US-NATO Aggression to ‘Win Hearts and Minds’
Civilian deaths are merely political setbacks, say ‘independent’ news media.
By Dan Alba | February 14, 2010
Anyone aspiring to write or edit textbooks for the Department of Education should study U.S. news-wire reports. Rarely will you see imperial aggression being so expertly spun into peaceful liberation within the context of U.S. exceptionalism.
Take for example a February 13, Associated Press report, “US troops fight, then work to win hearts and minds,” where the editor mourns the mission:
[I]n the revised U.S. war strategy, the fight against the insurgents is as important as winning the allegiance and confidence of Afghan citizens. For American soldiers here, their days are often a mix of winning hearts and minds and fighting a determined enemy.
How many of those “determined enemies” are actually “insurgents“?
How many are lawfully defending themselves and their property from the foreign invaders, whose “key goal is to prop up Haji Zair, who was appointed as the Marjah governor but hasn’t been able to actually travel there, let alone set up residence”? [Jason Ditz, “US to Launch Massive Helmand Offensive ‘Within Days,'” AntiWar.com, 2/3/10.]
Readers are told that the invaded inhabitants are threatened only by the local resistance:
It’s a tall order in a Taliban-controlled area where some villagers are scared to take money from the Americans. . . .
The conversation with a farmer seemed positive at first. But it was ultimately inconclusive — an illustration, perhaps, of the difficulty of winning over civilians who know the Taliban are a longterm presence, and that the Americans will eventually leave. . . .
“A lot of guys are unwilling to do anything,” he said. “They’re worried about the Taliban.”
But how many are offended by the aggressive invasion and political bribery of the foreign occupiers? How many non-aggressive villagers are being terrorized by the effects of the U.S.-NATO mission?
Silly questions, of course, considering the mission’s obvious righteousness:
Repairing the irrigation canals is an important step toward reviving agriculture in the area. And the Americans were offering hard cash for anyone willing to work.
In other words: American taxpayer dollars, hard at work, forcing non-aggressive self-determining people to live under the absolute authority of an empire-made national government.
But according to the empire and the “independent” news media, such is the proper way to “win hearts and minds.”
Besides, who would argue against creating jobs and “reviving” the economy?
Moreover, who would bite the hand that “cleaned and bandaged the injured finger of an elderly man at the farmhouse”? [para. 17]
Only insurgents and Taliban, and the folks who would shower the foreign invaders with affection if not for their existential fear of their own families and neighbors.
– – – – –
In a follow-up report, readers learn that 12 Afghan civilians were killed by those innocuous foreign invaders.
In the 28-paragraph February 14 release, “NATO rockets miss target, kill 12 Afghan civilians,” six paragraphs are pertinent to the headline; four of which analyze the civilian deaths as merely a political setback. To wit:
The civilian deaths were a blow to NATO and the Afghan government’s attempts to win the allegiance of Afghans and get them to turn away from the insurgents. . . .
Karzai ordered an investigation into who fired the rocket. Before the offensive began on Saturday, Karzai pleaded with Afghan and foreign military leaders to be “seriously careful for the safety of civilians.”
In other words, the killing of civilians is not an immoral or illicit act that reflects badly on the policy in general. No. Quite the opposite is true: the remaining 22 paragraphs mourn the dangers to the U.S.-NATO invader-occupiers, whose stated intentions — “providing some building for the people there, better security, better economic opportunity, better governance, more of an Afghan face” — are taken as Gospel.
Christian Right kidnappers
Nicole Colson reports on the accusations against missionaries who were arrested after trying to take Haitian children out of the country–and the media’s tolerant attitude.
February 17, 2010
“HELP US…That’s the message I would give to Mr. Obama and the State Department. Start helping us.”
You might think that was the plea of a Haitian citizen following the devastating earthquake in January. But no, those words came from Carla Thompson–one of a group of 10 U.S. missionaries arrested by Haitian authorities on January 29, accused of trying to kidnap 33 Haitian children and take them across the border into the Dominican Republic.
At least 22 of the supposed “orphans” were found to have at least one parent still alive in Haiti.
The 10 missionaries are mostly from a Baptist church based in Idaho. Following the earthquake, the group apparently set out with a trailer full of children’s clothes and a vow to help Haiti’s orphans “find healing, hope, joy and new life in Christ.” The group’s creepy leader, Laura Silsby, told reporters: “God wanted us to come here to help children, we are convinced of that. Our hearts were in the right place.”
But Silsby at least knew that the missionaries were flouting the law. In a letter to the United Nations, Anne-Christine d’Adesky, a writer and human rights activist, said she met with Silsby on January 24 in a hotel in the Dominican Republic. Silsby allegedly told d’Adesky that her authorization to pick up Haitian orphans and bring them into the Dominican Republic came from an unnamed Dominican official.
“I informed her that this would be regarded as illegal, even with some ‘Dominican’ minister authorizing, since the children are Haitian,” d’Adesky wrote, adding that she directed Silsby to UN agencies dealing with orphans and adoptions in the country.
D’Adesky told the Wall Street Journal that Silsby responded: “We have been sent by the Lord to rescue these children, and if it’s in the Lord’s plan, we will be successful.”
Silsby’s personal motives may not have been so noble. Back home in Idaho, she faces a string of lawsuits for allegedly failing to pay employees of her Web site shopping business. MSNBC noted that “the $358,000 house at which she founded her nonprofit religious group, New Life Children’s Refuge, was foreclosed upon in December.” Which raises the question of whether Silsby thought she might have profited from arranging for Haitian children to be adopted by people in the U.S.
The other people with Silsby on her “mission,” including at least two teenagers, may have been victims of their own arrogance and stupidity–but that doesn’t excuse their crime. On the contrary, there’s something stomach-turning about using a tragedy like the earthquake in Haiti to promote religious beliefs. (Right-wing Christians aren’t the only ones guilty–the Church of Scientology flew in volunteers after the quake to “minister” to Haitians.)
In the case of Silsby’s group, the Eastside Baptist Church Web site laid out the missionaries’ plans for a “Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission.” According to the itinerary for January 23, the group would “Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port-au-Prince, Haiti, and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the D.R.”
The group apparently planned to take the children to a hotel in the Dominican Republic, where they would live until a permanent orphanage was constructed. According to the New York Times, the Web site said the group would “strive” to “provide opportunities for adoption through partnership with New Life Adoption Foundation,” which subsidizes adoptions “for loving Christian parents who would otherwise not be able to afford to adopt.”
There’s no evidence that the missionaries were in any way prepared to care for the children they planned to “gather” from the streets–it’s unknown whether any spoke Haitian Kreyol or had any familiarity with the country’s culture or legal system.
Even in the best of times, international adoptions can be fraught with corruption and difficult questions about the rights of birth parents. Those questions are especially complicated when the adoptive parents are white and wealthy, and the birth parents and children are poor and people of color. Closed adoptions, where all ties are cut between children and their birth parents, are especially prone to abuses.
In Haiti, it seems that the desperate parents contacted by the missionaries weren’t told that their children might one day be adopted. Instead, they were told the children would be cared for and schooled in the Dominican Republic–and that they could visit one another. “If someone offers to take my children to a paradise,” a mother told the New York Times, “am I supposed to say no?”
