half of 2009, the cost of crude-oil imports increased by 132 per cent, and by the end of the year they were costing the country US$4 bn. Last year, despite a drop in oil prices, energy costs consumed 11.8 per cent of Jordan’s GDP, according to the ministry of energy.
Jordanian officials say they cannot afford to pause efforts to meet the country’s energy needs. Preparations are under way for a plant set to be located 11 kilometres east of the Aqaba coastline along the Red Sea in southern Jordan and expected to generate 750 to 1,100 megawatts of electricity starting in 2019.
“We are pressing ahead with our programme. The commission has entered into a competitive dialogue with three technology providers we have short-listed as the most preferred bidders to build the country’s first power plant in 2013,” Khalid Touqan, chairman of the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC), said. “We will eventually decide on the most preferred technology by the end of March next year.”
Companies from Canada and Russia, as well as a Franco-Japanese consortium, are bidding to oversee construction of as many as four nuclear power plants in Jordan in the next three decades, Mr Touqan said.
Already, Jordan has signed nuclear co-operation deals with eight countries – including France, the UK, China and Russia – and is aiming to sign similar deals with Japan, the Czech Republic and Romania by the end of the year, Mr Touqan said. These agreements involve technical exchange, employee training, nuclear-fuel disposal, nuclear safety, public education and advice on regulatory frameworks.
Last month, South Korea also loaned $70 million for the construction of a $130m, five-megawatt research reactor at the Jordan University of Science and Technology.
Ironically, what has complicated Jordan’s drive for nuclear energy and its close ties with Washington are major deposits of uranium discovered on its soil.
Officials here now believe the country has the potential to fuel nuclear power plants using its own resources, as well as export uranium ore, following the discovery of 65,000 tonnes of uranium in central Jordan. Uranium extracted from phosphate deposits could boost that total to 110,000 tonnes, representing nearly two per cent of the global total, according the World Nuclear Association.
Jordan has signed an exploration agreement with the French company Areva. The commission, along with the Chinese mining company Sino Uranium and the British-Australian company Rio Tinto, are currently exploring uranium deposits in the northern and southern parts of Jordan, Mr Touqan said.
“We knew that we had uranium since the Eighties, but not in commercial amounts,” he added. “Field work is showing promising results.”
Washington’s concern that a nuclear-armed Iran may prompt other countries in the region to develop nuclear weapons, has prompted it to prod one of its key Mideast allies to forgo uranium enrichment altogether, much as the UAE did when it signed a pact with the US in January 2009. But resource-scarce Jordan does not want to give up its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which it signed in 1974.
It is not economically feasible for Jordan to build an enrichment plant now, but as regional demand for uranium grows, that may change, said a Jordanian official close to the negotiations.
A US State Department official, who spoke to The National on condition of anonymity, said his country supports civilian uses of nuclear energy in Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East.
“We continue to conduct negotiations with Jordan on a possible agreement for nuclear co-operation”, the official said. “We are working with our partners to develop the infrastructure necessary to meet the highest provided international standards for safety, security, and non-proliferation of such programmes.”
But the Jordanian official, who also agreed to be quoted only on condition of anonymity, said that although Jordan has no plans to process and enrich uranium, it does not want to give up its right to do so.
“Under the NPT, we are allowed to enrich uranium by up to 20 per cent for peaceful means. We only need four per cent enrichment to power the plants,” he said.
An additional protocol the country signed with the IAEA in 1998 allows unannounced inspections of any nuclear facility in Jordan.
“This makes us not only transparent, but committed to the highest levels of the requirements of non-proliferation,” the official said.
By Suha Philip Ma’ayeh, Foreign Correspondent/ The National
Yale conference on anti-Semitism targets Palestinian identity, ’self-hating’ Jews, and anyone who criticizes Israel
By Philip Weiss on August 25, 2010
This is disturbing. A Yale University center that purports to study anti-Semitism is holding a three-day conference on “the crisis” of global anti-Semitism (ending tomorrow) that is dedicated to the idea that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic.
The flotilla raid, anti-Semitic. Helen Thomas, anti-Semitic. The very idea of Palestinian identity, anti-Semitic.
That last claim–“The Central Role of Palestinian Antisemitism in Creating the Palestinian Identity”–was put forward Monday, shockingly, by Itamar Marcus, a leader of the settler movement in the occupied West Bank. Marcus has connections to the Central Fund of Israel, which raises money here for the settlers, including their “urgent security needs.”
The conference opened with a speech from an official of the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Aviva Raz-Schechter. And Charles Small, director of the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, which is hosting the conference, said last spring that the confab was about Israel:
The largest number of papers, and therefore reflecting the greatest concern, address contemporary antisemitism and the demonization of Israel and those associated or made to be associated with Israel. There is a paper on issues of Jewish self-hatred and how some Jews, especially intellectuals, are distancing themselves from Israel.
