Showing posts with label Supremacism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supremacism. Show all posts

November 17, 2009

Britain must de-Zionise Itself Immediately

November 17, 2009 By Gilad Atzmon

On Monday the British TV broadcaster, Channel 4 screened Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby, a devastating expose of the Jewish lobby in the UK*. ‘We couldn’t find a conspiracy’ affirmed Peter Oborne the Daily Mail’s political commentator behind the film. He was right. After running the show for so many years, the Jewish lobby’s purchasing of British politicians and media presence is in the open.

The Guardian reported today that two years ago a controversial study by American academics Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer explored the influence of the Israel lobby over US foreign policy “but Britain's pro-Israel organisations have been subjected to far too less scrutiny.” This is indeed the case, and as Oborne disclosed, both British politicians and Zionist pressure groups enjoy it to the max.

In the film Sir Richard Dalton, a former ambassador to Libya and Iran, said: "I don't believe, and I don't think anybody else believes these contributions come with no strings attached." I would suggest that ‘strings attached’ is a very gentle way of putting it. ‘Chained to submission’ would be far closer to the truth.

Seemingly a British, consensus case against Zionism and Zionist infiltration is piling up.

The Jewish community is not happy at all. After so many years of setting the tone, bribing UK politicians and controlling the BBC they are used to being untouchable.

Labor MP Denis MacShane, who operates as the House of Common’s UK equivalent of the ‘anti defamation league’ told the Jerusalem Post "if there is a Jewish /Israel lobby here, it is not very effective, as Israel is almost treated as a pariah state in the media and has few friends in politics."

MacShane may be right; one cannot buy friendship with money. But according to Monday’s broadcast one can certainly buy British politician’s subservience for just a few shekels. According to the Guardian 50% of the Shadow Cabinet are now ‘friends of Israel’. In that context one common saying comes to mind. “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are”

I would assume that if there was any public respect left for the British Parliament, British political parties and the BBC, it should be gone by now. Just a few months ago Brits were devastated to find out about their MPs' personal expenses bills. Yesterday they learned about their leading politician’s affiliation with the darkest possible regime and ideology around. They also learned that their national broadcast corporation is influenced by Zionist pressure groups run from Jerusalem.

Mark Gardner from the Zionist ‘Community Security Trust’ is not happy either. He complained that Dispatches producers behaved as if they were investigating a “criminal gang rather than various Jewish community-linked organizations,"

Gardner is also correct. It is indeed tragic to admit that the Jewish lobby is far more worrying than a criminal gang. It is there to serve a murderous state with a devastating record of crimes against humanity. Thanks to the Jewish lobby, we are all complicit in the Zionist crime. Not only are those lobbyists heavily corrupted and removed from any ethical value system, they also corrupt everything they touch. They obviously contaminate every politician who is happy to take their shekels. Consequently they incriminate us all as a society.

Watching Cannel 4’s Dispatches yesterday I wondered to myself whether this is the ‘democracy’ some British politicians, such as David Miliband insist on spreading around. I also wonder whether this is the governing model that Jewish Chronicle writer Nick Cohen and the Israeli Hasbara committee author David Aaronovitch were trying to promote when they were supporting the invasion of Iraq back in 2003.

Political commentator Peter Oborne indeed fulfilled his promise. He told us almost everything we want to know about the lobby, “who they are, how they are funded, how they work and what influence they have, from the key groups to the wealthy individuals who help bankroll the lobbying.”

However, there is a single observation that must be added. People out there must never forget that Britain was taken into a war that cost more than a million Iraqi lives and at the time Lord Levy was the Number 1 Labour fund-raiser. Putting the two together: an illegal war that only serves Israeli interests and Sir Richard Dalton’s observation that Zionist ‘contribution’ comes with ‘strings attached’, leaves a very bitter taste. Due to its heavily corrupted politicians, Britain is now willingly serving the darkest possible racist national ideology and supporting a criminal terrorist state.

British politicians and media are caught in bed with too many Zionist wolfs. In order to reclaim sovereignty and dignity, Britain must de-Zionise itself immediately.

*In Britain at least the TV program can be seen here:

“Israeli Ministries Funding the Rabbi who Endorses Killing Gentile Babies”

Al Manar

17/11/2009 - Israeli daily Haaretz published a report on Tuesday in which it said that there are Israeli ministries funding Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the rabbi who endorsed killing gentile babies.

