Sukant Chandan

October 31, 2011 Gadafi fights until the end with our Black Brothers in Africa, for Africa Never before has the world witnessed empire and its mercenaries (in the form of the pro-nato Libyan rebels) perform such a public gruesome crucifixion of a leader of the world anti-imperialist movement. The lynching of Gadafi, whose videos are being paraded throughout the empire media shows us that at this moment of growing war against the Global South the empire is sending us clear message of white supremacy and wars of aggression. Saddam Hussein was afforded better treatment, he was caught, tried in a kangaroo court, executed, his body was then handed to his family for burial in his home town. Gadafi gets a different treatment, a treatment given the green light by the empire in the form of Hilary Clinton’s advocacy of his murder days before. Why the different treatment for Gadafi? Because he is considered the vanguard leader of Africa by people like Nelson Mandela, and Julius Malema? Is it because Gadafi represents African liberation, a liberation that the west fears more than most and has kept down more than most? Libya is known as the ‘shield of Africa’ due to its fundamental role in the freeing, uniting and the development of a united Africa. It is also well known that Libya has the best living standards in all of Africa for its people, and the infant mortality and life expectancy rivals many ‘developed’ nations. Therefore, the message from the empire in the celebration of the lynching of Gadafi is that any people of the Global South, especially Africans, should expect this if they are to defy, let alone successfully defy them. The anti-nato Jamihiriya forces in Libya are in the leadership of the world struggle against this new round of attempted recolonisation of Africa, and the pro-nato rebels are Arab white supremacists who have joined up with nato white supremacists in this attack on Africa and especially darker skinned Libyans and darker-skinned African migrants in Libya. The war in Libya reflects the Black Liberation struggle of Africa in the forces of the resistance, and for these reasons darker skinned people have fought disproportionally in the resistance, and have been targeted disproportionally by nato and their allies. In the videos of Gadafi’s lynching, there are several Black people who are tied to the back of pro-nato rebel pick-up trucks. One of them, the first below, is immediately in the vicinity of Gadafi being lynched. The second photo is taken from THIS clip from Al-Jazeera English, which is a piece about the lynching of Gadafi. This is a screen print, although the camera stays on this scene for 9seconds and then cuts straight to another two people in the back of pro-nato rebel trucks, including what looks like a very young black man of around 20yrs old with a lighter skinned middle aged Libyan man with an Islamic skull cap on. The AJE piece makes no comment on this footage, which is unsurprising, as AJE and its Arabic channel have led the racist story of ‘African mercenaries’ fighting for Gadafi (to date no evidence has been provided, admitted by western media and ngos), which has helped facilitate the mass lynching of darker skinned people in Libya, including the complete destruction of the town of 25,000 mostly darker skinned Libyans in Tawergha. As far as I am aware, I have been the only one who has commented on these images in THIS interview on Russia Today. I would encourage others to raise their voices. A small point, I was mistaken that I thought one of the black brothers was tied to vertical poles, he is actually tied to a mounted heavy artillery gun barrel on the pick-up truck which is at a 45 degree angle. He is clearly terrified and bloodied. Why arent these images being commented on more in the media and by commentators etc? Has the lynching of black people become so acceptable? The war against Africa for its recolonisation is on. Empire has its sights clearly on Algeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Somalia, and all of these countries are countries to overthrow, control and dominate, and empire’s plans for them are well under way. (please see previous posts on Sons of Malcolm for reports, analysis and articles about this). For Africa’s part, Africa needs a leadership like Gadafi who will fight until the end, shoulder to shoulder, in the land of his foremothers and forefathers in the face of empire aggression. Unity of the Global South, especially with Brazil, India, Russia and China, as well as developing a military self-defence capability in line with assymetrical warfare and the arming and politicisation of the masses in anti-imperialist liberation ideology, are the other fundamental factors necessary for not only resisting, but achieving gains and victory against empire. I will be writing a longer article on Gadafi’s lynching and martyrdom in the coming week. By Sukant Chandan, Sons of Malcolm Source

Related Posts:

• Libya: Massacre of Black people by « democratic rebels » – Investig’Action had met the victims. Investig’Action
• Western Mercenaries and Corporations Pouring Into Libya
• WAR DRUMS: Israel Warns US Jews: Iran Could Strike Here
• Veteran Health – Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Can Cause Disease Many Years Later
• Deadly Racism in Post-Gaddafi Libya

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a staunch supporter of Israeli policy, has described criticism of Israeli as a form of ”new anti-Semitism”. [EPA]

Nearly two years after the first hearings were held in Ottawa, the Canadian Parliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) released a detailed report on July 7 that found that anti-Semitism is on the rise in Canada, especially on university campuses.

While the CPCCA’s final report does contain some cases of real anti-Semitism, the committee has provided little evidence that anti-Semitism has actually increased in Canada in recent years. Instead, it has focused a disproportionate amount of effort and resources on what it calls a so-called “new anti-Semitism”: criticism of Israel.

Indeed, the real purpose of the CPCCA committee seems to be to stifle critiques of Israeli policy and disrupt pro-Palestinian solidarity organizing in Canada, including, most notably, Israeli Apartheid Week events. Many of the CPCCA’s findings, therefore, must be rejected as both an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of protest, and as recklessly undermining the fight against real instances of anti-Semitism.

The CPCCA and its findings

The Canadian Parliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) was born out of a conference held in London in February 2009 by the Inter-Parliamentary Committee for Combating Anti-Semitism. Formed in March 2009 and not directly linked to the Canadian government, or to any NGO or advocacy group, the CPCCA included 22 Canadian Parliament members from across party lines. Former Liberal MP Mario Silva chaired the Inquiry Panel and Conservative MP Scott Reid led the Steering Committee.

Between November 2009 and January 2010, the CPCCA held ten separate hearings during which time representatives of various non-governmental organizations, religious institutions, police departments and Canadian and Israeli universities presented papers meant to assess the level of anti-Semitism in Canada. While groups critical of Israel were denied the chance to address the committee, major Zionist organizations like B’nai Brith Canada, Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, and the Canadian Jewish Congress were welcomed.

“Much of today’s anti-Semitism manifests in anti-Israel agitation around boycotts, divestment and sanctions,” said Avi Benlolo, President and CEO of the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, during a hearing in November 2009. “It deploys an unfair double standard against the Jewish state, singling out of Israel alone for one-sided, harsh criticism and calls for punitive actions.”

Throughout the consultation process, the CPCCA regularly focused on Canadian university campuses, which were routinely described as hotbeds of anti-Semitism, where Jewish students or students with pro-Israel leanings are often intimidated and threatened. This accusation was made repeatedly, and included in the CPCCA’s final report, despite the fact that Dr. Fred Lowy, President Emeritus of Concordia University in Montreal, stated in his address to the CPCCA that, “by and large, Canadian campuses are safe and are not hotbeds of anti-Semitism of any kind”.

In its final report, the CPCCA made about two dozen recommendations on how best to fight anti-Semitism in Canada. While the report states that “criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is wrong”, it also found that “singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium … is discriminatory and hateful” and many of its recommendations deal with combating this “new anti-Semitism”.

A major recommendation issued by the CPCCA was that the Canadian government should promote the working definition of anti-Semitism used by The European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). This definition categorizes “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” as anti-Semitic.

In other words, the CPCCA is supporting a definition whereby individuals who focus their attention on Israeli human rights violations, yet don’t level an equal amount of condemnation on other states for their human rights violations, can be labeled as anti-Semitic. This is obviously problematic since Palestine solidarity activists - like any other people – have commitments that make it impossible to engage with every issue they are otherwise interested in. They shouldn’t be labeled as anti-Semitic due to their inability to participate in every single human rights struggle happening around the world.

Another dangerous recommendation made by the CPCCA was that Canadian university administrators should condemn “discourse, events and speakers which are untrue, harmful, or not in the interest of academic discourse, including Israeli Apartheid Week”. Even the use of the word “apartheid” in relation to Israel is anti-Semitic, the CPCCA found, since it amounts to the “denial of the Jewish people their right to self- determination … by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”.

This clearly violates freedom of speech and an open exchange of ideas at Canadian universities, and also unfairly and inaccurate labels Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) as anti-Semitic. In reality, IAW has since 2005 brought together respected activists, academics, journalists and cultural figures from around the world, including Judith Butler, Ronnie Kasrils, Noam Chomsky and Ali Abunimah, among others, to openly discuss ideas related to Israel/Palestine.

IAW provides an educational space for understanding Israel’s apartheid policies - as evidenced, for example, through the separate legal systems used by Israelis and Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank or the discriminatory land ownership laws operating inside Israel - and supports the growing campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), which aims to non-violently pressure Israel to respect international law. It is far from the “uniformly well-organized, aggressive [campaign] designed to make the Jewish state and its supporters pariahs” the CPCCA report makes it out to be.

The CPCCA also recommended that the Canadian Committee of Foreign Affairs undertake a study on the United Nations Human Rights Council, “particularly regarding its over-emphasis of alleged human rights abuses by Israel, while ignoring flagrant human rights abuses of other member states”.

This clearly demonstrates how the committee has confounded anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel, and is prepared to levy dubious suspicions against UN bodies and tarnish Canada’s international standing in the process.

In a statement released on July 8, Thomas Woodley, President of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), said that the CPCCA’s recommendations, “if implemented, will inhibit public discussion of Israel’s conduct”.

“CJPME believes that conclusions and recommendations generated by a process in which the same body – the CPCCA - is prosecutor, jury, and judge, are not credible. Although a few of the witnesses recounted incidents that were indeed indicative of genuine anti-Semitism, many were complaining about merely being exposed to criticism of the Israel’s conduct,” the CJPME press release stated.

Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) Canada also criticized the committee, stating that “the CPCCA’s goal is to criminalize criticism of Israel and Zionism, not to hold impartial hearings. Therefore, we oppose the CPCCA as an ideologically biased organization with an agenda that will harm free speech and human rights activity in Canada. We oppose the CPCCA’s Orwellian distortion of anti-Semitism. It is a danger to both Canadian liberties and to the genuine and necessary fight against anti-Semitism.”

Reflection of official Canadian policy

While labeling critics of Israeli policy as anti-Semitic is nothing new, the level at which this accusation is now being used in Canadian discourse must be seen as a reflection of the Canadian government’s official and current policy on the Middle East.

“When Israel, the only country in the world whose very existence is under attack, is consistently and conspicuously singled out for condemnation, I believe we are morally obligated to take a stand.  Demonization, double standards, de-legitimization, the three D’s, it is the responsibility of us all to stand up to them,” Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in 2010 at the Ottawa Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, which was supported by the CPCCA.  Harper added:

Under Harper, Canada has routinely defended Israeli intransigence and disregard for international law and the human rights of the Palestinian people under its control. In return, trade cooperation and military and security technologies ties have been strengthened between the two states.

In May of this year, it was reported that Harper was adamantly opposed to making any reference to the 1967 borders in a G8 summit statement calling for renewed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Far-right Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman thanked Harper for his position, and stated, “Canada is a true friend of Israel”.

In 2010, Canada announced it would discontinue its financial contributions to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the organization that provides support and resources to approximately 4.7m registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the occupied Palestinian territories, and funnel the money into greater policing and security institutions run by the un-elected and corrupt Palestinian Authority leadership instead.

In January 2009, as the Israeli army continued its disproportionate attack on the besieged civilian population in Gaza that left 1,400 Palestinians dead in the span of three weeks, Canada was the only country out of 47 that voted against a motion at the United Nations Human Rights Council condemning the Israeli violence.
In addition to providing diplomatic cover for Israel, the Canadian government has attacked and cut funding to various non-governmental organizations working on issues related to Israel/Palestine, including Kairos Churches and Alternatives International.

Canadian Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney, who led the formation of the Canadian Parliamentary Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism (CPCCA) and is an ex-officio member, has also repeatedly alleged that the Canadian Arab Federation promotes anti-Semitism and hatred. While Kenney never backed up these claims, the Canadian Arab Federation’s contracts with the government - which helped finance language programs for Toronto-area immigrants (the majority of whom are of Chinese origin) - were not renewed in 2009.