That’s anti-Semitism? Here is the panel on “self-hatred”:
Plenary: Self Hatred and Contemporary Antisemitism • Professor Doron Ben-Atar, Fordham University: “Without Ahavath Yisrael [love for the people of Israel]: Thoughts on Radical Anti-Zionism at Brandeis” • Professor Richard Landes, Boston University: “Scourges and Their Audiences: What Drives Jews to Loathe Israel Publicly and What To Do About It?” • Professor Alvin Rosenfeld, Indiana University: “Beyond Criticism and Dissent: On Jewish Contributions to the Delegitimation of Israel”
The speakers’ list is here. Many of the speakers have Israel agendas, including Irwin Cotler, the Canadian politician who has led attacks on the Goldstone Report; Ruth Wisse, the Harvard Yiddishist who has called on young American Jews to enlist in an army of Israel defenders in the U.S.; Barak Seener, who has incited against the Palestinian citizens of Israel as a threat from within; Anne Bayefsky of the neoconservative Hudson Institute, another Goldstone attacker; Mark Dubowitz, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, whose main issue is cracking down on Iran; Anne Herzberg of the NGO Monitor, again an Israel advocacy group; Samuel Edelman of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, another Israel lobbyist; and Menahem Milson of the Elliott Abrams-linked hasbara outfit, MEMRI.
One person who alerted me to the conference, Charlotte Kates, writes: “Amazingly enough from the descriptions, this does not appear to be a conference sponsored by Hillel or other open advocacy groups, but rather by an academic center at the University. It’s particularly interesting that… an academic conference scorning the very concept of Palestinian identity and inviting presenters from NGO Monitor, ‘Palestinian Media Watch’ and MEMRI passes almost without comment at all – and the very same people who attack Palestinian scholars’ academic freedom find conferences such as this to be perfectly acceptable and legitimate.”
I don’t think it’s possible to understand this conference without understanding the prominence of Zionist donors in prestige institutional life. The other person who alerted me to the conference, Ben White, rightly focuses on the besmirching of Yale University by the presence of this festival of propaganda: “What is the role of Yale/academia in this kind of exercise?” And what a travesty, he adds, that “fighting anti-semitism – an anti-racist struggle – is being openly appropriated by far-right Zionist groupings, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, lobbyists like NGO Monitor, and Orientalist ‘Arab/anti-terror experts’.”
Update: A friend points out the role of Richard Landes. He keeps peddling the story that the death of Muhammad al-Durra (the six-year-old Gazan boy who was killed at the start of the intifada) was staged, something that Gerald Steinberg says is now “widely accepted.” Landes even set up an entire website more or less dedicated to peddling the conspiracy theory; check out his attempt to present in an even-handed manner his ‘five different scenarios’ for the killing.
Israeli army escorts 500 Jewish Israelis into controversial settlement near Nablus
By Saed Bannoura – IMEMC News – August 25, 2010
500 Israeli citizens, escorted by dozens of military vehicles, drove by bus deep into the West Bank on Wednesday in a provocative visit to a West Bank settlement. The settlement has been the home of a number of violent attackers of local Palestinians, and many incidents of violence have originated from the settlement.
The most recent incident was the burning of Palestinian olive trees in the area this past weekend, just one of dozens of arsons that no police force has investigated.
On Wednesday, dozens of buses entered the West Bank in violation of the Oslo agreement and other signed accords, in the second such incident this month. On August 5th, around 300 Israelis were escorted into the same area to visit a site known as ‘Joseph’s Tomb’.
During the incursion, Israeli military forces that had been deployed in the area implemented increased security checks on the Palestinian residents of the region, delaying some people for several hours at checkpoints in order to allow the Jewish worshipers to pass freely.
The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank was recently given the authority by Israeli military rulers to be able to refurbish the site, which is a holy place of pilgrimage to Christians, Muslims and Jews. Israeli Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger criticized the idea of Palestinians having control over a holy site that is on their own land – despite the fact that Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy sites were all preserved and maintained during the hundreds of years of Muslim rule over the Holy Land, the Rabbis stated, “If the PA receives the right to refurbish the holy grave site, it is clear that it will end up becoming a mosque…How can we give them authority and ownership over the place that is one of the three [in addition to Jerusalem and Hevron] that our Sages teach that the Gentiles cannot claim is not ours?… Such a disgrace cannot be allowed.”
The tomb is located near Balata refugee camp in Nablus, where thousands of Palestinian refugees live after having been exiled from their homes in what is now Israel.
After the last such incident, Taleb Abu Sha’ar, the Minister of Religious Affairs in Gaza challenged the Israeli military’s decision to escort the invading civilians, calling it a violation and provocation.