The Haaretz repost says:
“Right-wing spokesmen, including some elected officials, rushed to place Yaakov “Jack” Teitel in the fringe group alongside Yigal Amir, Eden Natan Zada, Eliran Golan, Asher Weisgan, Danny Tikman and a few other “political/ideological” murderers. True, they acknowledge, there are among us several lunatic rabbis who agitate to violence. Really, just a handful; even a toddler could count them. The more stringent will note that unlike the Hamas government, our government does not pay the salaries of rabbis who advocate the killing of babies.”

“Is that so? Not really,” Haaretz continues.

“For example, government ministries regularly transfer support and funding to a yeshiva whose rabbi determined that it is permissible to kill gentile babies “because their presence assists murder, and there is reason to harm children if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us … it is permissible to harm the children of a leader in order to stop him from acting evilly … we have seen in the Halakha that even babies of gentiles who do not violate the seven Noahide laws, there is cause to kill them because of the future threat that will be caused if they are raised to be wicked people like their parents.”

Lior Yavne, who oversees research at the Yesh Din human rights organization, checked and found that in 2006-2007, the Ministry of Education department of Torah institutions transferred over a million shekels to the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar.

The Israeli Ministry of Social Affairs has allocated over 150,000 shekels to the yeshiva since 2007, on scholarships for students with financial difficulties studying there. And what can they learn with the help of public funding from the head of the yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira? According to selected items published last week in the media, the boys can learn that Teitel is not only innocent, but also a real saint.”

“Their spiritual leader stated in his book, “Torat Hamelekh” that “a national decision is not necessary in order to permit the shedding of blood of an evil kingdom. Even individuals from the afflicted kingdom can attack them.”

The commandments in the book do not suffice only with gentiles; you can also find in them approval to attack leftist professors: every citizen in the kingdom opposing us who encourages the fighters or expresses satisfaction with their actions is considered a pursuer and his killing is permissible,” wrote the rabbi and adds, “and also considered a pursuer is someone whose remarks weaken our kingdom or have a similar effect.”

Not long ago, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman announced that he would ask European Union countries to halt their support for the Breaking the Silence organization because he was displeased with their publications.

The Israeli minister surely has reservations about the rabbi’s publications. He is invited to approach his colleagues at the Ministry of Education and at the Ministry of Social Affairs.”

November 16, 2009

Gordon Brown: Britain can lead new world order

"When Britain is bold, when Britain is engaged, when Britain is confident and outward-looking, we have shown time and again that Britain has a power and an energy that far exceeds the limits of our geography, our population, and our means."

- Gordon Brown

Britain must play key Afghan role

Nov 16, 2009

LONDON - PRIME Minister Gordon Brown said on Monday Britain must play a comprehensive role in 'changing the world' as he defended the country's military mission in Afghanistan.

Mr Brown also said more has been planned in 2009 and 'enacted with greater success' to cripple Al-Qaeda than in any year since the US-led invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taleban regime in 2001.

The premier is facing mounting pressure at home over Britain's involvement in the war amid waning public support as the number of soldiers killed grows. An increasing majority of Britons want the country's 9,000 troops out of Afghanistan within 12 months, according to the latest opinion poll.

Mr Brown, who is tipped to lose a general election to the opposition Conservatives due by June, said Britain must not retreat 'into isolation' on foreign policy, but be both 'patriotic and internationalist'.

'I believe that Britain can inspire the world. I believe that Britain can challenge the world. But most importantly of all I believe that Britain can and must play its full part in changing the world,' he said in a speech, extracts of which have been released by Downing Street.

'To do so we must have confidence in our distinctive strengths: our global values, global alliances and global actions: because with conviction in our values and confidence in our alliances, Britain can lead in the construction of a new world order.' -- AFP

Copyright © 2007 Singapore Press Holdings.

November 14, 2009

Beggars' Belief

The Farmers' Resistance Movement on Iejima Island, Okinawa

November 14, 2009

The first American invasion of Iejima occurred on April 16th, 1945. U.S. Army accounts chronicle in meticulous detail the vicious battle for this small island, situated three miles west of Okinawa Hontou. One thousand troops aboard eighty landing craft stormed Iejima’s eastern beaches, meeting heavy resistance from dug-in Japanese defenders. In the following five days of bloodshed, two thousand Imperial Army soldiers were killed, together with one and a half thousand civilians. Three hundred Americans lost their lives, including Ernie Pyle - the combat correspondent famous for putting a human face to World War Two.