Undermining the fight against real anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism, like all other forms of racism, is appalling and must be strongly and unequivocally condemned.
But by defining legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and pro-Palestinian activism in Canada as anti-Semitic, the CPCCA is not only threatening free speech and freedom of protest, but it is undermining the fight against real cases of anti-Semitism and weakening the seriousness with which such cases should be dealt.

This is something that Canadians, and people everywhere, should be adamantly against.

Jillian Kestler-D’Amours is a Canadian freelance journalist based in Jerusalem. She regularly contributes to The Electronic Intifada, Inter-Press Service and Free Speech Radio News. More of her work can be found at http://jkdamours.com/

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Related Posts:

• THE NAZI LOVE AFFAIR WITH ISRAEL
• Taliban will rule Afghanistan again, says leaked US military report
• US missiles ‘hit Iranian village’
• Iran Says Oil Will Pass $250 Bbl If Exports Banned
• NYPD Holds College Student in Jail for Three Days Because She Wasn’t Carrying ID

The Spirit of Rachel Corrie (officially known as FINCH) carrying a humanitarian cargo to Gaza was attacked by an Israeli naval patrol within the so-called Palestinian Security Zone on May 15, at 10.54pm EDT.

In the course of the last few hours, Global Research has communicated several times with the Rachel Corrie vessel en route to Gaza. What is provided below is a detailed update. An earlier article was posted at 12.30am EDT

The vessel left the Greek Port of Piraeus, on Wednesday, May 11. The humanitarian initiative is sponsored by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation (PGPF), chaired by the former Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohamad.

Participating in this mission are anti-war activists and journalists, consisting of 7 Malaysians, 2 Irish, 2 Indians and 1 Canadian. The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) is a partner in this endeavor. Global Research`s Julie Lévesque is on board the Rachel Corrie:

The cargo ship The Spirit of Rachel Corrie (officially known as FINCH) is carrying 7.5 kilometers of UPVC (plastic) sewage pipes to help restore the devastated sewerage system in Gaza. The ship was named after the courageous American activist who was crushed and killed by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003 while trying to prevent the demolition of another Palestinian home. She died at 23. ( Perdana’s Second Press Release, Nakba and the Spirit of Rachel Corrie: Humanitarian Ship Attacked by Israel now within 1.5 nautical miles of Gazan Waters  Global Research, May 16, 2011)

The Spirit of Rachel Corrie entered Gazan waters without being detected.

The Israeli navy with its radar equipment and advanced communications technology was unaware of the Spirit of Rachel Corrie Mission.

They were unprepared.  They had received no prior information of the Rachel Corrie Mission, which had been planned for several months, scheduled to arrive off the coast of Gaza on the day of the “Nakba” commemoration.

Ironically, Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency was unaware of this mission. The Israeli navy vessels acted in an improvised fashion, without prior knowledge or intelligence. There was no indication that they had received precise instructions from the Israeli government.

At the time of the attack, the passengers on board were under the impression that the ship was still in international waters, when in fact is was one mile inside the “Palestinian Security zone”, namely in Gaza territorial waters, within a short distance of the Gaza coastline. This was an important accomplishment.

Indicated below is the initial report sent to Global Research by text message:

At 10.54 pm Eastern Time (EDT), the Spirit of Rachel Corrie was intercepted by an Israeli ship and a Egyptian ship in international waters [correction: within Gaza Territorial waters]

10:54pm EDT, Gaza 5:54am: We have been intercepted by Israeli ship and Egyptian ship. We are disobeying the orders and sailing ahead to Gaza.

10:57pm EDT, Gaza 5:57am: One Israeli warship coming to us very fast! We are in international waters, therefore they have no right to attack us. We are still sailing ahead.

10:59pm EDT, Gaza 5:59am: They are opening fire across our ship! We are still sailing ahead.

11:09pm EDT, Gaza 6:09am: They are shooting all over the place. We can’t continue …

11:35pm EDT, Gaza 6:35am: They circled our ship twice and fired across our ship. Machine guns. No one was injured. One of the fishing nets caught the propeller, so we can’t move now.

11:37pm EDT, Gaza 6:37am: The Israeli ship was coming from one end and the Egyptian ship was coming from another end. Firing. We are just stalled now. Everybody is okay. No one is injured.

Two Israeli naval vessels initially launched a “warning attack” on the Rachel Corrie, indicating that if the ship did not change course, they would shoot at the crew and the passengers. One of the passengers was almost killed as a result of the attacks. (See Bernama, May 16, 2011)

The following exchange took place between the Israeli navy and the ship as reported by the Free Malaysia Today journalist on board the Spirit of Rachel Corrie:

“Israeli army: This is a warning shot. Turn around.

Captain Jalil Mansor: We are unarmed civilians on a humanitarian mission to Gaza.

Israeli army: This is a closed military zone. It’s a violation. Turn around.

Mansor: We will continue (the mission).

The Israelis then headed to the back of the aid vessel and released a second warning shot into the air.

Graham: This is a violation (of international law). We are on a peaceful mission and unarmed.

Israeli army: Turn around. We will fire again.

Graham: You are firing towards unarmed civilians.

Israeli army: We didn’t fire towards unarmed civilians.

Graham: Looks like firing towards us.

Israeli army: We didn’t fire towards you. That is only a warning shot.

Following that conversation, the Israeli army fired two more shots and threatened: “Next time, we will land on your ship.”

Then the Egyptian navy was heard telling the Israelis on the radio: “Stop firing. They are in Egyptian waters.”

Upon realising the presence of Egyptian naval forces, the Israelis departed.” (Free Malaysia Today, http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/05/16/israel-fires-warning-shots-at-msian-ship/ May 16, 2011)

The Egyptian navy guard was initially unaware of what was occurring. The Israeli navy contacted the Egyptian navy and initially got no response.

Our earlier report (filed at 12.30am) following communication with the ship shortly after midnight (March 16) pointed to cooperation between the Israeli navy and their Egyptian counterparts. While there was cooperation, the Egyptians played a supportive role, which served to appeasing the Israeli attacks as well as escorting the Spirit of Rachel Corrie into Egyptian territorial waters.

The Israeli Navy had contacted the Spirit of Rachel Corrie. They were informed regarding the nature of the cargo and that the crew and passengers were unarmed civilians.

The warning attack was aggressive using automatic weapons. Two Israeli naval patrol boats armed with machine guns were deployed. The Israelis also opened fire on a Palestinian fishing boat which was within Gazan territorial waters.

Following the initial “warning attack” they ordered the Spirit of Rachel Corrie to turn back. “Turn around or we’ll shoot”. However, once the ship changed course as demanded by the Israeli commando, they continued firing on the ship:  “They started shooting to kill”

The Egyptian navy ship while communicating with the Israeli Navy was instrumental in escorting the ship to safe haven. The crew of the Egyptian ship was supportive in ensuring the safety of the crew and passengers of the humanitarian vessel.

There was communication between the Israeli and Egyptian ships and the Israeli’s “thanked” the Egyptian ship for having intervened.

The Spirit of Rachel Corrie, its crew and passengers are  now in Egyptian territorial water, anchored off the Egyptian port of Al Arish, within a short distance of  Gaza territorial waters.

It is essential at this stage to mobilize Worldwide in support for the Spirit of Rachel Corrie, break the blockade, open up Gazan territorial waters to aid and trade and also use this opportunity to open the land border between Egypt and Gaza.

The humanitarian convoy is of significance in the process of rehabilitation of Gaza’s public health infrastructure including its sewage system which was partially destroyed by Israeli bombings under Operation Cast Lead:

On 27 December 2008, the Israeli military launched Operation Cast Lead, which not only killed some 1400 Palestinians, but also destroyed vital infrastructure leaving the Gazans with critical water and sewage problems. Repair of the infrastructure has proved impossible as Israel has prevented the entry of construction materials and fuel to resolve this dire situation.

According to a report from the Emergency Water, Sanitation and Hygiene group (EWASH), “the release of 80 million litres of untreated or partially treated sewage into the environment and Mediterranean Sea each day is primarily a result of the Israeli imposed blockade on the Gaza Strip.”

Gaza, one of the world’s most densely populated areas, is currently dealing with serious health issues such as the blue baby syndrome, diarrhea and other waterborne diseases like typhoid and hepatitis A. The World Health Organization is warning of a possible cholera epidemic if nothing is done rapidly to resolve this sanitation crisis.

According to Physicians for Human Rights-Israel: “Between 90% and 95% of the aquifers in the Gaza Strip are not safe for drinking.” The primary cause of the current problem originates from the destruction, during Operation Cast Lead, of “20 kilometers of water pipes, 7.5 kilometers of sewage pipes and 5,700 mobile water tanks”.

While the Gazans are experiencing the dramatic environmental impacts of the sewage and water crisis, the effects have already reached the Israeli shores, and could spread further affecting neighbouring countries. This severe health and environmental issue needs to be dealt with urgently. The international community must demand that the illegal Israeli blockade be lifted.

The Spirit of Rachel Corrie Mission stemmed from PGFP’s participation in the Freedom Flotilla in 2010, in which 9 activists were killed by Israeli commandos. Following a fact finding mission conducted in Gaza in October 2010, PGPF decided to continue its efforts to assist Palestinians and shows this project as the most immediate of all priorities. See Perdana’s Second Press Release, Nakba and the Spirit of Rachel Corrie: Humanitarian Ship Attacked by Israel now within 1.5 nautical miles of Gazan Waters0777 646 2379, Global Research, May 16, 2011)

SPREAD THE WORD. POST ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER

Related Posts:

• They hate us for our freedoms
• America’s “Unnoticed” Military Aggression. US Combat Troops Arrive in Uganda
• U.S. Sues to Stop AT&T Deal – A Surprisingly Swift Move or Disinformation?
• Judge Declares Law Governing Warrantless Cellphone Tracking Unconstitutional
• Veteran Health – Exposure to Toxic Chemicals Can Cause Disease Many Years Later

Iraqi Christians ‘It’s genocide, essentially’