Mossad in America
Israeli intelligence steps up its activity in the U.S. — and gets away with it.
By Philip Giraldi | American Conservative | August 23, 2010
Israeli government claims that it does not spy on the United States are intended for the media and popular consumption. The reality is that Israel’s intelligence agencies target the United States intensively, particularly in pursuit of military and dual-use civilian technology. Among nations considered to be friendly to Washington, Israel leads all others in its active espionage directed against American companies and the Defense Department. It also dominates two commercial sectors that enable it to extend its reach inside America’s domestic infrastructure: airline and telecommunications security. Israel is believed to have the ability to monitor nearly all phone records originating in the United States, while numerous Israeli air-travel security companies are known to act as the local Mossad stations.
As tensions with Iran increase, sources in the counterintelligence community report that Israeli agents have become more aggressive in targeting Muslims living in the United States as well as in operating against critics. There have been a number of cases reported to the FBI about Mossad officers who have approached leaders in Arab-American communities and have falsely represented themselves as “U.S. intelligence.” Because few Muslims would assist an Israeli, this is done to increase the likelihood that the target will cooperate. It’s referred to as a “false flag” operation.
Mossad officers sought to recruit Arab-Americans as sources willing to inform on their associates and neighbors. The approaches, which took place in New York and New Jersey, were reportedly handled clumsily, making the targets of the operation suspicious. These Arab-Americans turned down the requests for cooperation, and some of the contacts were eventually reported to the FBI, which has determined that at least two of the Mossad officers are, ironically, Israeli Arabs operating out of Israel’s mission to the United Nations in New York under cover as consular assistants.
In another bizarre case, U.S.S. Liberty survivor Phil Tourney was recently accosted in Southern California by a foreigner who eventually identified himself as an Israeli government representative. Tourney was taunted, and the Israeli threatened both him and journalist Mark Glenn, who has been reporting on the Liberty story. Tourney was approached in a hotel lounge, and it is not completely clear how the Israeli was able to identify him. But he knew exactly who Tourney was, as the official referred to the Liberty, saying that the people who had been killed on board had gotten what they deserved. There were a number of witnesses to the incident, including Tourney’s wife. The threat has been reported to the FBI, which is investigating, but Tourney and Glenn believe that the incident is not being taken seriously by the bureau.
FBI sources indicate that the increase in Mossad activity is a major problem, particularly when Israelis are posing as U.S. government officials, but they also note that there is little they can do to stop it as the Justice Department refuses to initiate any punitive action or prosecutions of the Mossad officers who have been identified as involved in the illegal activity.
In another ongoing Israeli spy case, Stewart Nozette appears to be headed towards eventual freedom as his case drags on through the District of Columbia courts. Nozette, an aerospace scientist with a top secret clearance and access to highly sensitive information, offered to sell classified material to a man he believed to be a Mossad officer, but who instead turned out to be with the FBI. Nozette has been in jail since October, but he has now been granted an additional 90-day delay so his lawyers can review the documents in the government’s case, many of which are classified. If Nozette demands that sensitive information be used in his defense, his case will likely follow the pattern set in the nine-times-postponed trial of AIPAC spies Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, who were ultimately acquitted in April 2009 when prosecutors determined that they could not make their case without doing significant damage to national security. A month after Rosen and Weissman were freed, Ben-Ami Kadish, who admitted to providing defense secrets to Israel while working as an engineer at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, walked out of a Manhattan court after paying a fine. He did no jail time and continues to receive his substantial Defense Department pension.
The mainstream media reported the Rosen and Weissman trial intermittently, but there was virtually no coverage of Ben-Ami Kadish, and there has been even less of Nozette. Compare that with the recent reporting on the Russian spies who, by all accounts, did almost nothing and never obtained any classified information. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that spying for Israel is consequence free.
————————————-
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. His “Deep Background” column appears every month exclusively in The American Conservative.
LATE VICTORIAN HOLOCAUSTS BY MIKE DAVIS

BOOK REVIEW
Critics of globalization point out with some justice that poor people around the world suffer far more than the citizens of industrialized nations during downturns in the global economy. Peasants in developing countries can find their lives hanging in the balance during a rise in food prices or a decline in the global market value of the goods they produce. Never was this more true than during the hey-day of the European imperialism in the last three decades of the nineteenth century. Aggressive trade practices and the ruthless use of military force effectively subdued nations in Asia, Africa, and South America and brought these countries into a global trade system. By the 1870s, and certainly by the turn of the century, many European countries, above all Great Britain, had created the world’s first global market economy. Financial markets in London, Paris, Amsterdam, and elsewhere were linked by telegraph to places where raw materials were produced for European consumption, while established trade routes were patrolled by European navies (particularly the Royal Navy). The economic power of the extensive British Empire was unparalleled and the inner workings of the global system dominated by London determined the fate of innumerable people around the world.