The second U.S. invasion came a decade later. It is barely documented by American historians, but to those who were living on the island, it wrought almost as much distress. On March 11th, 1955, with Okinawa under United States administration, landing craft came ashore once again on the beaches of Iejima. Their mission: to expropriate two-thirds of the island in readiness for the construction of an air-to-surface bombing range. This time, the Army only brought three hundred soldiers, but they assumed these would be sufficient - their new enemies were the island’s unarmed peanut and tobacco farmers, and the only shelters they had were the houses they’d constructed in the years since the end of the war.

The Americans made quick progress across the south of the island. They dragged families from their houses, burned down the buildings and bulldozed the smoldering ruins. Those who protested were assaulted and arrested, then sent to the regional capital for prosecution. When one family pled for their home to be spared because their six-year old daughter was seriously-ill in bed, soldiers carried the terrified child from the house and dumped her outside the doors of the island clinic. A herd of goats that impeded the Americans’ advance was let loose from its enclosure and slaughtered by rifle fire. After the entire village had been leveled, Army officers veneered the invasion with a thin layer of legitimacy - at gun-point, they forced fistfuls of military script into the hands of the farmers, then twisted their faces towards a camera and took pictures to send to Headquarters as proof of the islanders’ acquiescence.

“The Americans weren’t the only ones taking photographs that day,” explains Shoko Jahana, “The farmers realized that if they wanted the world to understand what they were going through, they needed their proof, too.” Jahana is a white-haired woman in her late sixties with a smile that instantly wipes twenty years from her full-moon face. She works as the caretaker of the Nuchidou Takara no Ie ( “Treasure House of Life Itself” ) - the Iejima museum dedicated to the farmers’ ongoing struggle to retrieve their land from the American military. The museum consists of a pair of ramshackle buildings, located very close to the shoreline where the Americans landed in 1955. Now the beach is home to a Japanese holiday resort, and as we speak, our conversation is punctuated by the shouts of Tokyo holidaymakers, the slap and drone of jet skis.

Jahana shows me the farmers’ photographs of the destruction from March 1955 - empty monochrome scenes of charred land and blackened bricks of coral. Some of the pictures are blurred as though the camera is trying to focus on where the houses used to be. “Shoko Ahagon was one of the farmers whose home was destroyed that day. He went on to organize the islanders in their struggle against the bombing range. People call him the Gandhi of Okinawa.”

Jahana points to a large colour photograph on the wall. A sun-wrinkled man smiles serenely from beneath the brim of a straw hat. Think a slimmer Cesar Chavez with thickly-hooded eyes that glimmer with intelligent compassion. Jahana tells me he gave lectures on the movement to visiting parties of schoolchildren right up until his death in 2002. He was 101 years old.

As she speaks, there’s a gentle knock on the door and an elderly woman enters, carrying a small convenience store bag. When she sees that Jahana is busy talking to me, she bows and sets the bag carefully on the side of her desk. It’s full of earthy cylinders pushing against the white plastic and I remember, earlier at the port, seeing the island’s famous peanuts for sale, alongside dusty bricks of black sugar and tangles of bright pink dragon fruit.

“Ahagon-sensei established the Treasure House in 1984,” Jahana continues, “He wanted to create a permanent exhibit of what went on here after the Americans came ashore in 1955. I’ll ask my assistant to show you around the main museum.” A younger woman in her forties comes in. Jahana lifts the plastic bag from the desk, but when she passes it to her assistant, its sides split open. A dozen rusty bullets clatter to the floor. I jump but neither woman bats an eyelid as they bend and scoop them back up.

The assistant walks me from the reception to the exhibition hall at the rear of the property. When she slides open the doors, I’m struck by a hot blast of air, the smell of second-hand clothes mixed with used book stores. Inside, the museum is a mélange of memorabilia from the past fifty years. American parachutes hang next to musty protest banners. Old newspaper articles line the walls alongside dozens of photographs taken by the farmers to record their struggle. Just in front of the doorway, there’s a massive mound of rusting metal - shell casings and missile fins, grenades and rockets. The assistant kneels down and adds the bullets to the heap. Her action wakes a small white gecko and it scuttles across the deadly pile, finding shelter in a half-blown mortar round.

“Within days of leveling the farmers’ houses, the Americans had completed construction of their bombing range. They marked huge bull’s eye targets with white sand trucked in from the beaches. The explosions went on day and night. Those shells are just a selection of the things they fired. Farmers still come across them now and bring them here for our collection.”