As adoption expert David Smolin of Cumberland Law School commented in the New York Times:
The risks are very high that children with families would be “adopted” into families in the United States, based on the pretense that they are “orphans.” We know from past history that those children most likely would never be returned to their original families, even if those original families were able to find them and sought their return.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
IN SPITE of the fact that the missionaries are accused on strong evidence of kidnapping and child trafficking, the U.S. media has positively fawned over them–stopping just short of portraying them as the victims.
In one story after another, the missionaries have been allowed to plead their innocence–and even complain that the Obama administration has not done enough to help them. Typical was the Today show, which described the “frustrating few days” in jail for people “who insist they had only the best intentions.”
Imagine the level of sympathy in the media if the disaster had been, say, a hurricane in South Florida, and a group of Black missionaries, or perhaps Muslims, from another country came to “rescue” white children in the U.S.–with “only the best intentions.”
One writer for the right-wing National Review, Kathryn Jean Lopez, even stooped to citing a Human Rights Watch report detailing the deplorable conditions in Haiti’s prisons–as if the American missionaries have been suffering like an ordinary prisoners. On the contrary, the alleged kidnappers have been giving access to the media, were allowed to speak to relatives via satellite phone, have a large legal team of American lawyers standing by and were allowed to receive food and other supplies from other missionaries.
That’s a far cry from conditions a couple hundred miles to the west, at the U.S. government’s Guantánamo Bay prison camp. As Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald pointed out, referring to one of the missionaries, Jim Allen, singled out by right wingers:
Why would National Review–which endorses far worse abuses when perpetrated on Muslims convicted of nothing–take up the cause of an accused child smuggler and possible child trafficker, and suddenly find such grave concern over detainee conditions?…Because, as a Christian, Allen is deemed by National Review to deserve basic human rights, unlike the Muslim detainees whose (far worse) abuse they have long supported…
The very same people who have been demanding for years that Muslims be imprisoned for life, tortured and killed with no trials or charges of any kind suddenly become extremely sensitive to the nuances of due process and humane detention conditions. They start sounding like Amnesty International civil liberties extremists–the minute it’s a Christian, rather than a Muslim, who is subjected to such treatment.
PACBI: Intellectual responsibility and the voice of the colonized
Statement, Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, 17 February 2010
The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has recently encountered a number of projects that while intending to empower the colonized Palestinians, in essence end up undermining their will and choice of method of struggle for freedom, justice and self-determination. The publication of a new book entitled The Power of Inclusive Exclusion: Anatomy of Israeli Rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territories belongs to this category. The book project represents a classic example of how the collective voice of the colonized is ignored in the production of a scholarly work supposed to empower them.
While it is crucial for scholars in relevant fields to expose and analyze the colonial situation in Palestine, this academic imperative should not imply that one overlooks how scholarship engages this colonialism. That is, this book, as a collaboration of various scholars — Israeli and non-Israeli contributors — was completed with support from the Van Leer Institute. In other words, through working under the aegis of the Van Leer Institute, this project has cooperated with one of the very institutions that PACBI and an overwhelming majority of Palestinian academics and intellectuals have called for boycotting. As such, the research project which led to the production of the volume violates the criteria of the academic and cultural boycott as set by PACBI and widely endorsed in Palestinian civil society, including by the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE) and University Teachers’ Association in Palestine (UTA).
Contrary to the claims of some left-wing Israeli academics that the Van Leer institute is an incubator for cutting-edge critical thinking and oppositional politics, the institute is firmly planted in the prevailing Zionist consensus and is part and parcel of the structures of oppression and domination. It subscribes to the “vision of Israel as both a homeland for the Jewish people and a democratic society, predicated on justice, fairness and equality for all its residents,” ignoring the oxymoron presented by this inherently exclusionary vision — a “Jewish State” of necessity discriminates against its “non-Jewish” citizens. The Van Leer Institute receives financial support from other Israeli universities and state institutions that are subject to boycott. Among its financial contributors and institutional “friends” are the Cohn Institute at Tel Aviv University; the Edelstein Center at the Hebrew University; the Israel Ministry of Science; the National Insurance Institute, Israel; and the Jewish Agency for Israel.
Furthermore, Van Leer, like all other Israeli academic institutions, has never taken a stance against Israel’s policies of occupation and racial discrimination, nor against the recent war of aggression on Gaza or the ongoing illegal siege of 1.5 million Palestinians there. The Van Leer is, therefore, an institution with strong links to establishment institutions in Israel. As such, it is complicit in maintaining and entrenching Israel’s regime of occupation and apartheid against the Palestinian people.
Though intellectual projects may aim to rigorously articulate the complex matrix of control that exists in Palestine, the intellectual process has a fundamental ethical and political component. As such, it is incumbent upon all scholars to realize that any collaboration which brings together Israeli and international academics (Arabs or otherwise) under the auspices of Israeli institutions is counterproductive to fighting Israeli colonial oppression, and is therefore subject to boycott.
A project involving only Israeli academics, on the other hand, receiving support from an Israeli academic institution, may be seen as a justifiable exercise of a right or an entitlement by Israeli scholars as tax payers and, as a result, may not per se be boycottable.
As the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement gains momentum globally, an increasing number of voices are emerging in support of this strategy as the most effective, nonviolent route to bring about change towards justice and durable peace based on international law and universal principles of human rights. The endorsement by various artists and academics of specific boycott actions in the past few years is welcome and well-known. It is the responsibility of the boycott supporters to understand the broadly-accepted boycott criteria and guidelines upon which this boycott is based and adhere to it, rather than attempting to invent or suggest idiosyncratic criteria of their own, as the latter would undermine the Palestinian guiding reference for the global boycott campaign against Israel.
It is crucial to emphasize that the BDS movement derives its principles from both the demands of the Palestinian BDS Call, signed by over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations in July 2005, and, in the academic and cultural fields, from the Palestinian Call for Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, issued a year earlier in July 2004. Together, the BDS and PACBI Calls represent the most authoritative and widely-supported strategic statements to have emerged from Palestine in decades; all major political parties, labor, student and women groups, and organizations representing Palestinian refugees all over the world have endorsed and supported these calls. Both calls underline the prevailing Palestinian belief that the most effective form of solidarity with the Palestinian people is direct action aimed at bringing an end to Israel’s colonial and apartheid regime, just as the apartheid regime in South Africa was abolished, by isolating Israel internationally through boycotts and sanctions, forcing it to comply with international law and respect Palestinian rights.
Since the formulation of these calls, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on defining the principles of the boycott movement. Rooted in universal values and principles, the BDS Call categorically rejects all forms of racism, racial discrimination and colonial oppression. PACBI has also translated the principles enshrined in its Call into practical guidelines for implementing the international academic and cultural boycott of Israel. However intellectually challenging and avant-garde some projects may be, by being oblivious to the Palestinian-articulated boycott criteria they in effect work against the internationally-embraced Palestinian struggle for justice.
‘An attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada’
Peter Kent, Toronto
Photo credit Scarborough – Guildwood Conservative Association
By Steven Chase | Globe and Mail | February 16, 2010
Junior Foreign Affairs minister Peter Kent is suggesting Canada stands ready to throw its full military weight behind Israel, telling a Toronto publication that “an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada.”
His office says Mr. Kent, the minister of state for Foreign Affairs of the Americas, was merely “paraphrasing” what Stephen Harper has said in the past regarding Israel.