It is with the workings of the British economic system and their impact on indigenous populations in India, China, and elsewhere that Mike Davis’ book Late Victorian Holocausts is concerned. Davis’ point of departure is a simple question. Why is it that widespread hunger in Western Europe disappeared in the nineteenth century while famine and disease raged throughout multiple places in what today we would call the “Third World”? Davis provides a simple answer: European imperialism (especially British imperialism) created a global economic system through which the food and wealth of conquered nations (i.e. colonies) was siphoned off for the benefit of wealthy and powerful Europeans, while those in the colonies were left to starve and die. The result was mass death (what Davis calls “holocausts”) on an unprecedented scale in India, China, Brazil and other places, that was most intense during the El Niño drought years of 1876-77 and 1888-1902.
This imperial global economic system was certainly not a “free” market in any sense of the word. It was in fact bolstered by a long series of tariffs and unfavorable trade relationships that were forced by Europeans upon the peoples they conquered. Colonies were in turn subjected to economic pressure dictated by and manipulated from financial centers in Western Europe. It was these economic forces, as well as brutal gunboat diplomacy, that Davis argues created the Third World as we know it today.
THE “FREE MARKET” AS A MECHANISM OF MASS MURDER
Davis’ primary focus in fleshing out his story is the crown jewel of Britain’s colonial empire: India. Drought was the precipitating cause of the hardship faced by the Indian people. However, Davis demonstrates with statistics and anecdotes that it was the unregulated “free market” system imposed on India by Britain that led to the deaths of tens of millions in the mid-1870s and late 1880s.
How did death and human suffering on such a massive scale happen? Following the English conquest of India in the early nineteenth century, economic relationships in the sub-continent underwent revolutionary changes. Thousands of miles of railroad track were laid. Telegraph wire was strung between outlying areas and the capitol city of Bombay (Mumbai today). Central grain collection depots were created and Indian grain was exported in massive quantities to the British Isles. Also, Indian subsistence farmers were gradually forced out in favor of large land enclosures. Within these new enclosures cash crops like cotton were planted, which supplied the textile mills of Lancashire, but which could not feed the Indian peasants who farmed the land. Finally, the tax burden upon the Indian peasantry was increased exorbitantly to pay for these “improvements”. British authorities needed the revenue to finance war in neighboring Afghanistan.
The innovations imposed by the British on India re-directed the trajectory of Indian commerce and especially food production toward Great Britain and away from the local village markets where the food was needed. Rail lines and the adjacent grain depots enabled British authorities to stockpile grain and keep it under guard away from the people who needed it most, while telegraph lines dictated the price of grain on world commodities markets to local producers. When grain prices rose across the board in global trading, peasants could not afford to buy food.
In the face of these crippling economic forces, British colonial authorities did nothing, primarily because they would not “tamper” with the operation of the liberal “free” market that Britain had created. The Viceroy of India during the famine years of the 1870s was Lord Lytton, a mentally unbalanced English noble. Davis recounts that in the midst of widespread famine and the deaths of millions all around him, Lytton maintained a strict laissez-faire attitude toward famine relief. As Lytton wrote at the time, “there is to be no interference of any kind on the part of the Government with the object of reducing the price of food,” a policy proposal Lytton termed “humanitarian hysterics” and “cheap sentiment”. (p. 31)
Lytton and his fellow administrators preferred instead to blame the “laziness” of famine victims themselves for causing their own dire fate. Citing Lord Temple, “Nor will; many be inclined to grieve much for the fate which they brought upon themselves, and which terminated lives of idleness and too often of crime”. (p. 41) The task of saving life, therefore, was “beyond our power to undertake,” claimed Temple and Lytton, and it was “a mistake to spend so much money to save a lot of black fellows”. (p. 37)
British officials were thus completely unwilling to intervene in the operation of the “free” market despite seeing death on a massive scale all around them. Overall at least 7.1 million people, and perhaps as many as 10.3 million people, died during the famine years of 1876-1878. (p. 111) Furthermore, despite death on this scale and falling production caused by drought, British officials in India still managed to export 6.4 million cwt. of wheat to Great Britain. (p. 31)
LIFE AND DEATH FOLLOWS THE MARKET CYCLE
The years following 1879 were a time when the world market continued to expand. Monsoonal rains settled back into a normal pattern and grain production around the world rose considerably. These were also years when Britain and other colonial powers expanded their reach into the interior of the subjugated countries they held. In India, even more land is brought under cultivation. These lands are then connected to the market by expanded telegraph and rail lines. Then in 1888-89 and 1891-92, the bottom again fell out of the system as El Niño drought gripped the temperate regions of Asia once more.