The Common Ills

Iraqi Christians express solidarity with the victims of the recent Baghdad church raid during a protest outside the McNamara Federal Building in Detroit. PHOTOS: Natasha Dado/TAAN November 18, 2010 Natasha Dado (Arab American News via New America Media) reports on last week’s rally in Detroit to protest the targeting of Iraqi Christians and quotes Patrick Lossia stating, “As a result of the U.S. occupying Iraq, its Christian population has declined from three percent to one percent. If America never invaded Iraq in 2003, we would have stabilization. We’re almost less than one percent of the minority in Iraq, but we’re the ones dying the most. I didn’t like Saddam Hussein, but it’s a fact Iraq was safer under his regime.” October 31st, Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad was attacked, over 70 people died, over 70 were wounded. Among the dead were two priests, one of which was shot in the back of his head “execution style.” That event began the latest wave of attacks on Iraqi Christians. Leila Fadel and Ali al-Qeisy (Washington Post) report, “The names of the dead are pasted on the floor in the center of the church and surrounded by lighted candles. But the window glass is missing, destroyed by blasts and gunfire, and craters dot the ground – all reminders of the four suicide bombers who carried out the deadly attack along with other gunmen.” The response to the latest wave of attacks is no different from earlier responses: many Iraqi Christians attempt to relocate within and outside of Iraq. The government response? When the issue receives global attention, Iraqi politicians make a few public statments and nothing more is done. This has especially been the pattern since Nouri al-Maliki was installed as prime minister in 2006. Alan Holdren (Catholic News Agency) quotes the Syrian Catholic Archbishop Basile Georges Casmoussa of Mosul stating, “In terms of declarations, we are really saturated. What we are asking for are concrete actions. We must find a solution, solutions, effective ways to safeguard the security of Christians.” Meanwhile Alsumaria TV reports that Iraqi president Jalal Talabani is whining over France’s offer of asylum to victims of the October 31st attacks and their families and saying that Iraqi Christians are welcome in the KRG. But they’re not always safe in the KRG. And they don’t have all the bodyguards that Jalal does, do they? Jalal is one of the two types of stupid on display of late. The first is someone basically in Iraq but well protected who has a hissy that another nation might offer asylum to the defenseless persecuted. The second is the Iraqi Christian who has fled Iraq at some point and is now safely in another land (often a citizen of that land) and who insists that Iraqi Christians must stay in Iraq. The Detroit rally was made a joke by one of the leaders of the rally insisting that Iraqi Christians must remain in Iraq. The very obvious point is that that leader didn’t remain in Iraq nor has he taken it upon himself to go back to Iraq. It’s easy to call for someone to make what could be a last stand while you’re safe elsewhere. The latest wave of attacks is one in a series of ongoing attacks. Iraqi Christians have not been protected throughout the war. Anyone who feels they need to leave should have all the resources and support needed. Anyone who feels they want to stay should be encouraged and the Iraqi government should be offering them all the resources and support they need. But what shouldn’t happen is for other people to be making the decisions for them. This is life or death and it will be blood on someone’s hands if they attempt to make the decision for Iraqi Christians. Repeating, there is something highly offensive about an American-Iraqi who wants Iraqi Christians to remain in Iraq while he sits his happy little ass safe in Detroit. If what he now advocates had been done to him and his family, he’d still be in Iraq. That no one involved in planning the rally saw that rank hypocrisy is rather telling. (As was his cries that the US military must remain in Iraq for years to protect Iraqi Christians. The targeting is not an excuse to continue the illegal war.) Kevin Menz (The Sheaf) reports on a Saskatoon protest against the violence and quotes Peter Kiryakos stating, “It’s genocide, essentially. The Christian people, since the war began, have had no protection and have been targeted by terrorist groups wanting them out of the country.” If it’s genocide, it’s criminal to suggest that Iraqi Christians should be forced to stay in Iraq. (Repeating, some may want to leave, some may want to stay. That is for them to decide and governments world should open their borders to those who make the decision to leave.) Meanwhile Stockholm News reports: 61 deportations of Iraqis from Sweden have so far been stopped on request by the European Court for Human Rights. This claims the Swedish Migration Board in a press release. But all deportations are not stopped and this is criticised by the secretary general of Council of Europe Torbjörn Jagland. The Swedish Migration Board has decided to stop the deportation of Iraqi refugees in some individual cases. But this is not a general policy. Tomorrow morning for example, one plane departs for Baghdad with an unknown number of Iraqis from Sweden on-board. The Local reports that “tomorrow morning” departure (yesterday morning) was called off when the Eurpoean Court of Human Rights sent a request Tuesday night. Turning to Iraqi politics, Alsumaria TV reports, “State of Law Coalition senior official Hassan Al Sunaid stated that the political parties have started the legislation of a special law for the national policy council which will play a major advisory role in shaping Iraq’s future policies, he said.” This council is supposed to be part of the deal which allowed a Speaker and President to be determined and a prime minister-designate to be named. March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian‘s editorial board noted in August, “These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality.” 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher — 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance — this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. November 10th a power sharing deal resulted in the Parliament meeting for the second time and voting in a Speaker. And then Iraqiya felt double crossed on the deal and the bulk of their members stormed out of the Parliament. David Ignatius (Washington Post) explains, “The fragility of the coalition was dramatically obvious Thursday as members of the Iraqiya party, which represents Sunnis, walked out of Parliament, claiming that they were already being double-crossed by Maliki. Iraqi politics is always an exercise in brinkmanship, and the compromises unfortunately remain of the save-your-neck variety, rather than reflecting a deeper accord. ” After that, Jalal Talabani was voted President of Iraq. Talabani then named Nouri as the prime minister-delegate. If Nouri can meet the conditions outlined in Article 76 of the Constitution (basically nominate ministers for each council and have Parliament vote to approve each one with a minimum of 163 votes each time and to vote for his council program) within thirty days, he becomes the prime minister. If not, Talabani must name another prime minister-delegate. . In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister-delegate. It took eight months and two days to name Nouri as prime minister-delegate. His first go-round, on April 22, 2006, his thirty day limit kicked in. May 20, 2006, he announced his cabinet — sort of. Sort of because he didn’t nominate a Minister of Defense, a Minister of Interior and a Minister of a Natioanl Security. This was accomplished, John F. Burns wrote in “For Some, a Last, Best Hope for U.S. Efforts in Iraq” (New York Times), only with via “muscular” assistance from the Bush White House. Nouri declared he would be the Interior Ministry temporarily. Temporarily lasted until June 8, 2006. This was when the US was able to strong-arm, when they’d knocked out the other choice for prime minister (Ibrahim al-Jaafari) to install puppet Nouri and when they had over 100,000 troops on the ground in Iraq. Nouri had no competition. That’s very different from today. The Constitution is very clear and it is doubtful his opponents — including within his own alliance — will look the other way if he can’t fill all the posts in 30 days. As Leila Fadel (Washington Post) observes, “With the three top slots resolved, Maliki will now begin to distribute ministries and other top jobs, a process that has the potential to be as divisive as the initial phase of government formation.” Jane Arraf (Christian Science Monitor) points out, “Maliki now has 30 days to decide on cabinet posts – some of which will likely go to Iraqiya – and put together a full government. His governing coalition owes part of its existence to followers of hard-line cleric Muqtada al Sadr, leading Sunnis and others to believe that his government will be indebted to Iran.” The stalemate ends when the country has a prime minister. It is now eight months, eleven days and counting. And we’ll close with this from Andy Worthington’s “Obama Erects Impenetrable Wall to Accountability” (World Can’t Wait): On national security issues, there are now two Americas. In the first, which existed from January to May 2009, the rule of law flickered briefly back to life after eight years of the Bush administration. In this first America, President Obama swept into office issuing executive orders promising to close Guantánamo and to uphold the absolute ban on torture, and also suspended the much-criticized system of trials by Military Commission used by the Bush administration to secure just three contentious convictions in seven years. In addition, in April 2009 he complied with a court order to release four “torture memos” issued in 2002 and 2005 by lawyers in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which purported to redefine torture so that it could be used by the CIA (in 2002), or broadly upheld that decision (in 2005). As well as confirming the role of the courts in upholding the law, these documents contained important information for those hoping to hold senior Bush administration officials and lawyers accountable for their actions in the “War on Terror.” The final flourish of this period was the decision to move a Guantánamo prisoner to New York to face a federal court trial, which took place in May 2009. Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian seized in Pakistan in July 2004, was held in secret CIA custody for over two years, until he was moved to Guantánamo in September 2006, with 13 other men regarded as “high-value detainees.” Ghailani’s transfer to face justice in New York for his involvement with the 1998 African embassy bombings was important not only because it confirmed that Guantánamo prisoners could be tried in federal court, rather than by Military Commission, but also because it established a connection with the way in which justice had been pursued before the 9/11 attacks. Ghailani had been indicted for his part in the African embassy bombings in 1998, and three of his alleged co-conspirators had been successfully tried and convicted in federal court in May 2001, prior to receiving life sentences in October 2001. Unfortunately, in the second America, which emerged on the same day as Ghailani’s transfer, the rule of law has, for the most part, given way to political expediency and the blatant obstruction of justice, which have served only to reinforce the hideous novelties introduced by the Bush administration in its “War on Terror,” and to prevent any attempt to secure accountability for those responsible for the administration’s crimes. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

:: Article nr. 71960 sent on 18-nov-2010 20:02 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=71960

Link: thecommonills.blogspot.com/2010/11/iraqi-christians-its-genocide.html

Related Posts:

• When The Smoke Clears… CELEBRATE!
• Think tank: 92% of Afghans never heard of 9/11
• Cyber Command Prepares the Ground for High-Tech War Crimes
• Brazil ready to retaliate for US move in ‘currency war’
• Afghanistan: Russia Steps in to Help NATO

Israeli government documents show deliberate policy to keep Gazans at near-starvation levels

Saed Bannoura

IMEMC, November 6, 2010 Documents whose existence were denied by the Israeli government for over a year have been released after a legal battle led by Israeli human rights group Gisha. The documents reveal a deliberate policy by the Israeli government in which the dietary needs for the population of Gaza are chillingly calculated, and the amounts of food let in by the Israeli government measured to remain just enough to keep the population alive at a near-starvation level. This documents the statement made by a number of Israeli officials that they are “putting the people of Gaza on a diet”. Calculation sheet from newly-released documents (image from Gisha) In 2007, when Israel began its full siege on Gaza, Dov Weisglass, adviser to then Prime-Minister Ehud Olmert, stated clearly, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” The documents now released contain equations used by the Israeli government to calculate the exact amounts of food, fuel and other necessities needed to do exactly that. The documents are even more disturbing, say human rights activists, when one considers the fact that close to half of the people of Gaza are children under the age of eighteen. This means that Israel has deliberately forced the undernourishment of hundreds of thousands of children in direct violation of international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention. This release of documents also severely undermines Israel’s oft-made claim that the siege is “for security reasons”, as it documents a deliberate and systematic policy of collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza. Gisha’s director said, in relation to the release of documents, “Israel banned glucose for biscuits and the fuel needed for regular supply of electricity – paralyzing normal life in Gaza and impairing the moral character of the State of Israel. I am sorry to say that major elements of this policy are still in place.” In its statement accompanying the release of the documents, Gisha wrote: The documents reveal that the state approved “a policy of deliberate reduction” for basic goods in the Gaza Strip (section h.4, page 5*). Thus, for example, Israel restricted the supply of fuel needed for the power plant, disrupting the supply of electricity and water. The state set a “lower warning line” (section g.2, page 5) to give advance warning of expected shortages in a particular item, but at the same time approved ignoring that warning, if the good in question was subject to a policy of “deliberate reduction”. Moreover, the state set an “upper red line” above which even basic humanitarian items could be blocked, even if they were in demand (section g.1, page 5). The state claimed in a cover letter to Gisha that in practice, it had not authorized reduction of “basic goods” below the “lower warning line”, but it did not define what these “basic goods” were. Commentator Richard Silverstein wrote: “In reviewing the list of permitted items for import, you come to realize that these are the only items allowed. In other words, if an item is not on the list, it’s prohibited. So, for example, here is the list of permitted spices: Black pepper, soup powder, hyssop, sesame. cinnamon, anise, babuna (chamomile), sage. Sorry, cumin, basil, bay leaf, allspice, carraway, cardamon, chiles, chives, cilantro, cloves, garlic, sesame, tamarind, thyme, oregano, cayenne. Not on the list. You’re not a spice Palestinians need according to some IDF dunderhead. And tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, toys, glassware, paint, and shoes? You can forget about them too. Luxuries all, or else security threats.” Despite the disturbing nature of the documents, which show a calculated policy of deliberate undernourishment of an entire population, no major media organizations have reported the story. The full text of the released documents, and the original Freedom of Information Act request filed by Gisha, can be found on Gisha’s website at the link below: http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1904& intSiteSN=113

Related Posts:

• ISRAEL TO BE SUED FOR MURDER ON THE SEA IN US COURT
• Israel sends SOS to world leaders to “save” Mubarak Published on 01-31-2011
• For 18 Minutes in April, China Hijacked 15% of the World’s Internet Traffic
• Currency Wars: A Race to the Bottom of the Inflationary Barrel
• Incriminating Evidence Of Israeli War Crimes

Invisible Holocaust: Mountains of Dead Children and “the World’s Greatest Democracy”