When I ask her what happened to the displaced villagers, she points to a photo of a row of tents. “The Americans had promised them building materials and they were good to their word.” She gives me a sad smile. “The cement they gave had already hardened to concrete in its bags. The boards were rotten and the nails long corroded spikes that couldn’t be used for anything.” One picture shows a family of fifteen packed into a small, open-sided tent. “The villagers quickly fell sick with dehydration, sunstroke and skin diseases.”

Along with the poor-quality building supplies, the American Army offered the farmers financial compensation. Realizing that any acceptance of the money would be interpreted as their assent to the seizure of their land, they refused. With no other means to support themselves, Ahagon and the villagers decided to throw themselves on the mercy of their fellow Okinawans. She shows me a letter they wrote to explain their actions. “There is no way for [us] to live except to beg. Begging is shameful, to be sure, but taking land by military force and causing us to beg is especially shameful.”

On July 21st 1955, the villagers boarded a ferry to Okinawa Hontou. Calling themselves the “March of Beggars”, over the next seven months, they made their way from Kunigami in the north to Itoman almost seventy miles to the south. In every town they passed, the villagers met with the local people and told them of their struggle. Throughout their walk, they were greeted with warm welcomes and sympathy. Even the poorest villages gave them food and shelter for the night. The assistant shows me the photos the farmers exchanged as thanks to the people who supported them. The men stare proudly at the camera - their trousers are patched and threadbare, but their shirts are starched clean white. The women try to hold their smiles while stopping the children from squirming from their knees.

The reception of the authorities stood in stark contrast to the hospitality encountered from ordinary people. Both Okinawan politicians and academics alike ignored Iejima’s farmers’ pleas for assistance. Many of these officials only retained their jobs with the mercurial support of the American administration and they feared dismissal. When the islanders confronted the U.S. High Commission, General James Moore played the Red card and claimed the farmers were uneducated dupes who were being manipulated by communist agitators. An Air Force spokesman called the problem “a petty dispute” - inconsequential in light of the practice bombings which were ensuring security “both for the Free World and for [Okinawan] people.”

After seven months on the road, the March of Beggars finally returned home to Iejima in February, 1956. They found their situation no better than when they had left; the leaking tents still stood and they continued to be denied access to the fields upon which they’d depended for their livelihoods. Bombings and jet plane strafings went on day and night, wearing down already tattered nerves and making rest impossible.

“When the farmers attempted to send word of their predicament to the main Japanese islands, their letters were intercepted by the American military,” explains the assistant. “They didn’t want the world to know what they were doing here.” Some letters, however, did make it through the cordon of censors, and when the Japanese media reported news of the farmers’ struggle, the people of the main islands rallied to their help. School students, homemakers, businessmen - even imprisoned war criminals - started sending care packages to Iejima. They flooded the islanders with powdered milk and sugar, rice and canned fish, notebooks, textbooks and pens. The boxes are on display at the museum. Many of them are addressed simply “To the brave farmers of Iejima.”

No matter how small the parcel, each one was rewarded with a handwritten banner of appreciation and a photograph from the islanders. Upon receiving a massive package from far-off Hokkaido, the entire village gathered to witness the opening of the thirty-one crates. Even the sick and elderly got out of bed to see the gifts from the snowbound northern island. The sign the villagers penned still hangs in the museum today - “To the coal miners of Kushiro, We who live in this southern country thank you very warmly.”

These packages, though substantial, were not enough to sustain the villagers forever. As the 1950s progressed, with no financial aid from the government or the military, many of the islanders were forced to support themselves in an increasingly desperate manner. Where once they harvested tobacco and sweet potatoes, now they scavenged the fringes of the bombing range for scraps of military metal. They collected chunks of shrapnel and bullet casings, and sold them to traders for a few yen a kilogram. From time to time, they’d come across a whole bomb that had failed to explode. The farmers would drag it away and defuse it themselves with a plumber’s wrench and a length of steel pipe. In this manner, they taught themselves to become bomb disposal technicians as expert as any found in modern armies. But for these men - like their professional counterparts - sometimes their luck ran out. Between 1956 and 1963, a dozen islanders were killed or wounded while collecting or dismantling American ordinance. Photos on the walls show farmers with their arms torn off and their faces sheered away - combat pictures from an island purportedly at peace.

“In the early 1960s,” says the assistant walking me down the room, “one of the farmers stumbled across a piece of scrap far too precious to sell.” She gestures towards a long white tube with four tell-tale fins. “He found it sticking out of his field one day. He hid it in his shed while the Americans searched high and low.”