The resulting death from famine and disease, caused by the very same factors operating in India and elsewhere in the 1870s, was unfathomably huge. By 1902 in India alone between 12.2 and 29.3 million people perished. In China, where the British, Americans, and other European powers controlled practically all trade using military force, between 19.5 and 30 million people died. In Brazil another 2 million perished over the same time span. (p. 7).
THE “FREE” MARKET AND THE MAKING OF THE THIRD WORLD
Mike Davis demonstrates beyond a doubt that the economic structure of exploitative globalization is not a new phenomenon in the world. The lives of millions of people who formerly had survived in localized economies based on subsistence farming were wiped out “in the process of being forcibly incorporated” into the modern world system. (p. 9) Davis reminds us that markets are never free and they never operate according to “iron laws” of economics. Rather, markets are created and often the power underpinning their operation is fiscal manipulation and simple brute force.
Great Britain’s global imperial economy was a case in point. It was never a “free” market. England imposed unfavorable trade terms and high tariff walls on India, China and on all of the other countries in its empire. Local economies forced open by the British were sucked dry of their vital raw materials and in return peasants were forced to buy expensive British manufactured goods. This practice was put into place throughout the colonial world by France, Portugal, Spain, Germany and other colonial powers. If anything, the economies of European colonies were more captive markets than free markets.
The latter point is perhaps the most important conclusion of Late Victorian Holocausts; specifically, that what we call the Third World today was a product of European and, to a lesser extent, American economic exploitation. The incorporation of formerly powerful countries like China and India into the global economy by Great Britain and others effectively destroyed indigenous production. Contrary to conventional wisdom, until around 1850, India and China had actually held their own against Europeans when it came to industrial production. The localized production of wealth and industry, however, was halted and then reversed by the imposition of the global economic system. It is for this reason, Davis concludes, that India’s per capita income did not increase between 1757 and 1947; and in fact declined by more than 50% between 1850 and 1900. (p. 311).
Israel & The Anti-Muslim Blow-Up
August 18, 2010 — MJ Rosenberg
I don’t know why I am at all surprised that the American Right — including the Republican Party — has decided that scapegoating Muslims is the ticket to success. After all, it’s nothing new.
I remember right after 9/11 when the columnist Charles Krauthammer, now one of the most vocal anti-Muslim demagogues, almost literally flipped out in my Chevy Chase, Maryland synagogue when the rabbi said something about the importance of not associating the terrorist attacks with Muslims in general.
It was on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year, but that did not stop Krauthammer from bellowing out his disagreement with the rabbi. Krauthammer’s point: Israel and America are at war with Muslims and that war must be won.
It was shocking, not only because Krauthammer’s outburst was so utterly out of place but also because the man was actually chastising the rabbi for not spouting hate against all Muslims — on the Day of Atonement.
The following year, the visiting rabbi from Israel gave a sermon about the intifada that was then raging in Israel and the West Bank.
The sermon was a nutty affair that tearfully made the transition from intifada to Holocaust and back again. I remember thinking, “this guy is actually blaming the Palestinians for the suffering of his parents during the Holocaust.” I thought I had missed something because it was so ridiculous.
Then came the sermon’s ending which was unforgettable. The rabbi concluded with the words from Ecclesiastes. “To everything there is a season. A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, a time to reap…A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance….”
He then looked up and said: “Now is the time to hate.”
At first, I thought I had not heard him correctly. He could not be calling on the congregation to hate. There were dozens of children in the room. It wasn’t possible.
But it was. To their credit, many of the congregants I spoke with as we left the sanctuary were appalled. Even the right-wingers were uncomfortable with endorsing hate as a virtue. Yet, the rabbi was unrepentant. I emailed him to complain and he told me that he said what he believed. Nice.
One could ask what the Middle East has to do with the vicious outbreak of Islamophobia (actually Islamo-hatred) that has seemingly seized segments of this country.
The answer is everything. Although the hate is directed at Arab-Americans (which makes it worse) it is justified by invoking [the mass media/official narrative of] 9/11, an attack [supposedly carried out] by Muslims from the Middle East.
This hate is buttressed by the hatred of Muslims and Arabs that has been routinely uttered (or shouted from the rooftops) in the name of defending Israel for decades Just watch what goes on in Congress, where liberals from New York, Florida, California and elsewhere never miss an opportunity to explain that no matter what Israel does, it is right, and no matter what Muslims do, they are wrong.
Can anyone possibly argue that such insidious rhetoric has no impact on public opinion? At the very least, it gives anti-Arab and/or anti-Muslim bias a legitimacy that other forms of hate no longer have. Bigots who hate African-Americans or Jews, for instance, feel that they must claim that they don’t. That is not the case with Muslims who can be despised with impunity.