Chris Floyd

July 22, 2010 In the last decade of the 20th century, a nation often hailed (not least by itself) as the “world’s greatest democracy” directed a program of savage economic warfare against a broken, defenseless country. This blockade, carried out with an exacting bureaucratic coldness, killed, by very conservative estimate, at least one million innocent people. More than half of these victims were young children. Dead children. Thousands of dead children. Tens of thousands of dead children, Hundreds of thousands of dead children. Mountains of dead children. Vast pestiferous slagheaps of dead children. This is what the world’s greatest democracy created, deliberately, coldly, as a matter of carefully considered national policy. The blockade was carried out for one reason only: to force out the broken country’s recalcitrant leader, who had once been an ally and client of the world’s greatest democracy but was no longer considered acquiescent enough to be allowed to govern his strategically placed land and its vast energy resources. The leadership of both of the dominant power factions in the world’s greatest democracy agreed that the deliberate murder of innocent people — more people than were killed in the coterminous genocide in Rwanda — was an acceptable price to pay for this geopolitical objective. To them, the game — that is, the augmentation of their already stupendous, world-shadowing wealth and power — was worth the candle — that is, the death spasms of a child in the final agonies of gastroenteritis, or cholera, or some other easily preventable affliction. It is, by any measure, one of the most remarkable — and horrific — stories of the last half of the 20th century, outstripped in that period only by China’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ and by the millions killed in the conflicts in Indochina in which the world’s greatest democracy played such an instrumental role. Yet it remains an “invisible war,” as Joy Gordon calls it in the title of her new book on the United States and the Iraq sanctions. Not only that, the perpetrators of this Rwanda-surpassing genocide walk among us today, safely, serenely, in honor, comfort and privilege. Some of them still hold powerful positions in government. If their savage war was invisible, then so is the innocent blood that smears them from head to foot. Andrew Cockburn has written an excellent — and greatly detailed — review of Gordon’s work in the latest London Review of Books, drawing upon his own extensive experience in Iraq as well as the extensive evidence of the book. The review is worth excerpting at length, although there is still much more in the original piece, which you should read as well. Cockburn writes: … The multiple disasters inflicted on Iraq since the 2003 Anglo-American invasion have tended to overshadow the lethally effective ‘invisible war’ waged against Iraqi civilians between August 1990 and May 2003 with the full authority of the United Nations and the tireless attention of the US and British governments. …Even at the time, the sanctions against Iraq drew only sporadic public comment, and even less attention was paid to the bureaucratic manoeuvres in Washington, always with the dutiful assistance of London, which ensured the deaths of half a million children, among other consequences. In her excellent book Joy Gordon charts these in horrifying detail…. The sanctions were originally imposed on Iraq after Saddam — who had been given the famous “green light” by the envoy of the American president — invaded Kuwait. The sanctions were said to be a measure short of war, to force him to withdraw; later they became a tool of war when the fighting started. And afterward they became an extension of the war by other means. But in all cases, as Gordon and Cockburn note, they were above all a weapon to destroy the civilian infrastructure and economy of Iraq. Cockburn writes: … The war, when it came, was directed as much against Iraq’s economy as against its army in Kuwait. Key features of the bombing campaign were designed – as its principal planner, Colonel John Warden of the US air force, explained to me afterwards – to destroy the ‘critical nodes’ that enabled Iraq to function as a modern industrial society. The air force had dreamed of being able to do this sort of thing since before the Second World War, and Warden thought the introduction of precision-guided ‘smart bombs’ now made it a practical proposition. Iraq’s electrical power plants, telecommunications centres, oil refineries, sewage plants and other key infrastructure were destroyed or badly damaged. Warden, I recall, was piqued that bombing in addition to his original scheme had obscured the impact of his surgical assault on the pillars supporting modern Iraqi society…. …The first intimation that the blockade would continue even though Iraq had been evicted from Kuwait came in an offhand remark by Bush at a press briefing on 16 April 1991. There would be no normal relations with Iraq, he said, until ‘Saddam Hussein is out of there’: ‘We will continue the economic sanctions.’ Officially, the US was on record as pledging that sanctions would be lifted once Kuwait had been compensated for the damage wrought during six months of occupation and once it was confirmed that Iraq no longer possessed ‘weapons of mass destruction’ or the capacity to make them. A special UN inspection organisation, Unscom, was created, headed by the Swedish diplomat Rolf Ekeus, a veteran of arms control negotiations. But in case anyone had missed the point of Bush’s statement, his deputy national security adviser, Robert Gates (now Obama’s secretary of defence), spelled it out a few weeks later: ‘Saddam is discredited and cannot be redeemed. His leadership will never be accepted by the world community. Therefore,’ Gates continued, ‘Iraqis will pay the price while he remains in power. All possible sanctions will be maintained until he is gone.’ This is the blood-and-iron voice of the man retained by the Progressive Peace Laureate in the White House to run his war machine as it churns through human bodies around the world, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Colombia and dozens of other countries: a war machine of official armies, secret militias, death squads, robots and mercenaries. Back to Cockburn: Despite this explicit confirmation that the official justification for sanctions was irrelevant, Saddam’s supposed refusal to turn over his deadly arsenal would be brandished by the sanctioneers whenever the price being paid by Iraqis attracted attention from the outside world. And although Bush and Gates claimed that Saddam, not his weapons, was the real object of the sanctions, I was assured at the time by officials at CIA headquarters in Langley that an overthrow of the dictator by a population rendered desperate by sanctions was ‘the least likely alternative’. The impoverishment of Iraq – not to mention the exclusion of its oil from the global market to the benefit of oil prices – was not a means to an end: it was the end. We are of course seeing this same dynamic at work today, as Gates and a new temporary emperor work the same scheme, with the same aim, on yet another recalcitrant nation unfortunately possessed of a strategic location and vast energy resources. Even the same sham justification is being used: the non-existent threat of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. But why not? As long as the rubes keep falling for this shtick, the masters of war will keep using it. Cockburn continues: Visiting Iraq in that first summer of postwar sanctions I found a population stunned by the disaster that was reducing them to a Third World standard of living. … Doctors, most of them trained in Britain, displayed their empty dispensaries. Everywhere, people asked when sanctions would be lifted, assuming that it could only be a matter of months at the most (a belief initially shared by Saddam). The notion that they would still be in force a decade later was unimaginable. The doctors should not have had anything to worry about. Resolution 661 prohibited the sale or supply of any goods to Iraq … with the explicit exception of ‘supplies intended strictly for medical purposes, and, in humanitarian circumstances, foodstuffs’. However, every single item Iraq sought to import, including food and medicine, had to be approved by the ’661 Committee’, created for this purpose and staffed by diplomats from the 15 members of the Security Council. The committee met in secret and published scarcely any record of its proceedings. Thanks to the demise of the Soviet Union, the US now dominated the UN, using it to provide a cloak of legitimacy for its unilateral actions. The 661 Committee’s stated purpose was to review and authorise exceptions to the sanctions, but as Gordon explains, its actual function was to deny the import of even the most innocuous items on the grounds that they might, conceivably, be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction. An ingenious provision allowed any committee member to put any item for which clearance had been requested on hold. So, while other members, even a majority, might wish to speed goods to Iraq, the US and its ever willing British partner could and did block whatever they chose on the flimsiest of excuses. … Thus in the early 1990s the United States blocked, among other items, salt, water pipes, children’s bikes, materials used to make nappies, equipment to process powdered milk and fabric to make clothes. The list would later be expanded to include switches, sockets, window frames, ceramic tiles and paint. In 1991 American representatives forcefully argued against permitting Iraq to import powdered milk on the grounds that it did not fulfil a humanitarian need. Later, the diplomats dutifully argued that an order for child vaccines, deemed ‘suspicious’ by weapons experts in Washington, should be denied. Throughout the period of sanctions, the United States frustrated Iraq’s attempts to import pumps needed in the plants treating water from the Tigris, which had become an open sewer thanks to the destruction of treatment plants. Chlorine, vital for treating a contaminated water supply, was banned on the grounds that it could be used as a chemical weapon. The consequences of all this were visible in paediatric wards. Every year the number of children who died before they reached their first birthday rose, from one in 30 in 1990 to one in eight seven years later. Health specialists agreed that contaminated water was responsible: children were especially susceptible to the gastroenteritis and cholera caused by dirty water. All very terrible, of course. But what about the UN “Oil for  Food” program that was eventually set up to provide a trickle of goods into Iraq in exchange for some of those coveted energy resources? As Cockburn notes, while the “invisible war” of sanctions that killed half a million children is now simply a non-event in the American consciousness, the Oil for Food “scandal” — Saddam gaming the system to enrich himself while his people suffered — still looms large for the apologists for the 2003 war of aggression. This, they say, was the real scandal, not all those dead babies. Cockburn: Under the terms of the programme, much of the money was immediately siphoned off [by the US-led blockaders] to settle what critics called Kuwait’s ‘implausibly high’ claims for compensation for damage from the 1990 invasion and to pay for the Unscom inspections and other UN administrative costs in Iraq. Although the arrangement did permit some improvement in living standards, there was no fundamental change: the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan reported in November 1997 that despite the programme, 31 per cent of children under five still suffered from malnutrition, supplies of safe water and medicine were ‘grossly inadequate’ and the health infrastructure suffered from ‘exceptionally serious deterioration’. It was possible for the Iraqis to wring some pecuniary advantage from the Oil for Food programme by extracting kickbacks from the oil traders whom it favoured with allocations, as well as from companies, such as wheat traders, from which it bought supplies. In 2004, as Iraq disintegrated, the ‘Oil for Food scandal’ was ballyhooed in the US press as ‘the largest rip-off in history’. Congress, which had maintained a near total silence during the years of sanctions, now erupted with denunciations of the fallen dictator’s fraud and deception, which, with alleged UN complicity, had supposedly been the direct cause of so many deaths. Gordon puts all this in context. ‘Under the Oil for Food programme, the Iraqi government skimmed about 10 per cent from import contracts and for a brief time received illicit payments from oil sales. The two combined amounted to about $2 billion … By contrast, in [the first] 14 months of occupation [after the 2003 invasion], the US-led occupation authority depleted $18 billion in funds’ – money earned from the sale of oil, most of which disappeared with little or no accounting and no discernible return to the Iraqi people. Saddam may have lavished millions on marble palaces (largely jerry-built, as their subsequent US military occupants discovered) but his greed paled in comparison to that of his successors. As we have noted here often before, the Americans and British leaders who imposed the killing sanctions knew very well, for many years, that Iraq had no WMD at all — or even any WMD development programs. They knew that by the time of the 2003 invasion, these WMD programmes (which had once been supported with secret cash, credits and “dual-use technology” by none other than George Herbert Walker Bush) had been mothballed for 12 years. I was talking about this, in print, back in 2003 — even Newsweek was reporting on it, just weeks before the war! — but, merely being the truth, there was really no place for the story in the American political mind, or the national memory. So Cockburn and Gordon do us good service by detailing the story again. They also add one of the most damning aspects of the story: the frantic efforts by Bill Clinton — yes, the good old “Big Dawg” of our modern progressives — to suppress the truth and keep the murderous sanctions, and the drive toward war, going strong: The economic strangulation of Iraq was justified on the basis of Saddam’s supposed possession of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Year after year, UN inspectors combed Iraq in search of evidence that these WMD existed. But after 1991, the first year of inspections, when the infrastructure of Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme was detected and destroyed, along with missiles and an extensive arsenal of chemical weapons, nothing more was ever found. Given Saddam’s record of denying the existence of his nuclear project (his chemical arsenal was well known; he had used it extensively in the Iran-Iraq war, with US approval) the inspectors had strong grounds for suspicion, at least until August 1995. That was when Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law and the former overseer of his weapons programmes, suddenly defected to Jordan, where he was debriefed by the CIA, MI6 and Unscom. In those interviews he made it perfectly clear that the entire stock of WMD had been destroyed in 1991, a confession that his interlocutors, including the UN inspectors, took great pains to conceal from the outside world. Nevertheless, by early 1997 Rolf Ekeus had concluded, as he told me many years later, that he must report to the Security Council that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and was therefore in compliance with the Council’s resolutions, barring a few points. He felt bound to recommend that the sanctions should be lifted. Reports of his intentions threw the Clinton administration into a panic. The end of sanctions would lay Clinton open to Republican attacks for letting Saddam off the hook. The problem was solved, Ekeus explained to me, by getting Madeleine Albright, newly installed as secretary of state, to declare in a public address on 26 March 1997 that ‘we do not agree with the nations who argue that, if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.’ The predictable result was that Saddam saw little further point in co-operating with the inspectors. This provoked an escalating series of confrontations between the Unscom team and Iraqi security officials, ending in the expulsion of the inspectors, claims that Saddam was ‘refusing to disarm’, and, ultimately, war. There you have it. Clinton did not want the sanctions to end; he did not want to stop throwing the bodies of dead children on the stinking slagheap. As always, when one supposed “benchmark” has been met — in this case, the elimination of WMD and WMD programs — the rules are simply changed. We see this too with Iran. Obama puts forth what is purported to be a major “diplomatic” solution to have Iran ship its nuclear fuel to Brazil and Turkey for processing. This was, of course, a hollow gesture, meant to show how intransigent and untrustworthy  Iran really is; the nuke-hungry mullahs would naturally reject the deal. But when Iran made an agreement with Brazil to do exactly what Obama requested, this was immediately denounced — by Obama — as …. a demonstration of how intransigent and untrustworthy Iran really is. Meet a benchmark, and the masters simply change the rules. That’s how it works until they get what they want: regime change in strategic lands laden with natural resources. Cockburn points out another effect of sanctions that is almost always overlooked: Denis Halliday, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator for Iraq who resigned in 1998 in protest at what he called the ‘genocidal’ sanctions regime, described at that time its more insidious effects on Iraqi society. An entire generation of young people had grown up in isolation from the outside world. He compared them, ominously, to the orphans of the Russian war in Afghanistan who later formed the Taliban. ‘What should be of concern is the possibility at least of more fundamentalist Islamic thinking developing,’ Halliday warned. ‘It is not well understood as a possible spin-off of the sanctions regime. We are pushing people to take extreme positions.’ This was the society US and British armies confronted in 2003: impoverished, extremist and angry. As they count the losses they have sustained from roadside bombs and suicide attacks, the West should think carefully before once again deploying the ‘perfect instrument’ of a blockade. But of course, as we’ve often noted here, this seems to be exactly what they want: a steady supply of extremists who can be relied upon to keep stoking the profitable fires of Terror War: flames which in turn feed the monstrous engines of the War Machine and its Security offshoot – both of which long ago devoured the remnants of the American republic, and are now metastasizing with dizzying speed, almost beyond human comprehension. Dead children. Thousands of dead children. The mountain, the slagheap gets higher and higher. And still the people sleep …. This article originally appeared on Empire Burlesque.