I can well understand the military’s eagerness to retrieve this particular missile. I recognize it almost immediately from another story I’ve been covering about Okinawa. In December 1965, some hundred and fifty miles north of Iejima, the USS Ticonderoga ran into rough seas. A Sky Hawk jet that was on the ship’s deck slipped its cables and tumbled into the ocean. The accident would not have been particularly newsworthy if it hadn’t been for the payload it was carrying: a one megaton hydrogen bomb. The Japanese constitution prohibits nuclear weapons in its waters, and it was only when the device started to leak in 1989, that a nervous Pentagon confessed to Tokyo about the missing bomb.

The assistant must have noticed the panic on my face. “Don’t worry, it’s just a dummy one they used for practice runs.” It looks so real that this does little to allay my fears. Nearby a cicada ticks Geiger-like. “You can touch it if you want,” she offers. I take two steps back and she laughs.

Back in the reception, Jahana tells me of the successes achieved by Ahagon and the islanders. Thanks to their demonstrations throughout the 1960s and a concerted publicity campaign (including three books and a documentary), the bombings stopped and the range was closed down. Many of the farmers were able to recover the fields that were stolen in 1955.

Jahana takes a map of Iejima from her desk drawer. The western portion is marked off by a red dotted line. “Today, the American military controls a third of the island. The Marines have a training area where they still conduct parachute drops. A few years ago, some of their jumpers went astray and landed in a tobacco field. They wondered why the farmer was so angry. They’d only crushed a few tobacco plants - perhaps a carton of cigarettes’ worth. They don’t know what these people have had to put up with over the past fifty years. They have no idea of the sufferings they’ve been through.”

Before I head back to the port, I ask Jahana if she’s hopeful the Americans will change their policy and return the rest of the land. She smiles wryly. “Ahagon-sensei had a saying he often quoted. ‘Even the most evil beasts and devils are not beyond redemption. They might become human one day. All they need to be shown is the error of their ways.’ Ahagon-sensei believed this very strongly. That’s why he built this museum and that’s why it will be here until the day the farmers get back their land.”

Jon Mitchell is a Welsh-born writer, currently working at Tokyo Institute of Technology. He can be reached at:

November 13, 2009

Obama, Hatoyama and Okinawa

Yes We Can (But We Won't)

Naha, Okinawa
November 13, 2009

Walking distance from the US Consulate in Okinawa is a Starbucks coffee shop. My wife and I sometimes go there, because they let you sit at the tables and work, so long as you sometimes order coffee. When Kevin Maher was US Consul, he also used to come in from time to time. Once, when he was sitting right next to us, we heard him apparently ingratiating himself with a young Okinawan girl, in his reasonably good (though somewhat whining) Japanese: “I have no friends at all here. People put up signs saying, ‘Maher go home’”. And the girl responding dutifully, “Oh, you poor thing!”

Maher was a Bush neocon appointee, well known for his arrogance and rudeness toward the Okinawan people. Last year when the US military insisted on its alleged right to land a shipload of GIs on the small Okinawan island of Ishigaki for “recreation”, Maher sailed in on the ship with them and made the local newspapers by shouting “Baka yaro!” (roughly, “you idiots!”) at the local demonstrators. This from a career diplomat. Not long after that he got into the papers again when, at the same Starbucks, an Okinawan customer walked up to his table and dumped a cup of hot coffee in his lap, shouting “Go Home! or words to that effect.

In his election campaign Obama made no promises to the Okinawans (politicians don’t make promises to people with no vote), but many Okinawans, like many people all around the world, including in the US, allowed their hopes to be roused by that most-marvelously-ambivalent-of-all-possible-slogans, “change.” Very soon after the election the news came in that Maher, far from being canned or given a desk job, had been promoted to the position of Director of the State Department’s Office of Japan Affairs. So far as the Obama Administration is concerned, “Change” doesn’t apply to Okinawa. The face that Obama has turned toward Japan as a whole is that of Maher.

But if Obama made no promises to Okinawa, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) did. In its recent campaign, one of its public promises was to put an end to the plan to build a new US Marine Corps heliport on the sea off the town of Henoko, in the northern part of Okinawa’s main island.