“It’s not too far from what the [Prime Minister] has said,” Norm McIntosh, Mr. Kent’s chief of staff, told The Globe.
But the junior minister’s statement would appear to be evidence that the Harper government is shifting to an ever more solidly pro-Israel stance.
Mr. McIntosh declined to confirm whether this means that Canada would automatically declare war on an aggressor that attacked Israel.
In an interview published in Shalom Life, dated Feb. 12, Mr. Kent said: “Prime Minister Harper has made it quite clear for some time now and has regularly stated that an attack on Israel would be considered an attack on Canada.”
Mr. McIntosh pointed to Mr. Harper’s statements from May, 2008, marking the 60th anniversary of Israel, where the Prime Minister said: “Our government believes that those who threaten Israel also threaten Canada, because, as the last world war showed, hate-fuelled bigotry against some is ultimately a threat to us all, and must be resisted wherever it may lurk.”
“In this ongoing battle, Canada stands side-by-side with the State of Israel, our friend and ally in the democratic family of nations,” Mr. Harper said. “We have stood with Israel even when it has not been popular to do so, and we will continue to stand with Israel, just as I have always said we would.”
EU biofuels significantly harming food production in developing countries
EU biofuels 10% targets cause millions of peope to go hungry and increase food prices and landlessness, says report
John Vidal | The Guardian | February 15, 2010
EU companies have taken millions of acres of land out of food production in Africa, central America and Asia to grow biofuels for transport, according to development campaigners. The consequences of European biofuel targets, said the report by ActionAid, could be up to 100 million more hungry people, increased food prices and landlessness.
The report says the 2008 decision by EU countries to obtain 10% of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020 is proving disastrous for poor countries. Developing countries are expected to grow nearly two-thirds of the jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil crops that are mostly used for biofuels.
“To meet the EU 10% target, the total land area directly required to grow industrial biofuels in developing countries could reach 17.5m hectares, over half the size of Italy. Additional land will also be required in developed nations, displacing food and animal feed crops onto land in new areas, often in developing countries,” says the report.
Biofuels are estimated by the IMF to have been responsible for 20-30% of the global food price spike in 2008 when 125m tonnes of cereals were diverted into biofuel production. The amount of biofuels in Europe’s car fuels is expected to quadruple in the next decade.
The report attributes the massive growth in biofuel production to generous subsidies. It estimates that the EU biofuel industry has already received €4.4bn (£3.82bn) in incentives, subsidies and tax relief and that this could triple to over €13.7bn if the EU meets its 2020 target.
The greatest support to the industry is exemption from excise duties. Duty at the pump is 20 pence less per litre compared to conventional fuels although this exemption due to end in 2010, a change which supermarket Morrisons cited last week as the reason for dropping one of its biodiesel blends. In 2009, the duty on low- sulphur petrol and diesel in the UK was 54.19 pence per litre; for biodiesel and ethanol it was 34.19 pence per litre.
“Biofuels are driving a global human tragedy. Local food prices have already risen massively. As biofuel production gains pace, this can only accelerate,” said report author Tim Rice. He added that biofuels are not even an answer to climate change: “Most biofuels are worse than the fossil fuels they are supposed to replace.” . Large scale biofuel plantations can increase carbon dioxide emissions, either directly by cutting down forests or ploughing up other carbon rich habitats, or indirectly by forcing farmers to move into these areas. Separately, the UK Nuffield Council on Bioethics is currently consulting on the ethics of biofuels – how to ensure a new generation of biofuels don’t increase greenhouse gas emissions and take food from the poor to fuel cars.
The ActionAid report says Europe is just one region now greatly increasing the amount of biofuels in transport fuel. Analysis of US farm data last month by the Earth Policy Institute in Washington showed that one-quarter of all the maize and other grain crops grown in the US now ends up as biofuel in cars. The grain grown to produce the fuel in the US in 2009 was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels.
If all global biofuel government targets are met, says ActionAid, food prices could rise by up to an additional 76% by 2020 with an extra 600 million extra people going hungry – six times as much as European policies alone.
Gaza Photo Expo Threatened with Closure
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East | February 16th, 2010
Montreal – On Monday, Feb. 15th, the critically acclaimed Human Drama in Gaza Photo Exposition in Montreal was threatened with closure by Gestion Redbourne PDP Inc., the real estate management firm owning the property housing the Exposition. A legal representative of Redbourne, Lieba Shell, sent an email late in the day to the exposition host, Cinema du Parc, ordering the removal of the exposition and threatening legal action if the exposition were not taken down by evening. Cinema du Parc and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) – the producer of the exposition – asserted through their legal advisor, Mark H. Arnold, that such threats from Redbourne were not lawful.
Human Drama in Gaza was launched in mid-January, and received very positive reviews in several media. Redbourne, however, demanded the removal of the exposition based on a paragraph in the lease that Cinema du Parc has with Redbourne relating to “purely cinemagraphic use” of the premises. Arnold, however, asserted that the cinema’s hosting of a photo exposition would very much constitute cinemagraphic use of the premises. Officials with Cinema du Parc also pointed out that the cinema has hosted dozens of photo expositions in the past several years, and has never had a complaint from Redbourne, the landlord.
“This move on the part of Redbourne is clearly political,” declared Thomas Woodley, President of CJPME. “Cinema du Parc is known for its ongoing expositions which touch on important issues of social concern, and Redbourne never had an issue in the past.” Last week, both Cinema du Parc and Place du Parc (the shopping mall housing the cinema and owned by Redbourne) received emails and calls from individuals unhappy with the Human Drama in Gaza exposition. The complaints accused the exposition of being anti-Israel, but stopped short of questioning the credibility of the exposition content. “The suffering of the 1.5 million people of Gaza is an important social issue like any other,” asserted Woodley. “The fact that certain people wish to stifle open discussion on Gaza is even more a reason to bring the debate out into the open.”
According to CJPME, the exposition itself seeks to put a human face to the misery of the people of Gaza, and the poignant resilience of a people facing severe adversity. The captions accompanying the photos cite statistics and legal analyses of Israel’s 22-day assault on Gaza of last winter. The legal advisor to CJPME pointed out that if security forces from Redbourne were to attempt to forcibly remove the exposition, they would be considered trespassers. As such, Arnold concluded, the “Cinema staff have been advised to immediately call the police.”
About CJPME – Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is a non-profit and secular organization bringing together men and women of all backgrounds who labour to see justice and peace take root again in the Middle East. Its mission is to empower decision-makers to view all sides with fairness and to promote the equitable and sustainable development of the region.
For more information, please contact Grace Batchoun at 514-745-8491or grace.batchoun@cjpme.org.
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
http://www.cjpme.org
Elie Wiesel’s Ignoble Recruits
By John V. Walsh | February 15, 2010
Is there nothing that is safe from debasement by the propaganda machine of the U.S. and Israel? A full-page ad in the Sunday New York Times of Feb. 7 provides the answer. Sponsored by Elie Wiesel’s modestly named Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity and signed by 44 Nobel laureates, 35 of them in the physical sciences, it urges brutal and lethal actions against Iran.