:: Article nr. 68179 sent on 23-jul-2010 02:25 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=68179

Related Posts:

• Anatomy Of The Plot To Kill The Nation
• ORWELL’S 2009 – BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
• The US Army Document That Proves the US is the World’s Number One Sponsor of World Terrorism
• 10 false flags operations that shaped our world
• Bailout for the People

BRussels Tribunal – 2010-02-07

Related Posts:

• LEGAL CASE FILED AGAINST FOUR US PRESIDENTS AND FOUR UK PRIME MINISTERS FOR WAR CRIMES, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND GENOCIDE IN IRAQ
• Law to investigate George W. Bush for War Crimes
• U.S. Berated for Shielding Israel on Gaza Killings
• A Tapestry of Lies
• US Poised to Commit War Crimes in Marjah

‘The Times’ lets everyone off the hook on Goldstone

by James North and Philip Weiss on October 8, 2009 ·

The New York Times is covering the Goldstone Report. Where is it covering it? Well: the furor over the report among Palestinians. We’re pretty sure this is a good story. Neil MacFarquhar is on it. But it’s really not The Story, it’s just an angle of a hugely-important international story, and the only angle the Times is covering.

Here’s what the Times refuses to cover:

–the furor over the Goldstone report on the part of the Israel lobby in the U.S., and the pressure it’s put on the Obama administration, number one. Even J Street has been quiet about the Goldstone report, while it puts out a statement applauding an Israeli Nobelist.

–and what about the political jockeying over the report, the decision by the Obama administration to bury it and make the Palestinian Authority do the dirty work? Important story. Nothing. Mike Hanna of the Century Foundation said two weeks ago that the report’s troubling findings were going to be very “tricky” diplomatically for the Obama administration. He was right. He knows what’s gone down. Why isn’t the Times calling him for comment?

–the incredible discomfort that Goldstone, a Jewish judge who denounced apartheid, has created among liberal American Jews who know that Gaza was a horror but are afraid to face these facts. Nine dead Israelis, 1400 dead Palestinians: of whom the majority were civiilans. The Israelis destroyed the only remaining flour mill, destroyed chicken farms with bulldozers, and dropped white phosphorus on children. American Jews were never silent about napalm in Vietnam. Here they are tonguetied and helpless, and the Times is helping them to avoid this important question by suppressing the news.

–Nothing in the Times about the many Jews here who have supported Goldstone, including Jews Say No!

–No editorial yet in the Times.

This is about discourse suppression. It is related to the fact that the New Yorker, the leading cranial IV for the Establishment, has said nothing at all about Gaza in 10 months. No: Gaza and the persecution of the Palestinians there is an untidy embarrassment to  the liberal Establishment.

The New Republic has actually been more responsible than the Times and the New Yorker here. By publishing raving maniacs like Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi, it has at least informed its readers where it hurts, that this is ideologically disputed territory. The Times has told its readers, Only Palestinians care about this. More mush from the wimp.

One other point. Mainstream liberals are quick to call for people to speak out on Third World countries and once upon a time in Eastern Europe when human rights are suppressed. It’s easy to condemn the Soviet Writers Union or ministries in Africa for not speaking out against genocide. What’s hard is to report and speak out on issues that cause your own readers to squirm. The true measure of intellectual courage is, you go ahead and do it anyway. The Washington Post, the Times, the New Yorker and others have failed this test.

Related Posts:

• The Israel lobby and the Jewish kings
• Libya’s Request For Emergency UN Session Over Gaza Report:Granted
• Barack Obama and the Failure of the Peace Process
• The War on J Street
• The Kingdom of Lies

There is an old Jewish joke that tells the story of a dying Jewish merchant who calls his son to his sickbed just before he perishes. He tells him, “Listen to me Moisha’le, life is not just about money… you can also do gold and diamonds.”

Monitoring Israeli and Jewish news reveals a devastating fact, it is not ‘just’ about money. It may also be about human organs. A few weeks ago we learned about a ring of American Rabbis who had been arrested in New Jersey upon suspicion of human organs trafficking (amongst many other crimes).  Rabbi Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, we read, enticed “vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $10,000 which he would turn around and sell for $160,000.” Not too bad, I thought to myself then. We are living in hard times, financial melt down, credit crunch, Wall Street is licking its wounds, the car industry is evaporating.  Seemingly, kidney trafficking is still booming.

In fact, the ring of the Rabbi in New Jersey didn’t take me by complete surprise. For years we have been hearing about Palestinians claiming that Israel is “deep into organ trafficking.” We also learned that the family of Alastair Sinclair, a Scottish tourist who hanged himself in an Israeli jail, “was forced to bring suit for his return with missing body parts.”

In 2002 the Tehran Times reported: “The Zionist state has tacitly admitted that doctors at the Israeli forensic institute at Abu Kabir had extracted the vital organs of three Palestinian teenage children killed by the Israeli Army nearly ten days ago. Zionist Minister of Health Nessim Dahhan said in response to a question by Arab member of the Zionist Parliament ‘Knesset’, Ahmed Teibi, on Tuesday that he couldn’t deny that organs of Palestinian youths and children killed by the Israeli forces were taken out for transplants or scientific research.”

But now the news about Israeli trafficking of human organ is spreading to Western mainstream media. Ynet, the biggest Israeli online newspaper, reported today that  “Leading Swedish daily Aftonbladet claimed in one of its articles that IDF soldiers killed Palestinians in order to trade in their organs.”

A few weeks ago we had a debate here on PTT whether Zionism is a colonial apparatus or not. One of the Materialist arguments against the perception of Zionism as a colonial practice was that Palestine has never been too attractive economically; it lacks oil, gold or minerals. However, this may change now. People who specialise in organ theft may find Palestine to be heaven on earth. In the light of the latest vastly spreading accusations, the Jewish national project maybe is colonial after all.

Though the Israeli government denies the accusation, and I myself far from being qualified to know what the truth of the matter is, one cannot deny that we are facing here a shift of consciousness within the Western discourse. At the end of the day, after watching the Israeli army dumping great quantities of white phosphorous on a civilian population in broad daylight, after seeing Israelis gathering gleefully en masse on the hills around Gaza just to watch their military spreading death and physical suffering in a genocidal manner, after reading that 94% of the Israelis supported the IDF military campaign against the elderly, women and children, most of whom were refugees with nowhere to escape and seek further refuge, organ theft seems to be a ‘light crime’.

Whether or not the Swedish paper’s accusations are genuine is yet to be revealed. However, one fact has already been established: after so many years of Western inclination to dance to the relentless crying violin of the Jewish melancholic victim serenade, the Western media is now changing its appetite, it is willing to confront Jewish institutional crime.

Rather than talking about the rise of anti-Semitism, we better discuss the growth of Jewish institutional crime.

NOTE: WE WILL HAVE THE TRANSLATION FROM SWEDISH INTO ENGLISH AVAILABLE LATER IN THE DAY

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE: http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/article5652583.ab

Related Posts:

• Adolf Hitler: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened, Part 3
• World War I, II: Providence, Miracle, or What Really Happened
• Israel Cracks Down on the Press
• Video: The Falseness of the Zionist State of Israel
• Our sons plundered for their organs