And here the liberals are worse than the conservatives because liberals exempt Muslims and Arabs (and now Turks) from the humanitarian instincts that inform their views of all other groups. Conservatives combine their Arab-bashing with a general xenophobia…
Liberals, on the other hand, single out Muslims for contempt. They do it actively — i.e., by defending every single Israeli action against Arabs with vehement enthusiasm. And they do it passively, by refusing to evince an iota of sympathy for Muslims who suffer and die at the hands of Israelis — like the 432 Palestinian children killed in the 2008 Gaza war.
Liberals join conservatives in rushing to the floor of the House and Senate to defend the Israelis against any accusation (remember how they robotically attacked the Goldstone report on Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, not caring at about the horrors Goldstone described). And then they read their AIPAC talking points, enumerating all the terrible things Arabs have done while Israel has, Gandhi-like, consistently offered the hand of friendship. It would be laughable if the effect of all this was not so ugly.
Why wouldn’t all this hatred affect the perception of Arab-Americans too? Hate invariably overflows its containers, just like hatred of Israel sometimes crosses over into pure old-fashioned anti-Semitism.
Bottom line: it’s a witches’ brew that is being stirred up, and it is one that will no doubt produce violence. But the witches are not all on the right. Just as many liberals are stirring the pot to please some of their donors.
I’m not saying you should not blame Beck and Limbaugh for all this hate. But don’t forget to blame your favorite liberal and progressive politicians. With a few (very few) exceptions, they are just as bad.
Deceptive Economic Statistics
While Economists Lied, the Economy Died
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS | August 18, 2010
On August 17, Bloomberg reported a US government release that industrial production rose twice as much as forecast, climbing 1 percent. Bloomberg interpreted this to mean that “increased business investment is propelling the gains in manufacturing, which accounts for 11 percent of the world’s largest economy.”
The stock market rose.
Let’s look at this through the lens of statistician John Williams of shadowstats.com.
Williams reports that “the primary driver of a 1.0% monthly gain in seasonally-adjusted July industrial production” was “warped seasonal factors” caused by “the irregular patterns in U.S. auto production in the last two years.” Industrial production “shrank by 1.0% before seasonal adjustments.”
If the government and Bloomberg had announced that industrial production fell by 1.0% in July, would the stock market have risen 104 points on August 17?
Notice that Bloomberg reports that manufacturing accounts for 11 percent of the US economy. I remember when manufacturing accounted for 18% of the US economy. The decline of 39% is due to jobs offshoring.
Think about that. Wall Street and shareholders and executives of transnational corporations have made billions by moving 39% of US manufacturing offshore to boost the GDP and employment of foreign countries, such as China, while impoverishing their former American work force. Congress and the economics profession have cheered this on as “the New Economy.”
Bought-and-paid-for-economists told us that “the new economy” would make us all rich, and so did the financial press. We were well rid, they claimed, of the “old” industries and manufactures, the departure of which destroyed the tax base of so many American cities and states and the livelihood of millions of Americans.
The bought-and-paid-for-economists got all the media forums for a decade. While they lied, the US economy died.
Now, back to statistical deception. On August 17 the census Bureau reported a small gain in July 2010 residential construction housing starts. More hope orchestrated. In fact, the “gain,” as John Williams reports, was due to a large downward revision” in June’s reporting. The reported July “gain” would “have been a contraction” without the downward revision in June’s “gain.”
So, the overestimate of June housing not only made June look good, but also the downward correction of the June number makes July look good, because starts rose above the corrected June number. The same manipulation is likely to happen again next month.
If the government will lie to you about Iraqi weapons of mass production, Iranian nukes, why won’t they lie to you about the economy?
We now have an all-time high of Americans on food stamps, 40.8 million people, about 14% of the population. By next year the government estimates that food stamp dependency will rise to 43 million Americans. So last week Congress cut food stamp benefits. Let them eat cake.
Wherever one looks–food stamps, home foreclosures, bankrupted states, mounting joblessness, the message to long-suffering Americans from “their government” is the same: go eat cake, while we fight wars for Israel that enrich the military/security complex and while we bail out banksters whose annual incomes are in the tens of millions of dollars and up.
It is impossible to get any truth out of the US government about anything. If private companies used US government accounting, the executives would be prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.
“Our government” is committed to fighting wars to enrich the military/security complex and Israel’s territorial expansion at the expense of cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
All most members of Congress, especially Republicans, want to do is to pay for the pointless wars by cutting Social Security and Medicare.
When they worry about the deficit, it is usually Social Security and Medicare–so-called “entitlements” that are in the crosshairs.
You don’t have to be smart to see that Wall Street’s and the government’s response to the amazing US budget deficit is not to stop the senseless wars and bailouts of mega-millionaires, but to cut “entitlements.”