Before getting to the cruel prescriptions that Wiesel and his recruits offer for Iran, let us consider their reasoning, such as it is. In a single brief topic sentence they assert their central claim that the Iranian government “whose irresponsible and senseless nuclear ambitions threaten the entire world continues to wage a shameless war against its own people.” Two charges are fired off in this brief sentence, and it is all too easy to conflate them. So let us take them one at a time, as is the habit in science when one wishes for clarification.
The first charge deals with Iran’s nuclear “ambitions,” but the ad does not say what these ambitions are. And then it asserts without evidence that such “ambitions” threaten “the entire world.” This is certainly a very grave charge, and some scintilla of evidence should be offered for it. But none is provided, not one word, not even a footnote or reference in this spacious advert. Yes, such allegations are made repeatedly and vehemently by government figures in Tel Aviv and Washington and by many segments of the U.S. and Israeli press. But what is the evidence for these allegations? Many of them turn out to be false as exemplified by a recent AP story, which was pulled after being exposed on Antiwar.com by Jason Ditz. Many of the same voices that now warn that Iran is a nuclear threat “to the entire world” assured us not long ago that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Qaeda and that he had weapons of mass destruction, both of which turned out to be shameless lies. And is it not strange that Russia and China, so proximate to Iran, are not obsessed, as is the U.S., about this threat to “the entire world”? The signatories of the ad ought not to make such intemperate and incendiary assertions without at least a reference to unimpeachable evidence. No such reference is provided. Is this the proper standard of thought and reason that a Nobel in the physical sciences implies?
The second claim wrapped up in the topic sentence is that the Iranian government is engaging in a “shameless war on its own people.” This too is quite a striking charge, going far beyond the usual charge that the recent Iranian elections were rigged, which in fact may not be the case. In what does this “shameless war” consist? Certainly there are human rights abuses, and striking ones, in Iran, just as there are in many countries who are U.S. allies, but that does not amount to a government making “war on its own people.” The U.S. and Israel make charges against Iran almost daily, and so Iran is certain to be demonized in our elite press, which so often functions as stenographer for the government. The same media treatment was given to Iraq so very recently, and it is amazing that this fact did not deter the signatories from the intemperate statements in this ad. Earlier, during the presidency of Bush I, we were treated to stories of infants being pulled from incubators and discarded on hospital floors in Kuwait by Iraqi troops during the run-up to the U.S. attack on Iraq in the first Gulf War. These charges uttered by Bush I himself were lies, concocted by a P.R. firm, as we later learned.
Given that there are human rights abuses in Iran, although we do not know their extent, two questions arise. Who are we to criticize Iran when our own government has been abducting, secretly detaining, and torturing people all over the planet? Historically, the CIA overthrew the duly elected Iranian government of Mossadegh in the 1950s and installed the shah, whose brutality was legendary and who was eventually ousted in 1979. Today the CIA is still engaging in “extraordinary renditions” under Obama as it did under Bush and probably before. And Israel is equally guilty of crimes against humanity with the apartheid order it is imposing in the occupied territories, as Jimmy Carter demonstrated in his recent book, this being the most egregious of human rights violations, since it is based on ethnicity.
Now let us turn to the vicious prescriptions called for by Wiesel and his recruits. They first call for “harsher sanctions” without any mention of restrictions on such sanctions. We already know that sanctions as practiced by the U.S. are a recipe for massive death and destruction. We know what the years of sanctions did to Iraq under the presidencies of Clinton and Bush II. When Madeleine Albright was informed in a notorious TV interview that 500,000 Iraqi children had died due to those sanctions, she did not deny it but replied, “This is a very hard choice, but … we think the price is worth it.” Do the signers of this ad agree with Albright’s assessment in the case of Iraq and now Iran? Sanctions are far from harmless, and they fall hardest on the helpless and rarely on the powerful. In 2000 Christian Aid stated:
“The immediate consequence of eight years of sanctions has been a dramatic fall in living standards, the collapse of the infrastructure, and a serious decline in the availability of public services. The longer-term damage to the fabric of society has yet to be assessed but economic disruption has already led to heightened levels of crime, corruption, and violence. Competition for increasingly scarce resources has allowed the Iraqi state to use clan and sectarian rivalries to maintain its control, further fragmenting Iraqi society.”
And yet Wiesel’s recruits call for sanctions almost casually. They would do well to read Brian Cloughey’s essay on “The Evil of Sanctions,” and the sources to which he refers.
But Wiesel’s recruits do not stop there. They go on to call for “concrete measures” to protect the “new nation of dissidents in Iran.” But these concrete measures are not spelled out. What could they be? There are only two that appear on the lips of those who are demonizing Iran these days in Tel Aviv and Washington: “sanctions” and “war.” This ad will certainly be used by those who wish to attack Iran, as Israel has threatened to do. Do the signers understand this? Since they are intelligent men and women, they must. Are they then calling for war?
In signing onto Wiesel’s statement, the laureates have put themselves in very questionable company. Although he claims to speak out for “human rights,” Wiesel is very selective in the cases he chooses. He has not and will not criticize Israel and its apartheid policies; in fact, he attacks those who do. In an interview with Ha’aretz wherein Wiesel announced his ad campaign, he blasted Judge Richard Goldstone, saying his report on the Israeli offensive in Gaza was “a crime against the Jewish people.” Goldstone’s report is in fact quite mild, but it makes clear that the crimes of Israel against the Palestinians of Gaza are atrocities much like those in Sabra and Shatila years ago. Do Wiesel’s recruits know that his view of human rights is quite selective?
One cannot know the motives that drove Wiesel’s recruits to sign such a thoughtless and cruel document. Certainly the document reflects the wave of propaganda on Iran to which we are all subjected. But that is no excuse. These are, after all, intelligent men and women who should see through such propaganda, given our recent and historical experience. Certainly this writer holds many of these signers in great regard, and one can only hope that their signatures were obtained without time to examine the matter properly. If so, a retraction is in order. Finally, one cannot help but wonder whether Wiesel’s recruits felt that signing on to such a statement would be fine now that Obama is in charge and he is a man they can trust. If so, this is another sign of the gift to the Empire that is Obama.
In the end Wiesel’s signers, Nobel laureates though they may be, are of small stature next to those giants of science, humanitarians as well as thinkers, who were unafraid to take on authority in their work and in their role as citizens. Einstein, Galileo, and many others must be tossing in their tombs over Weisel’s handiwork.
Our human rights v. The Others
By Glenn Greenwald | Salon.com | February 14, 2010
Ten American Baptists were arrested two weeks ago in Haiti on charges that they exploited the chaos in that country by attempting to smuggle 33 young Haitian children across the border without permission — either to bring them to a life of Christianity or (as some evidence suggests) to filter them into a child trafficking ring. National Review‘s Kathryn Jean Lopez is deeply upset by the plight of at least one of the detained Americans, Jim Allen, whom she contends (based exclusively on his family’s claims) is innocent. Lopez demands that the State Department do more to “insist” upon Allen’s release, and — most amazingly of all — complains about the conditions of his detention. She has the audacity to cite a Human Rights Watch description of prison conditions in Haiti as “inhumane.” Lopez complains that Allen was waterboarded, stripped, frozen and beaten has “hypertension,” was shipped thousands of miles away to a secret black site beyond the reach of the ICRC and then rendered to Jordan allowed to speak to his wife only once in the first ten days of his confinement, and was consigned to years in an island-prison cage with no charges denied his choice of counsel for a few days (though he is now duly represented in Haitian courts by a large team of American lawyers).