Khalid Amayreh

The World Court ruled Israel’s annexation wall in the West Bank illegal in 2004, but with no pressure coming from the international community it has not been dismantled, writes Khaled Amayreh in the occupied Palestinian territories This week marked the passage of five years since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague issued its landmark ruling deeming the gigantic apartheid wall Israel has been building in the West Bank illegal under international law. Though not complete, the bulk of the barrier has already been constructed. In addition to the massive eight-metre high concrete wall now meandering like a snake through the West Bank, the barrier also consists of a vast network of multi-layered fences with vehicle-stopping trenches. The barrier is mostly located inside the West Bank, partly along the former 1949 Armistice line, and is largely built on confiscated Palestinian land. As of April 2006, the length of the barrier as approved by the Israeli government was 703 kilometres (436 miles). On 9 July 2004, the ICJ ruled that the barrier violated international law. While acknowledging Israel’s right to protect its citizens, the World Court said the Jewish state ought to do so within the law and should compensate Palestinians for property lost or damaged by the building of the wall. The ICJ urged the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly to consider further action to end the illegal Israeli activity. Israel completely ignored the ICJ ruling, claiming the international court had no jurisdiction over the occupied Palestinian territories. Some Israeli officials tacitly accused ICJ judges of harbouring “anti-Semitism”. Since then, the Israeli military occupation authorities continued to seize large swathes of mostly private Palestinian land for building the wall and creating “safe zones” around it, especially on the Palestinian side of the barrier. It is widely believed that tens of thousands of acres of fertile Palestinian land have been formally or effectively confiscated as the barrier has been built. Some experts estimate that up to 10- 15 per cent of the West Bank area has been effectively annexed to Israel under the pretext of building the wall. And when Palestinian farmers and peasants protest, even peacefully and non-violently, as in Nilin and Bilin in the central West Bank, the Israeli army routinely resorts to harsh tactics, including opening fire on protesters. Several Palestinians have been killed while demonstrating against the seizure of their lands and olive groves by the Israeli army. A number of foreign peace activists protesting have also been injured by Israeli fire. Facing mounting international criticism over the construction of the barrier, Israeli officials often resorted to prevarication and outright lies, claiming that the barrier was merely a security measure designed to prevent potential Palestinian guerrillas from infiltrating into Israel and that it in no way constituted a political border. However, whenever Palestinian landowners petitioned Israeli courts challenging the legality of the land seizure, the Israeli government representative shamelessly argued that the wall was indeed a de facto border. This deceptive tactic continues to be widely adopted in Israeli courts dealing with the wall and its ramifications, especially relating to Palestinians demanding access to their land on the “Israeli” side of the barrier. More to the point, it has been clear during recent “peace” talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority that Israeli leaders treat the barrier as constituting the ultimate western borders of a future Palestinian state. For example, Israel refuses to discuss the removal of any Jewish settlements located west of the annexation wall on the grounds that these colonies would eventually be annexed to the Jewish state. Today, more than 60,000 Israeli settlers live in settlements located east of the apartheid wall and who demand the construction of periphery barriers around their colonies. However, under pressure from the US, Israel has effectively halted work on the so-called “finger enclaves” which extend deep into the Palestinian hinterland in the northern West Bank, especially in the Salfit region where some of the biggest settlements are located. Last week, the UN urged Israel to “dismantle” the barrier and “make reparations for all damage suffered by all persons affected by the wall’s construction”. The call was made by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay and came on the fifth anniversary of the ICJ ruling. Both UN agencies and non-governmental organisations dealing with the Palestinian issue have used the anniversary to bring attention to the massive losses Palestinians have suffered as a result of the barrier. Earlier this month, another UN official reiterated the international organisation’s “non-objection to the wall per se when it sticks to the Green Line,” the erstwhile 1967 armistice line between Israel and the West Bank. The official spoke of the barrier’s “devastating humanitarian impact” on the Palestinian community, saying that up to 85 per cent of the structure was built inside the West Bank. As many as 40,000 Palestinians have found themselves living in “closed areas” that require Israeli permission to travel out of or to have friends or family enter. Another 200,000 Palestinians are surrounded on either three or four sides by the barrier; resulting in what Palestinian spokesman Mustafa Al-Barghouti called “nightmarish claustrophobia”. According to one UN official, the wall constitutes an “interruption of Palestinian life in all aspects”, impacting both economic and social wellbeing. For many Palestinians affected by the barrier it has meant the imposition of a complex permit system to allow them to travel, restricting access to education, medical care and employment opportunities. The wall, they complain, cuts off neighbour from neighbour, children from their schools and kindergartens, patients from hospitals and farmers from their farms and fields. For its part, Israel has been generally nonchalant with regards to the immense suffering and harm inflicted on the Palestinians as a result of the barrier. The Israeli propaganda machine often caricatures the gigantic structure as a mere “fence” between neighbours, ignoring the huge theft of Palestinian land carried out under the rubric of building the barrier. The Palestinians argue forthrightly that the “apartheid wall” is first and foremost an annexation barrier that is meant to steal Palestinian land under the pretext of security considerations. This week, the PA marked the fifth anniversary of the ICJ ruling by calling on the international community, particularly the US and EU, to pressure Israel to dismantle the barrier. “This ugly barrier is devouring our land, disrupting the daily life of our people and making the attainment of the goal of creating a viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital impossible,” read a PA statement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Poem I wrote five years ago….. MY FAMILY IS DIVIDED    Jerusalem, 1 May, 2004 ©  Steve Amsel A wall has been built, I cannot see my neighbor I know not when he needs my help I know not when he is hungry. My brother’s child cannot come for an afternoon snack I cannot bring it to him The wall is in the way Dividing families and loved ones. “They” told us the wall is for protection. From what? Must our children go hungry? Must we be jobless? “They” say we are the enemy. Is going to work a crime? Is going to school a crime? Try to tell a child that hunger is a good thing. If the wall stays up There will be an enemy Uneducation and hunger leads to resentment Resentment will lead to revolt. Learn from your history my friends Learn that walls are not the solution Learn that unity is strength And learn that justice triumphs over evil always.

Related Posts:

• Dividing war spoils
• Apartheid: Stigmatizing Israel?
• UN Official: ‘Penalize Israel Over Gaza’
• APARTHEID NOW OFFICIALLY THE LAW IN ISRAEL
• Palestinian villagers battle plans to wall them in

Written by Free Gaza Movement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30 JUNE 2009

“ALL WE WANT IS TO REACH GAZA. WE DO NOT SEEK A CONFRONTATION.”
Activists aboard Gaza justice boat demand they be allowed to visit their friends & family in besieged Gaza, and deliver their cargo of medical supplies, children’s toys, and reconstruction kits. They invite the world to join them.

(At Sea, 60km off the coast of the Gaza Strip) – Human Rights activists aboard the Free Gaza ship, the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY, today demanded that the Israeli Navy immediately stop threatening them.

“This aid is desperately needed by the people of Gaza,” said Mairead Maguire, winner of the Noble Peace Prize and Pacem in Terris Award for her work in Northern Ireland. “President Obama has called upon the Palestinians to abandon violence but Israel is denying them the right to non-violently resist the siege of Gaza.”

The unarmed justice ship departed Larnaca Port in Cyprus at 7:30am Monday with its crew of 21 human rights activists, humanitarian workers and journalists from 11 different countries, including Nobel laureate Mairead Maguire and former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. The boat, a converted ferry, hopes to arrive in Gaza Tuesday afternoon, following a grueling 30 hour sea voyage.

At 1:30am, Israeli warships surrounded the small civilian boat and threatened to open fire if they did not turn around. When the activists refused to be intimidated, Israeli Occupation Forces began jamming their instrumentation, blocking their GPS, radar, and navigation systems. This jamming was in direct violation of international maritime law, threatening the welfare and safety of the civilian ship.

Responding to this intimidation, Congresswoman McKinney declared, “I am extremely angry. We demand that the Israeli government call off their attack dogs. We are unarmed civilians aboard an unarmed boat delivering medical and reconstruction aid to other human beings in Gaza. Why in God’s name would Israel want to attack us?”

Huwaida Arraf, Chairperson of the Free Gaza movement and delegation co-coordinator for this voyage, said, “All we want is to reach Gaza. We want to visit our friends and deliver our cargo of medical supplies, children’s toys, and reconstruction materials. Our ship was searched and received security clearance from the Port Authorities in Cyprus before we departed.”

Arraf continued, “We do not seek a confrontation. We have traveled from Cypriot waters to international waters and will enter Gazan waters. We’ve never gone anywhere near Israel. Israel’s closure of Gaza is an act of collective punishment and a blatant violation of international law. We call upon our governments to take action to uphold their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If they won’t or until they do, we will act. We will come to Gaza again and again until this brutal siege is broken. We invite the good people of the world to join us.”

Free Gaza boats are the first international ships in 41 years to sail to the Gaza Strip. Since August 2008, the Free Gaza Movement has organized 8 sea missions, successfully arriving to Gaza on 5 separate occasions. One two earlier occasions, Israeli Occupation Forces used violence to stop the ships, physically ramming and almost sinking the DIGNITY boat in December 2008, and threatening to fire on and kill unarmed passengers in January 2008. The fate of this, the eighth mission to Gaza, is still uncertain.
###

For more information, please contact:
Greta Berlin (English/French) or Caoimhe Butterly (English/Arabic/Spanish) at 00357 99 081 767 / friends@freegaza.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
www.FreeGaza.org

WHAT YOU CAN DO!

CALL or FAX Major Liebovitz from the Israeli Navy at:
Tel + 972 5 781 86248 or +972 3737 7777 or +972 3737 6242
Fax +972 3737 6123 or +972 3737 7175

CALL Mark Regev in the Prime Minister’s office at:
Tel +972 2670 5354 or +972 5 0620 3264
mark.regev@it.pmo.gov.il This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

CALL Shlomo Dror in the Ministry of Defence at:
Tel +972 3697 5339 or +972 50629 8148
mediasar@mod.gov.il This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
—

Free Gaza Movement
357 99 081 767
www.freegaza.org
www.flickr.com/photos/29205195@N02/

Related Posts:

• Israel’s Intimidation Tactics Won’t Stop Us: First Ship Sets Sail for Gaza!
• U.S. Berated for Shielding Israel on Gaza Killings
• Jews Against Zionism
• Israel Navy chasing Gaza-bound Asia 1′ January 2, 2011 by legitgov
• Nobel-winning Elders deplore Gaza flotilla attack

Image “Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff

Address by Ronnie Kasrils: CAPE TOWN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE: RE-ENVISIONING ISRAEL/PALESTINE 12 JUNE 2009

May I start by quoting a South African who emphatically stated as far back as 1961 that “The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel like South Africa, is an apartheid state” (Rand Daily Mail, 23 Novemeber 1961). Those were not the words of Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Tutu or Ruth First, but were uttered by none other than the architect of apartheid itself, racist Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd.

He was irked by the criticism of apartheid policy and Harold Macmillan’s “Winds of Change” speech and the growing international outcry following the Sharpeville massacre, in contrast to the West’s unconditional support for Zionist Israel.

To be sure Verwoerd was correct. Both apartheid South Africa and Zionist Israel were colonial, settler states created on the basis of the harsh dispossession of the land and birthright of the indigenous people. This is unblushingly documented in Israel’s case from the time of Herzl through Jabotinsky, Ben Gurion, Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan to Sharon et al. Both states preached and implemented a policy based on racial ethnicity; the sole claim of Jews in Israel and whites in South Africa to exclusive citizenship; monopolised rights in law regarding the ownership of land, property, business; superior access to education, health, social, sporting and cultural amenities, pensions and municipal services at the expense of the original indigenous population; the virtual monopoly membership of military and security forces, and privileged development along their own racial supremacist lines – even both countries marriage laws are designed to safeguard racial “purity”. The fact that the Palestinian minority within Israel is allowed to vote hardly redresses the injustice in all other matters of basic human rights. In any case those Palestinians allowed to stand for election to the Knesset do so on condition that they dare not question Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.

The so-called “non-whites” in apartheid South Africa, indigenous Africans, others of mixed race or of Asiatic origin – like second or third class non-Jews in Israel itself let alone the military occupied areas – were consigned to a non-citizenship status of Kafkaesque existence, subject to all manner of discrimination and prejudice, such as the laws prohibiting their free movement, access to work and trade, dictating where they could reside and so forth.

Verwoerd would have been well aware of Israel’s dispossession of indigenous Palestinian in 1948 – the year his apartheid party similarly came to power – of the unfolding destruction of their villages, the premeditated massacres and the systematic ethnic cleansing.

Within a few short years of coming to power in 1948 South Africa’s apartheid regime was ruthlessly cleansing cities and towns of so-called “black spots” – where the “non-whites” lived, socialised, studied and traded – bulldozing homes, loading families onto military trucks, and forcibly relocating them to distant settlements. Unlike the “native reserves” – soon to be reconstituted as Bantustans – these were not too far away from industrial areas because the economy thrived on a quota of cheap black labour.

Whilst Verwoerd did not live to see the division of Palestinian territory after the l967 Six Day War, and the subsequent creation of miniscule Bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza, he would have greatly admired and approved of the machinations that enclosed the Palestinians in their own ghettoised prisons. This after all was the Verwoerdian grand plan, and the reason why Jimmy Carter could so readily identify the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) as being akin to apartheid. In fact the Bantustans consisted of 13% of apartheid South Africa, uncannily comparable to the derisory, ever shrinking pieces of ground Israel consigns to the Palestinians – where it is estimated that well over one-third of the OPT comprises the illegal settlement blocks and security grid system with their bizarre Jewish-only roads. The effect of this is that the 22% of pre-1967 West Bank territory is effectively a mere 12% of historic pre-1948 Palestine.

When former deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad and I visited Yasser Arafat in his demolished headquarters in Ramallah as part of a South African delegation in 2004, he pointed around him and said “See this is nothing but a Bantustan!” No, we responded, pointing out that no Bantustan, in fact not even our townships, had been bombed by warplanes, pulverised by tanks. To a wide-eyed Arafat we pointed out that Pretoria pumped in funds, constructed impressive administration buildings, even allowed for Bantustan airlines to service the Mickey Mouse capitals in order to impress the world that they were serious about so-called “separate development.” The Bantustans were not even fenced-in.

What Verwoerd admired too was the impunity with which Israel exercised state violence and terror to get its way, without hindrance from its Western allies, increasingly key amongst them the USA. What Verwoerd and his ilk came to admire in Israel, and seek to emulate in the southern African region, was the way the Western powers permitted an imperialist Israel to use its unbridled military with impunity in expanding its territory and holding back the rising tide of Arab nationalism in its neighbourhood.