Some background: in 1995 three US GIs kidnapped and gang raped an elementary school girl here. This event triggered an explosion of pent-up resentment against the US military bases in Okinawa. An all-Okinawa rally was held that drew some 60,000 people, a significant percentage of the prefecture’s 1.2 million population. The US and Japan decided they needed to do something, and what they came up with was to promise to shut down the US Marine Air Station at Futenma, which is located smack in the middle of heavily populated Ginowan City, on the condition that it would be relocated offshore from the less-populated town of Henoko in the north.

This launched a powerful opposition struggle that continues today. Residents of Henoko oppose the new base because it will destroy the sea that has always been their livelihood. Especially old folks remember that it was the sea that kept them alive, gave them food, during the Battle of Okinawa and after. Ecologists point out that the planned location of the heliport is right in the middle of the northernmost habitat of the rare sea mammal, the dugong, and that construction will probably contribute to that animal’s extinction. Women from Ginowan, where the base is now, have traveled to Henoko and gone door to door, not to try to persuade people there to accept the base, but to warn them of its dangers: explosive aircraft noise, accidents, pollution, crimes by GIs, etc. – all the things they have been bearing in Ginowan for so long. And most Okinawans, including those directly affected neither by the removal of the old base nor by the construction of the new one, are enraged by the idea that the US and Japan think they can pacify them by simply moving a base from one part of Okinawa to another.

Protest has been fierce and sustained. People from Henoko have been holding a daily sit-in at the Henoko fishing port; recently they celebrated their 2000th day of consecutive sit-in. Under the leadership of Henoko resident Higashionna Takuma, a team of sea kayakers was trained that has been nonviolently harassing the construction surveyors who come in to measure and test the sea bottom, and have delayed the project by many months and possibly years (and possibly forever). A court case was filed in San Francisco (Okinawa Dugong et. al. vs. Rumsfeld) arguing that the construction plan violates US laws requiring the protection of cultural properties in US construction projects overseas; in 2005 the judge handed down a favorable decision, but there has been no hint that this has affected US policy. In election results, in referenda, in opinion poll after opinion poll, Okinawans have made clear that they want this base out of their territory entirely.

It is true that the movement is divided on how to put their demand. The anti-war purists insist that the movement should make no statement whatsoever as to where the base should go: they say that it is wrong to relieve their suffering by imposing it on someone else, and that anyway as pacifists they should demand the base should not be moved, but abolished. A second group sees the issue not only as one of peace, but also of anti-colonialism. They point out that the bases are in Japan because of the Japan-US Mutual Security Treaty, which was negotiated in Tokyo without consulting Okinawa (when it was first signed Okinawa was still under US military rule). Most Japanese today seem comfortable with that treaty (the movement against it, once strong, has dwindled to almost nothing), and their comfort is made possible largely by the fact that 75 per cent of the US bases authorized under that treaty are located in tiny Okinawa, which comprises a mere 0.6 per cent of Japanese territory. They argue, if the Japanese people want US bases in their land, as their lack of opposition to the Security Treaty seems to indicate, isn’t it fair to locate those bases near the homes of the people who want them, rather than the homes of those who don’t’? (Imagine, if you can, the US government making a treaty with some foreign government to allow their bases on American soil, and then putting 75 per cent of those bases in Puerto Rico.) Another option that is talked about is Guam, which is, at least formally, US territory. But Okinawans who see themselves as a colonized people see Guam’s Chamorros as another colonized people, and argue that it would be far better to send the base to Okinawa’s colonizer, Japan.

Until a few years ago the option to move the base to Japan was almost a taboo subject, mainly because mentioning it would make mainland Japanese upset and angry, and saying that one [was] opposed it would elicit from them warm praises for one’s generosity. But more recently the taboo has been breached, and the option has become part of the public debate. And once the taboo was lifted, it turned out to have very wide support among Okinawans. So in the recent national election, the DSP made the removal of Futenma base [to] some site outside of Okinawa, either to the mainland or outside of Japan altogether, and the cancellation of the Henoko project, a campaign promise. In return for this they got electoral support from Okinawa that was crucial to their takeover of the national government.

The question now is whether they will have the backbone to keep this promise.