You know what else Human Rights Watch vehemently condemns as human rights abuses? Guantanamo, military commissions, denial of civilian trials, indefinite detention, America’s “enhanced interrogation techniques,” renditions, and a whole slew of other practices that are far more severe than the conditions in Haiti about which Lopez complains and yet which have been vocally supported by National Review. In fact, Lopez’s plea for Allen is surrounded at National Review by multiple and increasingly strident attacks on the Obama administration by former Bush officials Bill Burck and Dana Perino for (allegedly) abandoning those very policies, as well as countless posts from former Bush speechwriter (and the newest Washington Post columnist) Marc Thiessen promoting his new book defending torture. Lopez herself has repeatedly cheerled for Guantanamo and related policies, hailing Mitt Romney’s call in a GOP debate that we “double Guantanamo” as his “best answer” and saying she disagrees with John McCain’s anti-torture views, while mocking human rights concerns with the term “Club Gitmo.” And National Review itself has led an endless attack on the credibility of Human Rights Watch, accusing it of anti-Israel and anti-American bias for daring to point out the human rights abuses perpetrated by those countries.
What’s going on here is quite clear, quite odious, and quite common. It goes without saying that because he hasn’t yet had a trial, Allen could be perfectly innocent, or he could be guilty of some rather heinous crimes — just as is true of Guantanamo detainees held for years without charges or a trial (indeed, even with Haiti virtually destroyed under rubble, Allen — unlike GITMO detainees — is receiving full due process). Why would National Review — which endorses far worse abuses when perpetrated on Muslims convicted of nothing — take up the cause of an accused child smuggler and possible child trafficker, and suddenly find such grave concern over detainee conditions? Or, to use their warped vernacular, which equates unproven accusations with guilt, why would National Review be advocating for the rights of child kidnappers and child traffickers? Because, as a Christian, Allen is deemed by National Review to deserve basic human rights, unlike the Muslim detainees whose (far worse) abuse they have long supported [in stark and commendable contrast to National Review, Southern Baptist leaders are also demanding that the Obama administration do more to secure the release of Allen and his fellow prisoners, but they at least have standing and credibility to do so, as the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the leading Southern Baptist ethicist all condemned Bush policies as “torture” which “violates everything we stand for,” although they did that quite belatedly].
All of this is reminiscent of the single greatest act of self-satire I encountered since I began writing about politics: in September, 2006, three Indonesian Christians were convicted in a regular Indonesian court of a brutal terrorist attack that left 70 Muslims dead, and they were sentenced to death. Michelle Malkin and various other right-wing agitators — who not only cheered on every radical Bush/Cheney denial of due process and punishment without trial for Muslims, but demanded even more extreme measures — righteously took up the cause of these Christian Terrorists, expressing “grave doubts raised over the fairness of the trial,” citing “irregularities” in the trial they received, and even calling upon the “International Criminal Court in Geneva” to intervene — seriously (this behavior from GOP Sen. Mel Martinez, in a different case, was quite similar). The very same people who have been demanding for years that Muslims be imprisoned for life, tortured and killed with no trials or charges of any kind suddenly become extremely sensitive to the nuances of due process and humane detention conditions — they start sounding like Amnesty International civil liberties extremists — the minute it’s a Christian, rather than a Muslim, who is subjected to such treatment. Lest anyone think these glaring double standards are driven more by nationality than religion, National Review — along with most of their comrades — supported the full denial of due process in the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S.-born American citizen and Muslim who was tortured to the point of insanity, and it now does the same with U.S.-born American citizen and Muslim Anwar al-Awlaki, whom the U.S. is currently trying to assassinate.
The only thing worse than someone completely indifferent to human rights abuses when committed by their own government is someone whose concern for such matters is dictated by the religion or other demographic attributes of those whose basic rights are being denied. That’s the same mentality that leads our media to treat American journalists held by Evil Foreign Governments for a few weeks under dubious circumstances as screeching headline-making news, while ignoring almost completely those foreign (Muslim) journalists held by the U.S. Government for years without charges. How many Americans know and are outraged about Iran’s detention of Roxana Saberi, all while being completely ignorant of the numerous Muslim journalists held for years by the U.S., including a Reuters photojournalist, Ibrahim Jassam Mohammed, finally released last week after being held by the U.S. military for 17 months with no charges and even after an Iraqi court ordered him released? It’s the same mentality that allows the U.S. Government, with a straight face, to issue reports condemning as “torture” the very techniques we used, to protest indefinite detention, extra-judicial killings and lawless eavesdropping when engaged in by other countries, and to demand that other countries prosecute their war criminals and torturers in the name of “the rule of law” (while our own are feted on TV shows and given regular newspaper columns to glorify the torture and other war crimes they implemented).
Would you rather be an American wrongfully accused of child trafficking even in the post-earthquake Haitian justice system (complete with lawyers, access to courts, and full due process), or a Muslim wrongly accused of Terrorism by the U.S. Government (and put in a black hole for years with no rights)? To ask the question is to answer it. The primary duty of a citizen is to protest bad acts by their own government. If you’re acquiescing to or even endorsing serious human rights abuses by your own government, then it’s not only morally absurd — but laughably ineffective — to parade around as some sort of human rights crusader when it comes time to protest the treatment of one of your own, however you might define that. It might produce some soothing feelings of self-satisfaction, but nobody will remotely take that seriously, nor should they.
UPDATE: Numerous commenters have argued that factors other than religion — such as American exceptionalism, race and Terrorism fears — play a role in these double standards. That’s undoubtedly true. As usual, it’s self-blinding, adolescent tribalism that is driving this behavior (my group is better), which is what I meant when I criticized those who endorse human rights abuses for Others but then “parade around as some sort of human rights crusader when it comes time to protest the treatment of one of your own, however you might define that.” I didn’t mean to imply that religion was the only factor at play here. It clearly isn’t. But in this particular case, it’s a significant one.
Citizens for Justice in the Middle East responds to Jewish Chronicle
By Jewish Chronicle Readers | 12 February 2010
Two recent pieces in The Chronicle do not serve the best interests of either the Kansas City Jewish community or the wider interests of the United States.
The first is a deplorable editorial Feb. 5 that comes perilously close to calling a local peace organization, Citizens for Justice in the Middle East, both anti-Semitic and criminal. The editorial was titled “Beyond the Pale.” Indeed.
CJME, since 2003, has advocated for a just peace between Israel and Palestine as an obvious benefit to Israel, Palestine, the entire Middle East and, of course, to our own United States. To do that, we have criticized Israel for its 43-year occupation of Palestine and its ongoing confiscation of Palestinian homes, farms and businesses. We have attempted to educate the public to “78/22”, meaning that (fair or not) Israel has been allotted 78 percent of historic Palestine, while Palestine gets 22 percent of the land where lemon, orange and olive trees have been grown for centuries by Arab Christians and Muslims. This arrangement is recognized by international law, as are the boundaries. Alas, the Israeli government wants the whole, as demonstrated by the nearly half-million settlers, illegal by international law, who build in Palestine and who, often at gunpoint, drive Palestinians from their homes. The settlers are supported by Israeli government subsidies and U.S. taxes ($7 to $10 million per day). Check Bob Simon’s “60 Minutes” report online for an excellent primer.