I will end this column on unemployment. “Our government” tells us that the unemployment rate is just under 10 percent, a figure that would have wrecked any post-Great Depression administration. But, again, “our government” is lying.
Compare this fact with the number you read from the financial press. Right now, if measured according to the methodology of 1980, the US unemployment rate is about 22%. Thus, the reported rate of unemployment hides more than half of the unemployed.
And Secretary Treasury Tim Geithner welcomed us in the August 2 NewYork Times to “the recovery.”
Utterly amazing.
###
Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Facebook scandal escalates as group posts new photos
Ma’an – 17/08/2010
BETHLEHEM — An Israeli human rights group has released pictures of Israeli soldiers and border guards alongside blindfolded and handcuffed Palestinian detainees — some of them dead.
Breaking the Silence set up a group on Facebook entitled “the norm denied by Avi Benayahu,” an Israeli military spokesman who described the recent release of photographs by an ex-soldier next to detainees as exceptional.
“The new campaign came into being in the wake of the publication of Eden Abergil’s photos, in order to show the prevalence of this phenomenon among IDF ranks,” Breaking the Silence said in a statement to the Israeli news site Ynet.
“The photographs that had been published are merely the tip of the iceberg. Many people possess thousands of photos, but only a small part is being published … we turned Eden into a scapegoat, while the norm is what needs to be targeted.”
The original photos prompted a harsh reaction from the Palestinian Authority. “This shows the mentality of the occupier, to be proud of humiliating Palestinians. There is nothing in the world that can justify [this] humiliation that is part of the Israeli occupation practices on [a] daily basis,” the PA’s Government Media Center said in a statement.
“Occupation is unjust, immoral and, as these pictures show, corrupting. It should end and Palestinian rights and dignity be respected. We call upon all human rights defenders to make all efforts to end the Israeli occupation and close this dark era for humanity,” the statement added.
Abergil posted the photos in her Facebook album “Army…best time of my life:)” in early August. The series of images, since removed from her page, displayed Abergil posing with blindfolded and handcuffed detainees who were apparently seized during a recent army raid in the occupied West Bank.
‘Miami Herald’ breaks US taboo on describing Palestinians’ second-class citizenship
By Philip Weiss on August 15, 2010
Californian George Bisharat and Nimer Sultany (a civil rights attorney in Israel now at Harvard Law School Ph.D. program) have a fabulous op-ed in the Miami Herald, challenging Americans to demand equal rights for Palestinian Israelis as part of any peace deal.
Consider what it would be like if:
• Our Constitution defined the union as a “white Christian democratic state?”
• Our laws still barred marriage across ethnic-religious lines?
• Our government appointed a Chief Priest, empowered to define membership criteria for the white Christian nation?
• Our government legally enabled immigration by white Christians while barring it for others?
• Our government funded a Center for Demography that worked to increase the birth rates of white Christians to ensure their majority status?
These examples all have parallels in Israeli practices.
While Israel’s Palestinian citizens have rights to vote, run for office, form political parties and to speak relatively freely, they remain politically marginalized. No Palestinian party has ever been invited to join a ruling coalition. In recent years, Palestinian politicians and community leaders have been criminally prosecuted or hounded into exile.
Nadim Rouhana, social psychologist and director of Mada al-Carmel (a center studying Palestinian citizens of Israel) reports: “Our empirical research reveals that many Palestinian citizens are alienated from the Israeli state. At a deep psychological level, the daily message conveyed in Israeli public discourse is: `You are not one of us. You don’t belong here. You are permanent outsiders.’ Imagine: we, whose families have lived here for centuries, hear this even from recently immigrated Jewish Israeli politicians.”
Clinton mobilizes Jewish groups to support ‘gadget geek’ imprisoned in Cuba
By Henry Norr on August 11, 2010
The case of Alan P. Gross is very old news, but I’d missed it until last night, when I heard a funny report about it from veteran activist, author, and filmmaker Saul Landau on a KPFA radio show called La Raza Chronicles. [The segment begins about 9 minutes 18 seconds into the online archive.] Googling to learn more, I found not only several online posts by Landau (here and, with Nelson Valdes, here), but also a slew of articles in mainstream outlets (especially the Washington Post) and the Jewish press.
For others who may have missed the story, though, here’s the gist: Gross is a 60-year-old “international development expert” employed by something called Development Alternatives Inc., a Beltway contractor to (allegedly) the U.S. Agency for International Development. He’s been sitting in a Cuban jail since last December on suspicion of spying on behalf of American intelligence. He had entered Cuba five times on a tourist visit, but was actually engaged in delivering cell phones, laptops, and satellite phones (prohibited in Cuba) to “human rights and political activists” and families of dissidents. His psychotherapist wife Judy claimed to the Post that “her husband, a ‘gadget geek,’ had seemed unaware that he was courting danger when a Bethesda contractor signed him up to provide Internet access to civil-society groups on the island.”