From even before the DPJ’s election victory, the US has been putting pressure on it to break that promise. Before the election, when the DPJ victory was seen to be a sure thing, Secretary of State Clinton came to Japan and with the lame-duck reactionary prime minister Aso Taro signed something called the Guam Agreement, a redundant instrument that was aimed at binding the incoming Japanese Government to the policies decided by the outgoing one: the Futenma base would be moved to Henoko, some troops would be moved to Guam, the Japanese Government would pay for the move, etc.; all stuff already decided. Then when Secretary of Defense Gates came to Tokyo in October, after the Hatoyama government came to power, he was pointedly rude, violating rules of diplomatic protocol (refusing to go to a dinner party held in his honor, etc.) and made as clear as he could that the Obama Administration will accept “no change” in its Okinawa policy. Either the Marine Air Station is moved to Henoko, or else it stays in Futenma, and that’s it.

With this, the Hatoyama Government has started to waffle. Defense Secretary Okada has begun explaining that there is a difference between a “public promise” and “what one says during an election campaign,” and people are beginning to wonder if the metamorphosis if the DPJ into an ordinary establishment party has already begun. After the election, Under Secretary of State for Asian Affairs Kurt Campbell said at a symposium (one can imagine the benevolent smile on his face) that the US will not be much harmed by the new Japanese Government, and that “a certain degree of independence” on the part of Japan should be welcomed. A useful slip: it means that in his view the previous Japanese Governments had not even that much. We’ll soon see if the new administration can do any better. As I write this, Obama is on his way to Tokyo. For the last three days one of the local Okinawan papers has had an English language page filled with appeals to Obama to understand Okinawa’s very special situation, and to give up the Henoko base plan. It would be wise for him to do so. For whether or not the US puts on a tough performance, or whether or not the Japanese government waffles, the Henoko residents will fight against the base as long as it takes.

Douglas Lummis is a political scientist living in Okinawa and the author of Radical Democracy. Lummis can be reached at

November 10, 2009

More bluster on Iran from Israel

Press TV - November 11, 2009 00:57:01 GMT

Israeli Army Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi
Israel's top general has told a parliamentary panel that Israel is readying all options to try to force Iran to halt its nuclear program.

An official who briefed reporters after the meeting said that Gabi Ashkenazi, the chief of staff of Israel's armed forces, expects world leaders to decide which course of action to take on Iran by the end of 2009.

“We are readying all the options and decision-makers will have to consider which paths to take” to stop Iran's nuclear development, Ashkenazi told the Israeli parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

“If the Iranians understand they will have to pay a steep price, it wouldn't be illogical or unreasonable to say they may change their current direction,” the official quoted Ashkenazi as saying.

Israel, which hypocritically accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, is the only player in the Middle East that possesses a nuclear arsenal.

Unlike Iran, Israel is not a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

US threatens Iran again with 'all option' scenario

Press TV - November10, 2009 09:34:06 GMT

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has once again threatened Iran, warning that Washington has kept every option on the table when it comes to halting Tehran's nuclear program.

"We've always said that every option is on the table. Our goal is to prevent or dissuade Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," Clinton who is in Germany said in a late Monday interview with PBS's Charlie Rose.

The former first lady added that the US could not accept an arms race in the Middle East which could be triggered by what she claimed was Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

"It is not in Iran's interest to have a nuclear arms race in the (Persian) Gulf, where they would be less secure than they are today. It is not in Iran's interest, to the Iranian people's interest, to be subjected to very onerous sanctions."

Clinton added that US President Barack Obama was still seeking a "civil, diplomatic relationship" with Tehran but raised the alarm that Washington may resort to other options in connection with Iran's nuclear case in order to best save its 'interests'.

Iran rejects the allegation that its nuclear work has a military agenda and defends its nuclear program as solely peaceful and within the framework of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), to which it is a signatory.

Clinton's remarks come as the US has been piling up pressure on Iran to accept an IAEA-backed nuclear draft deal that wants Iran to send its enriched uranium to Russia and from there to France for further enrichment. The deal is to provide Iran with 20 percent enriched uranium for the Tehran research reactor, which produces radioisotopes for medical purposes.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has expressed his country's 'economic and technical' reservations over the proposal.

Tehran does not agree to sending that much of its uranium abroad in one go. The Islamic Republic says it has concerns over the return of the nuclear fuel back into the country as the potential suppliers, including France and Russia, had in the past violated their agreements with Iran.

Sources close to the Iranian nuclear negotiating team say Tehran wants a two-staged and simultaneous exchange of uranium with potential suppliers.

Tehran needs some 120 kilos of uranium enriched to 20 percent to fuel its research reactor in Tehran. In the first stage, Iran wants to exchange 400 kilos of low-enriched uranium for some 60 kilos of 20-percent enriched uranium. After a while, it would be then ready to carry out a second, identical exchange.