Unfortunately, because so few in the U.S. government will speak freely, the settlers have painted Israel into a corner. Those who consider themselves friends of Israel have done it no favors by funding settlements and by permitting the Israeli government to continually defy the United States and international law.
Citizens for Justice in the Middle East supports aid to Gaza because it’s the right thing to do. The U.S. government and others also send aid to Gaza, as do several groups led by Jews. For The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle to write a scathing article about an event commemorating victims of Operation Cast Lead (“Author of report urging opening to Hamas to visit KC area,” Feb. 5) and to depict Hamas as cartoonish thugs does little to forward the genuine need for discussions that include all parties, if peace is, indeed, the desired outcome. Israel itself is in talks with Hamas, though this is not widely reported.
Some readers may know that Hamas was nurtured and funded by Israel in order to create opposition to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Yet when eventually Hamas was elected as the government of Palestine, Israel turned Gaza into a penal colony, putting its 1.5 million citizens under siege. Medicine, food, clothing, building materials — all were restricted or disallowed entirely, causing deaths and malnutrition. This contravenes international law against collective punishment. Operation Cast Lead rained further catastrophe on men, women and children, as Judge Richard Goldstone reported recently. Judge Goldstone, a courageous Jew and a Zionist, was reluctant to take on the investigation, yet he did so — and found war crimes committed by both Israel and Hamas. However, his report comes down much harder on Israel as the stronger power.
What has Israel become that it won’t allow Palestinian Fulbright Scholars out of Gaza to study? What has Israel become that it refuses medical travel even for children and their parents? What has Israel become that it denies hundreds of thousands of children food and medicine, clothing and fuel? What has Israel become that it puts families out on the street so that settlers can take over the house?
There is not a Jew in America who wouldn’t reach out to help a starving child, yet The Jewish Chronicle continues to roil its readers with articles that do nothing to embrace the tradition of Jewish progressive values towards all humanity. The Chronicle countenances no criticism of Israel at a time when the Israel that it professes to support is rapidly running out of options and needs its friends to offer realistic advice, not cartoon thugs.
Andrea Whitmore
Fairway, Kan.
Co-signers:
Matt Quinn, Lee’s Summit, Mo.
Jim Kenney, Lenexa, Kan.
Ginger Kenney, Lenexa, Kan.
Canada’s Effort to Criminalize Criticism of Israel
By Seriously Free Speech | February 11, 2010
Israel’s siege of Gaza has made it a “closed zone” – no access, no exit, cut off from the world. By attempting to shut down criticism of Israel’s practices, Canadian supporters of the government of Israel are creating another “closed zone” in Canada – in which criticism, open debate, and freedom of expression will not be allowed.
Who is doing this? Quietly, without authority from Parliament, an all-party group which calls itself the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism (CPCCA) has been formed to investigate antisemitism in Canada. Not antisemitism as it is traditionally understood: discrimination against or denial of the right of Jews to live as equal members of society. (Members of this Coalition are well aware that traditional antisemitism exists only among fringe groups in Canada.)
Instead, their focus is on something they label as the “new antisemitism” — which they define as criticism of the State of Israel!
WHAT IS THE CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARY COALITION TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM?
Whenever criticism of Israel increases, as it did in the wake of Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon and after the 2009 Gaza massacre, organizations supporting the State of Israel insist that this is a symptom of a “new antisemitism”. This argument is designed to deflect attention from Israel’s real crimes by smearing those who criticise Israel.
The CPCCA, which is integral to the effort to protect Israel from criticism, was formed in March, 2009. It is comprised of twenty-two Parliamentarians, including members of all four parties in the House of Commons. Jason Kenney, the Harper government’s Minister of Citizen, Immigration and Multi-Culturalism and the Conservative government’s point person on Israel, and Irwin Cotler, former Liberal Justice Minister and long time supporter of Israel, are ex-officio members. (For a full list of committee members and more details on this committee go to http://www.cpcca.ca)
The CPCCA was publicly launched on June 2, 2009 with a call for written submissions “to consider evidence on the nature of antisemitism….and consider further measures that might be usefully introduced”. It received more than 150 submissions. Contrary to commitments made by CPCCA’s executive director Monica Kugelnass, however, most of these submissions have not been posted on its website. Nor has the CPCCA fulfilled its commitment to reveal the source of its funding.
CPCCA Working Group of the Seriously Free Speech Committee, PO Box 57112, RPO E. Hastings St., Vancouver, BC V5K 1Z0
Website: http://www.seriouslyfreespeech.ca Email: info@seriouslyfreespeech.ca
CREATING A CLOSED ZONE IN CANADA*
Seriously Free Speech Committee Honourary Members Include: Ali Abunimah Tariq Ali Dr. Federico Allodi The Rev. Robert Assaly Omar Barghouti Michael Byers Noam Chomsky Libby Davies VANCOUVER – In a direct attack on freedom of expression, media giant Canwest has launched an unprecedented civil lawsuit against Vancouver-area activists for “conspiring” to *Yani Goodman, The Closed Zone, animation on the seige of Gaza, http://www.closedzone.com
WHAT IS THE CPCCA UP TO?
The CPCCA began public hearings in Ottawa on Nov. 2, 2009. Almost without exception, none of the many organizations that submitted briefs critical of the CPCCA’s mandate or which criticized the notion of a “new antisemitism” were invited to make presentations to the inquiry panel. Meanwhile, representatives of organizations which did not submit briefs, including university presidents and representatives of police departments, were called as witnesses. Clearly the CPCCA anticipated that these submissions would support their preordained conclusion that the new antisemitism was a large and growing problem in urgent need of legislative response.
The CPCCA will issue a report at the conclusion of these hearings and “anticipates that the Government will respond to this report no later than the fall of 2010”. The Coalition’s stated objective is to include criticism of Israel in an expanded version of existing Hate Crimes legislation. In addition, consideration is being given to doing something similar with respect to Canadian Human Rights legislation. Canada, viewed by Israel as one of its strongest supporters, could then provide a model for similar legislative undertakings in other countries.
WHAT IS AT STAKE?
The essence of the “new antisemitism” campaign is an attempt to conflate discrimination against Jews – something which is as illegitimate as any other form of racism and discrimination and must be opposed – with criticism of the State of Israel, its actions, or its governing ideology, Zionism. It is the view of CPCCA ex-officio member Irwin Cotler, Israel is “the collective Jew among nations.” From this perspective, criticizing Israel is the same as discriminating against Jews.
At a time when racism and bigotry against many communities in Canada — First Nations, Muslims, South Asians and Chinese, Haitians among them – constitute a much greater problem than antisemitism, it is not clear why the Coalition has chosen to focus its attention solely on the latter.
The CPCCA accepts some criticism of Israel may be legitimate. But it also declares that criticism of Israel as a Jewish State – rather than a state where all citizens enjoy equal rights – is inherently antisemitic. That calling Israel’s treatment of its Palestinian citizens apartheid is antisemitic. And that supporting the growing international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign by those determined to change Israel’s behaviour is antisemitic.
Ironically if this expanded definition of antisemitism becomes legislation, it will be possible to criticize the actions of the Canadian government but not those of the government of Israel. Just the fear of being prosecuted is likely to create a “chill” on both university campuses and in the media. But why should Israel be the one country in the world we are not allowed to criticize?