After the Six Day War, Verwoerd’s successor John Vorster, infamously stated: “The Israelis have beaten the Arabs before lunchtime. We will eat the African states for breakfast.” He added the latter warning in the face of the independent African states support for the armed liberation struggles growing in our region.

But it was not only the racial doctrine of Israel that excited apartheid’s leaders, it was the use of the biblical narrative as the ideological rationale to justify its vision, aims and methods.

The early Dutch pioneers, the Afrikaners, had used Bible and gun as colonisers elsewhere, to carve out their exclusive fortress bastion in South Africa’s hinterland. Like the biblical Israelites they claimed to be “God’s chosen people” with a mission to tame and civilise the wilderness; disregarding the productivity and industriousness of people who had tilled the soil and traded for centuries – claiming it was only they who would make the land flow with milk and honey. They invoked a covenant with God to deliver their enemies into their hands and to bless their deeds. Until the advent of South Africa’s democracy, the racial history books generally taught that the white man arrived in South Africa more or less as the so-called “Bantu tribes” from the north were wandering across the Limpopo River – and that they the were pioneer settlers in a land devoid of people.

Such a colonial racist mentality which rationalised the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australasia, in Africa from Namibia to the Congo and elsewhere, most clearly has its echoes in Palestine. What is so shameless about this latter-day colonial sham is that Zionist Israel has been permitted by the West to aspire to such a goal even into the 21st Century.

It is by no means difficult to recognise from afar, as Verwoerd had been able to do, that Israel is indeed an apartheid state. Verwoerd’s successor, Balthazar John Vorster visited Israel after the 1973 October War, when Egypt in a rare victory regained the Suez Canal and later in a peace agreement the Sinai from Israel. After that Israel and South Africa were virtually twinned as military allies for Pretoria helped supply Israel militarily in the immediacy of its 1973 setback and Israel came to support apartheid South Africa at the height of sanctions with weaponry and technology – from naval ships and the conversion of supersonic fighter planes to assistance in building six nuclear bombs and the creation of a thriving arms industry.

For the liberation movements of southern Africa, Israel and apartheid South Africa represented a racist, colonial axis. It was noted that people like Vorster had been nazi sympathisers, interned during World War II – yet feted as heroes in Israel and incidentally never again referred to by South African Zionists as an anti-semite! . This did not surprise those that came to understand the true racist nature and character of Zionist Israel.

It is instructive to add that in its conduct and methods of repression, Israel came to resemble more and more apartheid South Africa at its zenith – even surpassing its brutality, house demolitions, removal of communities, targeted assassinations, massacres, imprisonment and torture of its opponents and the aggression against neighbouring states.

Certainly we South Africans can identify the pathological cause, fuelling the hate, of Israel’s political-military elite and public in general, giving rise to more and more extreme racist postures from its elected representatives – as evidenced by the outcome of its most recent national elections. Neither is it difficult for anyone acquainted with colonial history to understand the way in which deliberately cultivated race hate inculcates a justification for the most atrocious and inhumane actions against even defenceless civilians – women, children, the elderly amongst them as recently witnessed in Gaza. It is from such unbridled racism that genocidal wars and holocausts are fueled.

It can be claimed, without exaggeration, that any South African, whether involved in the freedom struggle, or motivated by basic human decency, who visits the Occupied Palestinian Territories are shocked to the core at the situation they encounter and agree with Archbishop Tutu’s many observations, including his most recent, that such things happen in Israel, “including collective punishment”, that never happened in apartheid South Africa. (London Guardian, 28 May, 2009).

I want to recall here the words of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, Aharon Cizling in 1948, after the savagery of the Deir Yassin massacre of 240 villagers became known. He said: “Now we too have behaved like Nazis and my whole being is shaken.” (Tom Segev – “The First Israelis”)

The veteran British MP, Gerald Kaufman, long time friend of Israel, was reported as remarking that a spokeswoman of the Israeli Defence Force, talked like a Nazi, when she coldly dismissed the deaths of defenceless civilians in Gaza – many women and children amongst them. We dare not allow what is chillingly obvious to be excluded like some elephant in the room from our discourse: the inexorable rise of fascists like Avigdor Lieberman to powerful positions in Israel; the threat of the expulsion of the 1948 Palestinians; the implementation of Jabotinsky’s “Iron Wall.” The Knesset has voted by a large majority a law threatening imprisonment for anyone denying that Israel is a Jewish and democratic state; a law prohibiting anyone from advocating a bi-national state is under discussion; so too a bill that seeks to imprison for three years anyone mourning the “nakba.” None other than Tzipi Livni argues in tandem. These have been described as “a factory of racist laws with a distinct fascist odour”, by Uri Avnery (Israeli writer and peace activist).

It needs to be frankly raised that if the crimes of the Holocaust are at the top end of the scale of human barbarity in modern times, where do we place the human cost of what has so recently occurred in Gaza, the numerous bloodstained milestone since 1948 or the crimes in Lebanon in 1983 and 2006?

How do we evaluate the inhumanity of dropping bombs and blazing white phosphorous on civilian populations, burning people alive, roasting and gassing them in a Gaza ghetto under relentless siege with no place to run or hide. For 22 days relentless bombardment whole families vaporised before the horrified eyes of a surviving parent or child.

Guernica, Lidice, the Warsaw Ghetto, Deir Yassin, Mai Lei, Sabra and Shatilla, Sharpeville are high on that scale – and the perpetrators of the slaughter in Gaza are the off-spring of holocaust victims yet again, in Cizling’s words, behaving like Nazis. This must not be allowed to go unpunished and the international community must demand they be tried for crimes of conflict and crimes against humanity. For the lesson is that if the perpetrators are not stopped in their tracks such crimes will get greater and spread not only to engulf the entire Middle East and Iran, but beyond. And of course with Israel a key ally in the USA’s national interests, there will be no end to this bloody saga – with the Palestinians targeted to go the way of the extinct peoples of the former colonial era.

But such a fate must not be allowed to happen. Dare we believe that an America led by Barak Obama will make a difference? Some raise the hope that after 15 years the stalled Road Map might spring back to life and with it the chimera of a Two-State solution. One notes that President Obama only calls for a freeze in settlement construction – and precious little else. Can 12% or a few percent more in horse- trading provide for a viable Palestinian state? One doubts it. We await with interest the results of this conference’s deliberations. May I remind you of Edward Lear’s “Alice in Wonderland”, where a lost Alice asks a caterpillar seated on a toadstool the way. He asks her where does she want to go but the bewildered Alice does not know. “Well”, answers the caterpillar, “”If you do not know where you are going any road will do.”

Are we naïve to believe that academics can help us find our bearings and point out the correct direction. I want to believe that those worth their salt can help. May your deliberations here be productive. Bear in mind the work of Justice Richard Goldstone’s UN investigative team that has been met by Israel’s point-blank refusal to co-operate into the Gaza bloodbath. Dozens of survivors have been interviewed in Gaza, one of whom watched Israeli soldiers shoot his elderly mother and sister dead as they fled their home waving white flags. “The committee was just like all the others who have come,” said Majed Hajjaj. “there are lots of reports written, but there’s nothing more than ink on paper.” Those could be lines straight from Edward Lear.

I began this address by quoting Dr. Verwoerd. I conclude with this quote from Nelson Mandela who famously stated in 1997: “The UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” (Pretoria, December 4, 1997). Just as a united, national movement of a determined people, reinforced by international solidarity

actions embracing the peaceful weapons of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) – including many academic initiatives – won freedom for all South Africans, so too can this be the case in the Holy Land.

Source

Related Posts:

• US missiles ‘hit Iranian village’
• ISRAEL TO BE SUED FOR MURDER ON THE SEA IN US COURT
• Publishing Propaganda, Ignoring Facts
• A new Clockwork Orange? The marketing gadget that tracks brainwaves as you watch TV
• A CIA commander for the Libyan rebels

“Where is the ummah; where is this Arab world they tell us about in school.”

Those words will forever remain etched on my brain. They were spoken by a 10 year old girl in a bombed out ruin in Gaza in March. She had lost her almost her entire family in the 22-day Israeli bombardment earlier this year. The second time she spoke, it was to the back of my head. I had to turn away; what answer could you give her?

While Hugo Chavez expelled the Israeli ambassador to Venezuela, the leaders of the Arab League, with a handful of exceptions, spent those murderous weeks in December and January scarcely summoning even the synthetic indignation that has so often attended previous bloody episodes in the Palestinian tragedy.

But that was not so of public opinion, not only in the Muslim world, but mobilized on the streets of Western capitals. In Britain, over 100,000 people took to the streets and night after night we blockaded the Israeli embassy. Above all, the Gaza onslaught produced in the US an unprecedented outpouring. There have, for sure, been protests before, but this has turned out to be more than an ephemeral release of impotent rage. Something is changing.

That has become more and more apparent to me over the last two months as I’ve spoken on Palestine at packed meetings and fundraisers across the US.  The opinion polls in January showed a plurality of Americans against the Israeli onslaught. It may not have been a surprise to those of us who witnessed Ariel Sharon’s leveling of Beirut in the late summer of 1982, but the sight of white phosphorous – which forms a gaseous cloud – being used against civilians in Gaza stunned the senses of millions or people who had up to that point been led to believe that it was somehow the Palestinians who were occupying Israeli land rather than the other way round.

Seasoned activists in the Palestinian cause confirm that there is now a window of opportunity to take this case beyond the ghetto and into the mainstream of political life – in the US and in Britain, which between them bear the heaviest responsibility for the suffering in Palestine: the US as the cashier for Israeli colonization; Britain, as the author of the tragedy in 1917, when a leader of one people, British foreign secretary Arthur Balfour (an anti-Semite), gave to the purported leaders of another people, the Zionist movement, the land belonging to a third people, the Palestinians. And all without asking any of the people, which even by the standards of British imperialism is quite a triumph.

How then to bring to the cause of Palestine the kind of political movement that helped shatter apartheid, between the hammer of the ANC resistance and the anvil of international solidarity? This is the question that has led to me flitting backwards and forwards across the Atlantic, between lectures and fundraisers here, and the unfolding of an extraordinary political crisis at home. It was the question we asked ourselves as we marched past the Israeli embassy on those cold days in January.

The demonstrations were important. Anyone who doubts that should listen to those living under siege whose capacity to resist was strengthened every time they saw those protests on Al Jazeera and Press TV. But they were not enough, nor were the speeches, though they too have their place. It is actions that speak louder than words. That’s why on January 10 I announced at the big London demonstration that I would be leading a convoy of humanitarian aid from Britain to Gaza.

We decided to head off just five weeks later and to go through a difficult route – down to Spain, cross to Morocco and then driving across the Maghreb. We hoped to take a dozen or so vehicles. In the end, we left Hyde Park on February14 with 107 vehicles, 255 people and around $2 million of aid. Some 23 days and 5,500 miles later we entered Gaza. And now, we’re doing it all again, this time from the US.

On July 4, the Vietnam vet Ron Kovic, myself and hundreds of US citizens will fly out from JFK to Cairo where we will form up a convoy of hundreds of vehicles carrying medical aid and head into Gaza. We will be in Egypt exactly one month to the day from when President Obama delivered his historic speech offering a new and more egalitarian relationship between the US and the Muslim world. And that speech makes it all the more imperative that anyone and everyone gets on board this convoy.

For Obama’s speech, like his election campaign and presidency, can be looked at two ways. There were the expressions of general support for Israel and continuity in foreign policy which it would be naïve not to expect from any US president. How easy it would be to slump into the cynical and knowing snorting that has been such an unappealing trait of too much of the left for far too long. Because at the same time, his skilful appeal for a more respectful East-West dialogue opens up many roads for friends of Palestine and the Arab cause. If you doubt that, look at the frenzied reaction of the Israeli right who, in their usual understated way, are likening opposition to the settlement program to genocidal murder.

Our case is that Obama is right to identify that if the US wants to drain the swamp of hatred against it, then it needs a radical change in policy. The road he marked out in Cairo points in the right direction. But he stopped short. Literally. The road leads a couple of hundred dusty desert miles further from the Nile Delta, across the Sinai and to the Rafah crossing into Gaza. Hence the convoy, whose aims are manifold.