(How does a “tourist” manage to get so much gear into Cuba? I have no idea, even though I myself supposedly carried 128 typewriters with me when I traveled to the island on the Venceremos Brigade in 1969 – one of several imaginative tidbits I discovered, between page after page of redactions, when I got copies of my CIA file under the Freedom of Information Act back in the 1970s.)
Why bring up the Gross story here? Not just that one of Alan’s first jobs was taking Jews from his hometown of Baltimore on trips to Israel, or that his résumé as a “development worker” included a stint “assisting Palestinian dairy farmers,” or that Judy had a welcome-home Shabbat dinner on the stove when she learned that he had been arrested. (All this from a lengthy profile published in the Post in May.) The immediate connection is that his mission, in addition to “helping Cubans download music, access Wikipedia and read the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which was provided on flash drives,” was to deliver communications gear specifically to members of the Jewish community of Havana, to help them “communicate among themselves and with Jews overseas,” according to sources speaking to the Post “on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.”
Landau poses some interesting questions about all this, questions he says the mainstream media has failed to ask: If the purpose of Gross’s mission was to facilitate phone-calling, why didn’t he just buy some Cuban-made cell phones with prepaid long-distance plans, instead of bringing satellite phones that – in addition to putting their users at risk of arrest – cost thousands of dollars? (“Do religious Jews believe God will talk to them only via satellite phone?,” Landau asks.) Did the Jews of Havana actually need any of this stuff, since U.S. Jewish organizations already provide them plenty of modern communications gear? If Gross was actually involved with that community, which has only about 1,500 members, how come its leaders say they never met him? And if his claim is true, how is that USAID pays for such equipment for Jews, while the Department of Homeland Security seizes computers sent to other Cubans by (presumably non-Jewish) religious groups here? (“Did some U.S. government official choose Jews (the “chosen” people) to receive high-tech equipment?”)
Meanwhile, at a reception last month for Hannah Rosenthal, the U.S. government’s special envoy to “monitor and combat anti-Semitism,” Hillary Clinton made a public appeal “to the active Jewish community here in our country” to join in efforts to get Gross released and returned. As Landau suggests, however, the U.S. government undoubtedly has it in its power to get him sprung, even without mobilizing the Jewish community: surely the Cuban authorities would be happy to swap “a Gross for a Five” – the five Cuban intelligence agents who have been sitting in U.S. prisons since 1998 for spying not on our government but on militant Cuban-American exile [terrorist] organizations.
Economists Without a Clue
Blaming Teachers and Firefighters, Not Wall Street Criminals
By Dean Baker | August 11, 2010
The latest cool thing for the Washington elite is to beat up on school teachers and firefighters for their overly generous pensions. It turns out that some of these public sector employees get enough money in their pensions that they can actually enjoy a decent retirement.
This is an outrage in modern America. After all, the Wall Street boys have made it so the vast majority of private sector workers can’t get by in their old age, and they plan to cut Social Security and Medicare to make it even harder. So given that factory workers and retail clerks can’t count on a decent standard of living in retirement, where does a school teacher get off earning a pension of $3,000 a month? The media want the public to be outraged over this incredible injustice. Of course, the men and women behind the curtain are saying: “Pay no attention to the Wall Street people earning millions of dollars a year.”
The attempt to provoke anger has momentum because most state and local pension funds are hugely underfunded. This is blamed on corrupt politicians who concealed pension fund expenses and used dubious accounting.
While this may be true in some cases, the real culprits of the underfunded pension funds are the country’s leading economists. Economists from across the political spectrum told the country that we could assume that stocks would provide an average return of 10 percent a year even when the stock bubble was at its peak in 2000. This consensus included the center-left economists in the Clinton Administration as well conservative economists. It was treated as absolute gospel in all the plans to privatize Social Security. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Administration assumed that the market would give an average of 10 percent nominal returns in their analysis of Social Security privatization proposals.
Given the consensus within the economics profession, who could blame the managers of state and local pension funds for using the same assumption? After all, were they supposed to question the assessments of economists teaching at Harvard and M.I.T.?
And, it does make a difference. If the economists’ projections had been right, $1 billion held in the stock market in 2000 would be worth about $2.5 billion today. Instead, it is worth about $1 billion. In short, if the economists had been right, most of the troubled pension funds would be just fine today.
So let’s give credit where credit is due. The media want us to beat up school teachers and firefighters, but the real reason that more tax dollars might be needed to meet pension commitments is that the economists were clueless.
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy and False Profits: Recoverying From the Bubble Economy.
He also has a blog, “Beat the Press,” where he discusses the media’s coverage of economic issues.