Moreover, branding those who criticise Israel as “antisemitic” is part of a campaign to help organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC) and B’nai Brith — which provide uncritical support for Israel – put themselves forward as the only legitimate representatives of Canadian Jews. While there are many Jewish organizations and individuals, both within Israel and throughout the world, whose views on Israel differ dramatically from those of the CJC and B’nai Brith, the CPCCA is not interested in hearing from those voices.
The SFSC insists that criticizing Israel is not antisemitic and that restricting debate on the illegal occupation of Gaza and the apartheid nature of Israel society will only allow the continued oppression of the Palestinian people and make a mockery of political free expression in Canada. If we keep silent about the CPCCA, even a document like the one you are reading may ultimately be considered illegal.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
• Become informed. Go to seriouslyfreespeech.wordpress.com/cpcca/ to learn more about the CPCCA and read submissions by the Seriously Free Speech Committee and other organizations.
• Send us your email address at info@seriouslyfreespeech.ca and be kept up-to-date.
• Contact your MP and tell them you are opposed to their parties participating in the CPCCA.
• Help us spread the word about the CPCCA. Invite us at info@seriouslyfreespeech.ca to speak to your union, community group or church.
CPCCA Working Group of the Seriously Free Speech Committee, PO Box 57112, RPO E. Hastings St., Vancouver, BC V5K 1Z0
Website: www.seriouslyfreespeech.ca Email: info@seriouslyfreespeech.ca
Defamation: In Search of Antisemitism
By Tali Shapiro | Pulse Media | February 11, 2010
Last month, PULSE published Yoav Shamir’s film, Defamation. I’ve finally gotten around to watching it, and just couldn’t help writing as I watched. Aside from the comical Nancy Drew music, I found it at times very hard to watch. Looking in the mirror is never easy.
The Easy Part – The Adults
There’s something pathetic about a grown man living in unsubstantiated fear. Probably the most pathetic statement in the movie is made by the security guy at Crown Heights:
When a black guy sees two people walking down the street, a black person and a jewish person, his choice to attack someone will not be a black person. With a black person, you never know, does he carry a knife, does he carry a gun?..
This pathetic and racist assertion is forwarded by how many atrocities the Jews went through throughout history, as if the blacks never went through hundreds of years of slavery, their countries colonized by whites. Where’s the ADL when you need them?
Speak of the devil. Watching the ADL’s ineptness in the one thing they should be able to do – find defamation cases – is a rather entertaining exercise. While the American and Israeli press and media is full of racism, homophobia, genderphobia, classism and any other exotic blend of ism and phobia you can think of, the self proclaimed Anti Defamation League is struggling to find antisemitism in all of the United States.
In his search for antisemitism, not even the ADL could help Yoav Shamir. To his somewhat childish disappointment and understandable relief, antisemitism- or more accurately- anti Judaism as a broad and prevailing phenomenon, is a thing of the past. Today’s anti-Judaism is no more common than any other racism towards any other minority, and very possibly less common.
Actual Defamation
Defamation does actually get intimate footage of true anti-Judaism. It’s not exactly the Arian Brotherhood, but it’s an important example of how all groups harbor racism when they are separated and don’t know each other on a personal level. A great example is the African American community of the aforementioned Crown Heights neighborhood. When engaged in conversation about their Jewish neighbors, the black residents seem to have a lot of preconceived notions about them, or more precisely, Jews in general. One could go into an “antisemites” tantrum, or realize that in order to solve the root of this problem, the members of both Crown Heights communities need to borrow more sugar.
The Hard Part – The Children
While the ADL is a bit of a laugh, the parts with the teenagers tore my heart out. I could see myself there. Though I have slightly different memories and remember my “roots voyage” as the scratching the surface off of the Zionist illusion, I remember this fear of the boogie antisemite.
Children who want to “Not forget and not forgive” are a cause for concern. A child isn’t born vindictive. Israeli children are vindictive, though many enjoy a comfortable life. The high-schoolers Shamir chose to follow are middle-class-and-up, and they embody the dichotomy that is the Zionist identity: On one hand, they “know” they are hated and seek revenge to different extents; on the other, you can see their blank stares as they are faced with shocking images of what has become known as the holocaust (with a capital H). In their own words, they “don’t feel it” (“it” not being pain, but revenge) which is absolutely normal. What isn’t normal is that they want to feel it. An Israeli child is expected to somehow contain such horrors as if they were their own.
Now, my own dichotomies come into play: On the one hand, I can easily relate to them at that age; on the other, I pity them – their minds abused at such a young age; and on another, they are tomorrow’s soldiers. As I look into their soft faces I wonder: Which of them will be gassing me in Bil’in next week? Which of them will call me a Nazi, as they did last week? In their head they are fighting their own extinction. Fighting for their lives. While in reality they are bigger and stronger than most. Yet another dichotomy that will traumatize them, and ironically, will turn them into exactly what they’re most afraid of.
The Thirst for Holocaust Porn
“The real journey begins now”, says one of the girls as she enters the (unbeknownst to her) partially recreated Majdanek with the Israeli flag in her hand and a white shirt with a blue tie (the national colors of Israel) and a star of david on the back (so many ironies, so little time). She was taught to act like this at a very young age, and school, yet again, provides her with the correct nationalistic props. I can relate, though I chose not to wrap myself in a flag (the trend in my day) for my own reasons. I remember Majdanek very vividly, due to the fact that it’s very…well… vivid. What I don’t remember, however, are the horror stories. Throughout Defamation I can definitely see an escalation in scare tactics. While stories I remember being told sounded more like rumors, something a testimony may sound like- hearsay, the stories these kids are being told take on mythical proportions (the bloodthirsty Lady Godiva is my personal favorite).
I remember, about a year ago, in the midst of a debate (if you can call it that) with a fascist Zionist, who perceives himself as a leftist, he threw the accusation at me that I want another Gaza, so I can wave more dead babies at the UN. The cynicism of such remarks is not what astonishes me, but the relentless displacement disorder that’s so typical of Zionists. As Zionists abuse the horrors of the holocaust for their personal gain, they blame the Palestinians for sanctifying death. “They want martyrs,” is a commonly uttered sentence.
Incredibly enough, this thirst for evidence of anti-Semitism isn’t calculated (at least, not anymore), but engrained so deeply in our education that it becomes an obsession. Maybe I’m having an embarrassing outing right now, thinking there must be more like me, when in fact the room is full of crickets, but after seeing the kids of Defamation, I feel I may have a potential support group, so here goes:
Until I got to Auchwitz, I was obsessed with holocaust porn.
I’m not talking about Nazi sex fantasy pulp fiction. I’m talking about the need to hear more stories and in as much detail as possible. The more gruesome, the better. Naked women run around the camp under the guise of a collective medical examination? Oh yes! Mama had to choose which baby lives and which one dies, burning in an old train cart? Give me more! Babies thrown out of windows and used as target practice plates? That hit the spot! Give me 5 minutes and tell me more!
What are we doing to these kids?
That’s ultimately the question that Defamation deals with. The director, like myself, is taking a hard look in the mirror, trying to understand what has brought him thus far. A personal journey that’s undetachable of social nurture. A personal journey which understands that the past is the past and you can’t undo it, you can only take responsibility for it and try to do better in the future.