First, it is to take much-needed aid to a people subsisting under siege. We are a link in the supply chain that others who have sent delegations to Gaza have also helped establish.

Second, it is to take people – lots of American people. No one should underestimate the impact that will have on the Palestinian people. It was emphasized by our hosts in March that the presence of so many Britishers was even more valuable than the aid we brought. It meant hundreds of people going back as ambassadors for Palestine in towns and cities across the country. For the people of the Gaza Strip it was proof positive, in front of their very eyes, that they had not been forgotten.

Third, it is to contribute to the mighty process of changing US public opinion on this issue. And where public opinion changes, public policy follows – even if the mechanism is complex and difficult. The eight dark years of the Bush era saw, in effect, the criminalization of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Whole organization, Muslim and Arab, were closed down, their leaders disappeared and deported or imprisoned, witness the appalling trial and verdict of the Holy Land Foundation organizers. This convoy is about ending that. We want a cross-section of US society, including prominent figures, to take part and demonstrate that this is no longer a no go area; that Palestine is the issue and nobody is going to turn us around.

In Gaza, Ron Kovic will hand over wheelchairs to Palestinian amputees. That’s the image the world’s media will carry. Let the rabid supporters of the Netanyahu-Lieberman regime raise their voices against that. That’s a public relations battle we should relish.

There’s no point passively bewailing what this presidency might be failing to do. If we make an impact in July and beyond, it can help shift the balance, throwing the die-hard defenders of Israeli aggression on the defensive and making it more politically attractive for President Obama to move further down the dusty road.

In a sense George W Bush had an excuse for the mayhem he unleashed: he was a complete and utter imbecile. Barack Obama does not have that excuse. He’s highly intelligent and cultured. He met the sorely missed Edward Said. He doesn’t just know who the President of Pakistan is, he can pronounce the name of the country.

If the new sentiment for Palestine in this country is roused and made politically effective, there will be no excuse for anyone not to do the right thing.

Go to www.vivapalestina-us.org for information on the US to Gaza convoy or phone 773 226 2742

George Galloway is the Respect Party Member of Parliament for Bethnal Green and Bow.

Related Posts:

• Czarist America
• Dollar Is Dirt, Treasuries Are Toast, AAA Is Gone
• White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’
• U.S. Economy in Free Fall, Why is the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in this picture?
• FDR’S New Deal v. Obamanomics in Their First 100 Days

06 June, 2009
Countercurrents.org

It has always been those few who can see through the political correctness and hypocrisy of popular attitudes who are considered dangerous.

“Holocaust denial laws” are now in place in about a dozen countries. Defenders of these laws claim that the expression of unconventional views about the Jewish genocide is “hate speech” and “incitement to violence” and therefore must be suppressed.

But history shows the greatest purveyors of lies, hatred and incitement to violence are those with the power to spread their poison by manipulating popular opinion via the control or complicity of the mass media. Through a purposefully constructed lens of political correctness the despicable becomes normal. It is by this insidious process that tyrants make it normal and acceptable to murder those whom they consider threatening or inferior. We have only to turn on the television to see that process at work.

It is not the unpopular views we should fear but the popular.

When the suppression of free speech serves no purpose other than to silence unconventional opinions we should be alarmed. We should be even more alarmed when to question oppressive laws is to risk vilification, in this case by the smear of “Holocaust denier” and “anti-Semite”.

Appropriation of the term “The Holocaust” to the Nazi extermination of the Jews minimises the significance of other genocides, including those that are happening right now. Should these crimes also be closed to opinions that question the accuracy of the official “truth”?

Stifling open discussion and debate also does an injustice to the other millions of victims of the Nazi concentration camps: the Roma, Blacks, Polish and Russian prisoners, Jehovah’s Witnesses, homosexuals and the mentally and physically disabled. It sidelines the slave labourers starved, beaten and worked to death in German war industries and the horrors suffered by anyone expressing anti-Nazi views.

It is likely that most people regard the real deniers of the Jewish genocide – the ones who say the extermination crimes never happened at all – in the same light as those who espouse any number of other oddball ideas. Do we need laws to protect us from those who make obviously unsupportable claims?

The real threat posed by “deniers” is that others might be influenced to undertake serious study and uncover embarrassing facts that would refute Israel’s “victim” status. This would threaten Israel’s moral legitimacy, underpinned by the world’s collective shame for looking the other way. All it takes to invoke that shame is the term anti-Semite, either stated or implied.

But opinions that question the widely accepted WWII Jewish genocide history are not anti-Semitic any more than opinions that question the accepted history of the Ukraine genocide (1) are anti-Russian. That we are led to label any deviation from the official history as “Holocaust denial” and “Holocaust denial” as anti-Semitism is no accident. It has come about by the same semantic sleight of hand that would have us believe anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. They are not.

Many Christians are Zionists while many Jews throughout the world, perhaps even the majority, are anti-Zionist. Anti-Zionism has nothing to do with persecution of the Jews. It is simply anti-racism and anti-colonialism as applied to the occupation of Palestine and the subjugation of its indigenous population. (2)

When anyone goes to great lengths to stifle open inquiry and debate on any subject, alarm bells should ring. Invariably the motivation is suppression of uncomfortable truths. The uncomfortable truth of the Jewish genocide is that millions of lives would certainly have been saved had it been the priority of the Zionist leadership to save them. Their priority instead was establishment of the state of Israel. And then, as now, the suffering of Europe’s Jews and the world’s collective guilt was exploited to that end. (3)

Ironically, when millions of refugees were trying to escape from Europe before the war, and even while the genocide was in progress, prominent leaders of the Zionist movement were “Holocaust deniers”. When the truth could no longer remain hidden, the Zionist leadership opposed attempts to save the European Jews though financial and humanitarian aid and emigration. The exception was migration to Palestine, and even the relative few who were saved were selected not according to their plight but according to their perceived value to the future state of Israel.

One proposal by 270 members of the British Parliament, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany during the height of the killings, was to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe and resettle them in British colonies. This offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation, “Only to Palestine!” (3)

It is clear from the statements and actions of the Zionist leadership that they considered the suffering of the European Jews advantageous in securing future international support for the establishment of the Zionist state.

Shocking? That uncomfortable truth is well documented for those who care or dare to study the subject.

Throughout history Jews, like many other minorities, have indeed been persecuted, but the modern state of Israel never was the victim. Since its inception it has been the coloniser, aggressor, tormentor and oppressor. Exploiting the memory of Hitler’s victims to perpetuate the myth of “victim Israel” is cynical. To do so while attacking its neighbours and inflicting Nazi-style state terrorism, apartheid and genocide on the Palestinians is cynical in the extreme.

While “deniers” are jailed for expressing unacceptable views, the real criminals – those responsible for the agony and death of millions – manipulate popular opinion to make crimes against humanity, war crimes, contempt for international law and indifference to human suffering seem normal and acceptable. And they do so with impunity.

(1) http://www.bigeye.com/111703.htm
(2) http://pilger.carlton.com/page.asp?partid=519
(3) http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
rabbi_quotes/weissmandl.cfm

Robin Davis lives in Victoria, Australia. He is a freelance writer and graphic designer. He can be contacted at: rbd@knox.hotkey.net.au

Related Posts:

• PrisonPlanet Amps Up Use Of “Anti-Semite” Canard
• Does Jewish financial misbehavior have anything to do with being Jewish?
• Why are we sending BILLIONS to Israel while states go broke?
• Israeli Army Shoot 12 Year Old Child
• The Kingdom of Lies

By Armine Amy Kaladzhyan

Students Protest Anti-Defamation League’s Involvement in UCSB Matter

Almost two years ago, a group of outraged students at UC Santa Barbara banded together.  They united, just as  citizens in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had done before them, to get campus and community entities to  disassociate themselves with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and its No Place For Hate (NPFH) program.

The students came together in response to the immoral and callous decision by the ADL to issue a statement that they were against the passage of a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide and were actively lobbying against it in the halls of Congress. Armenian Americans and humans rights advocates alike believed then and now that the ADL forfeited any moral authority to sponsor NPFH once it took a stance so inconsistent with such a profound human rights issue.

The road to get campus and community groups to disassociate themselves from the ADL’s NPFH program has  encountered many obstacles and bureaucratic hurdles. Berj Parseghian, now a UCSB alumnae, and Garo Manjikian,  former community organizer in Santa Barbara and current ANCA Legislative Affairs Director, began the campaign  with an intense letter writing campaign aimed at encouraging a handful of campus organizations, which the ADL  listed as participants of the NPFH program, to disassociate. Their hard work resulted in two major  organizations, the University Religious Center and Empowerment Works, immediately cutting ties with the ADL.

The leadership of the campaign grew to include Amy Kaladzhyan and Shant Karnikian. These two students  presented the issue at the Sacramento Issues Awareness Caucus of 2008 and gained the support of legislators  such as Assemblymember Pedro Nava and Assemblymember Anthony Portantino, Chair of the Higher Education  Committee. Back in Santa Barbara, Parseghian and Manjikian brought the issue to the attention of Chancellor  Henry Yang of UCSB, who in turn urged them to continue the campaign and raise awareness of the issue among  students because he “expects every community member to adhere to a set of values that include mutual respect,  tolerance and civility.”

Fueled by the thoughtful words of encouragement from the Chancellor, a meeting was arranged between the  leadership of the campaign and the Dean of Students, Assistant Dean, and the Director of Judicial Affairs,  which lists ADL as a resource for students. The students took the opportunity to educate the UCSB  administration about various issues surrounding the Armenian Genocide, as well as the importance of  disassociating the university from an organization which, because of its opposition to the recognition of a  crime against humanity, has no place on a college campus. The Armenian Student Association (ASA) organized a  panel discussion to raise campus awareness about this issue and allow the ADL to present its side of the  story. The panel was comprised of Shant Karnikian on behalf of the ASA, Antranig Kzirian from the Armenian  National Committee-Western Region, and Chris Villavicencio on behalf of STAND: An Anti-Genocide Coalition. The  ADL turned down the invitation to be a part of the panel. Oddly enough, the event was hosted at the Multi- Cultural Center, a campus organization that was formerly associated with the NPFH program. The deliberate and  well-planned efforts of the students at UCSB have been effective. Presently there are no campus entities that  are seeking certification from NPFH.

While the UCSB community has expressed grave concern with the ADL’s hypocritical stance on the Armenian  Genocide, with many departments no longer seeking to renew their membership with the NPFH program, the issue  has become one that is no longer focused on just the Armenian Genocide. In early March, Abraham Foxman, the  national director of the Anti-Defamation League, invited a number of school officials and faculty members to a  meeting to urge university officials to investigate charges of anti-Semitism against Professor William  Robinson, a sociology professor who drew comparisons between Israeli soldiers in Gaza and the Nazi siege of  Warsaw, Poland. The ADL was quick to respond to this incident in an attempt to limit academic freedom and yet  they were nowhere in sight when the Muslim Student Association was victim to a print attack in the school  newspaper, The Daily Nexus, by David Horowitz accusing them of being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is important now, more than ever, to fight against the ADL’s involvement in academic or even community  affairs, especially in the Santa Barbara area. The students of UC Santa Barbara will continue to work to keep  the genocide deniers at the ADL off their campus. These students, who are dedicated to human rights, are  determined to set an example for other student groups, Armenian Americans and other minorities alike, to take  action when they are marginalized by a more powerful entity.

Clearly, no one benefits when the sponsor of a community program diminishes a crime against humanity and  denies the historical truth of any genocide. The ADL’s position as deniers of genocide is untenable.  In  southern California, the ADL has learned, the hard way, that they will enjoy no safe haven to practice  genocide denial on the campus of UC Santa Barbara.

Related Posts:

• ISRAEL IS OBLIVIOUS TO THE LESSONS OF THE HOLOCAUST
• WHY IS THE ADL PROMOTING ALEX JONES?
• Holder Pledges Hate Crimes Cooperation with ADL
• ADL slams ousted Honduras president amid Jewish conspiracy claims
• They are getting so desperate