UK’s Jewish Chronicle editor says extra-judicial murder is kosher
By Salaheddin Ahmad | February 11, 2010
www.redress.cc
Doubts have begun to resurface regarding the attitude of the Jewish Chronicle, Britain’s top Zionist newspaper and Israeli mouthpiece, towards justice and the rule of law after its editor, Stephen Pollard, publicly condoned extra-judicial murder.
In response to an email in which a reader of the Jewish Chronicle asked whether the newspaper considered “extra-judicial murder by Israel or any other state as acceptable in any way”, Mr Pollard simply replied “yes”.
The Jewish Chronicle is currently spearheading a campaign by Israel’s stooges and agents of influence to change UK law so that suspected Israeli war criminals can travel to Britain without fear of prosecution under universal jurisdiction.
Commenting on Mr Pollard’s support for extra-judicial murder, Chris Doyle, the director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said:
“Editors of newspapers have a major responsibility not to promote violations of law and in particular murder. Pollard’s support for murder is a disgrace and calls into serious question his standing as a serious journalist and editor.”
This is not the first time in which Stephen Pollard’s ethics have come under the spotlight. In December 2009, Redress Information & Analysis published an article in which a number of whistleblowers questioned the commitment of some of Britain’s top Jewish institutions, including the Jewish Chronicle, to basic universal principles of human rights and common decency.
The whistleblower from the Jewish Chronicle was especially scathing about Stephen Pollard, questioning his judgement and noting that the Jewish Chronicle editor’s choice of commentators and columnists put his sense of ethics in serious doubt. In an interview with Redress Information & Analysis Editor Nureddin Sabir, the whistleblower said:
Take a look at some of our commentators and columnists. The average British reader would take one glance and say “What a rogues gallery!” You have Tzipi Livni, that broken record Melanie Phillips and, worse of all, Geoffrey Aldeman. For God’ sake, Geoffrey Alderman is one of our regular columnist, believe it or not! For a newspaper that’s struggling to keep its readers, the choice of Geoffrey Alderman is a damn strange one, but that’s Stephen Pollard for you.
In early 2009 Mr Alderman argued that according to Jewish religious law, it was “entirely legitimate to kill” every Palestinian in Gaza who voted for Hamas.
For our whistleblower, the fact that Mr Alderman was still a regular columnist for the newspaper after making these comments was “scandalous and outrageous, morally and politically”. The whistleblower said:
Geoffrey Alderman spits out stuff that not even the British National Party, Combat-18 and the Ku Klux Klan would dare say these days.
Just imagine what would have happened if a British Muslim columnist said that it was fine to kill Israelis who voted for a government that slaughters Palestinian civilians. The whole country, from Westminster to the media, from the tabloids to the so-called “quality papers” to the BBC and ITN, would be up in arms with condemnations day and night, day after day for weeks on end. Politicians and others would be calling for prosecutions, Stephen Pollard would be rushing from one TV studio to another bellowing “anti-Semitism”.
But here we go, Alderman in effect condoning the murder of innocent civilians and he still writes for the Jewish Chronicle. What a way to appeal to the broader public! What morality!
Given Stephen Pollard’s latest public support for extra-judicial murder, the choice of suspected war criminal Tzipi Livni and murder apologist Geoffrey Alderman as Jewish Chromicle columnists does not seem all that strange.
You can contact Stephen Pollard and share with him your thoughts at stephenpollard@thejc.com.
Featured Video
Epidemic of fake videos
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Inside Job? Inside What?
By Prof. Tony Hall | American Herald Tribune | July 28, 2016
The Kevin Barrett-Chomsky Dispute in Historical Perspective – Sixth part of the series titled “9/11 and the Zionist Question”
In his chapter on “Left Gatekeepers” and the “Shame of Noam Chomsky,” Barrie Zwicker refers to the the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. Less compelling is Zwicker’s reference to the “New World Order” as the “diaboligarchy’s” directing agency. To me this unfortunate choice of words is much too closely associated with the often crude and chauvinistic populism of Alex Jones and his Infowars media network. Many have come to see Jones’ lucrative media operation as a limited hangout set in place by handlers trying to hold the activities of the 9/11 Truth Movement within manageable constraints.
Due to the important findings over fifteen years of the citizens’ investigation into 9/11, the culprits most deeply implicated in the crime can be identified with much more specificity than an entity vaguely described as a “New World Order.” As Kevin Barrett and many others insist, the time has come to name the names of the probable culprits, Noam Chomsky prominent among them.
While Alex Jones ultimately serves the same masters as Chomsky, the former’s media product is often much closer to the mark of what is really going on than the content of Noam Chomsky’s more magisterial pronouncements. Jones goes at least part of the way into realities of the deep state politics of the twenty-first century. Chomsky, however, sacrificed his capacity to contribute cogently to sensible discourse on contemporary geopolitics by making himself a primary instrument of the most consequential deep state deception of recent times. As a leading agent of disinformation in the psychological trenches of the ongoing Global War of False Flag Terrorism, Chomsky has reduced himself to the level of skeptic pretender Michael Shermer. In the style of Shermer, the elder Chomsky has become an establishment TV professor readily available on Netflix. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on Vicious loongtip on EU turns to India for defense… Coronistan on Donald Trump Is No Peace … seversonebcfb985d9 on French court jails pro-Palesti… eddieb on Fourteen Incredible Facts Abou… Bill Francis on European leaders’ shift in the… seversonebcfb985d9 on Villains of Judea: Philip Esfo… loongtip on Report warns that ‘Jewish terr… Craig Nelms on New study shows that toxic gas… loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F…
Aletho News- The Board For Peace – Whitewashing Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide
- Scientists accuse Cochrane Reviews of using biased studies to claim HPV vaccine prevents cancer
- Spain Opens Probe Into Israeli Tourism Firms
- Epidemic of fake videos
- Craig Murray, Reporting from Venezuela
- Why Israel’s Drive to Destroy Iran is Ultimately about Palestine
- Trump and Iran, War or Negotiations?
- US pressure contributing to Israeli influence in Latin America: Experts
- China Rejects U.S. Claims of Coercion in Central America
- New US defense strategy downgrades Russian ‘threat’
- If Americans Knew
- Greenpeace Demonstrator Exposes Folly of Protest Restrictions
- From CBS to TikTok, Pro-Israel Ellison is now in the driver’s seat
- Israel pays for UK advertisements attacking Doctors Without Borders
- Israel accused of extracting billions from Gazan people to pay for their own genocide
- ‘Deliberate Assassination’: 3 Journalists Among 11 Killed by Israeli Forces in Gaza
- In Gaza, We’re Struggling to Reintroduce Foods to Bodies Adjusted to Starvation
- Will Rafah crossing be opened at last? – Not a ceasefire Day 108
- Israeli drone strike kills two children collecting firewood in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 107
- Another Gaza baby freezes to death on Netanyahu’s watch – Not a ceasefire Day 106
- Oppose Israel’s Abuses While You Still Can
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
- Germany’s Natural Gas Crisis Escalates … One Storage Site Near Empty …Government Silent
- Polar Colding…Antarctica Saw Its Coldest October In 44 Years!
- New Study: Sea Levels Rose 20 Times The Modern Rate During The Roman Warm Period
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
Aletho News 