The US says no alteration will be made to the draft deal, insisting that Iran should accept the deal as proposed.

November 09, 2009

West Bank rabbi: Jews can kill Gentiles who threaten Israel

Israeli settlers from the Yitzhar settlement watch after a Palestinian olive tree field was set ablaze by a group of Jewish settlers on June 19, 2008 in the West Bank village of Burin.

(AFP Getty Images)


Just weeks after the arrest of alleged Jewish terrorist, Yaakov Teitel, a West Bank rabbi on Monday released a book giving Jews permission to kill Gentiles who threaten Israel.

Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro, who heads the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the Yitzhar settlement, wrote in his book "The King's Torah" that even babies and children can be killed if they pose a threat to the nation.

Shapiro based the majority of his teachings on passages quoted from the Bible, to which he adds his opinions and beliefs.
"It is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation," he wrote, adding: "If we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder."

Several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef, have recommended the book to their students and followers.

November 04, 2009

New York Mets called on to cancel settlement fundraiser

Hebron colonist

Press release, Adalah-NY, 4 November 2009

Eleven organizations from the US, Palestine and Israel have called on baseball's New York Mets to cancel a 21 November dinner at the Caesars Club at Citi Field for the Brooklyn-based Hebron Fund. The dinner is a fundraiser for Israeli settlers in the Israeli-occupied West Bank City of Hebron. In a letter sent to the Mets on 3 November, the groups said, "The New York Mets will be facilitating activities that directly violate international law and the Obama administration's call for a freeze in settlement construction, and that actively promote racial discrimination, and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes in Hebron." Seven hundred Israeli settlers, living amidst 150,000 Palestinians in Hebron, are expanding their hold on the historic old city by driving out the Palestinian residents.

The groups added that "It would be a tragic irony for an event funding Israeli settlers' violent actions and discriminatory policies against Palestinians to be held at Caesars Club which, according to the Mets, "sits directly on top of the Jackie Robinson Rotunda," which was named "in honor of Jackie Robinson, the ... great American who broke baseball's color barrier." The Mets and Major League Baseball promote Robinson's legacy, including Robinson's value of "Justice: Treating all people fairly, no matter who they are." Mets owner Fred Wilpon has explained in the past that, as a 16-year-old, meeting Jackie Robinson was an experience that never left him. "As a kid, a nothing, he treated me with all of that dignity that he treated everyone else in his life."

On the Hebron Fund webpage, clicking on the symbol which says "Give to Hebron" leads to a donations page on the website for the Jewish Community of Hebron which says, among other things, "keep Hebron Jewish for the Jewish people." In a report on Hebron, the Israeli human rights organizations B'Tselem and ACRI labeled the demands of Hebron's settlers as "racist." Hebron settlement leader Moshe Levinger, praised in a Hebron Fund dinner video, has been quoted saying,"The Arabs know to behave like good boys around us." Hebron Fund Executive Director Yossi Baumol also made very derogatory comments about Arabs in a 2007 interview.

The signers of the letter include Adalah-NY, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Brooklyn For Peace, Coalition of Women for Peace (Israel), CODEPINK Women for Peace, Gush Shalom (Israel), Jews Against the Occupation-NYC, Jewish Voice for Peace, Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (Palestine), US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, and WESPAC Foundation. The letter was cced and sent to Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, who has a history of involvement with Major League Baseball, and Rachel Robinson, Jackie Robinson's wife.

The letter explains that reviewing last year's and this year's Hebron Fund dinner shows that some dinner honorees support violence and terrorizing Palestinians. In 1990, Noam Arnon, who is to be honored at the dinner, called three Israelis who were convicted of killing three Arabs and maiming two Palestinian mayors in car bombings "heroes." In a video on the Hebron Fund website, 2008 dinner honoree Myrna Zisman pays tribute to Hebron settler Yifat Alkoby. Alkoby became famous worldwide in 2006 when she was videotaped in Hebron terrorizing and calling a Palestinian woman and girl "whores" who were caged inside their own home as protection from settler attacks. In another video featuring 2008 dinner honorees, three children who appear to be the honorees' children are briefly shown holding guns and smiling.

All Israeli settlements violate international law, according to a broad international consensus. The Hebron Fund's dinner invitation says, "Join us in support of Hebron and in protest of today's building freeze in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]." In a September 2008 radio interview, the Hebron Fund's Yossi Baumol explained, "There are real facts on the ground that are created by people helping the Hebron Fund and coming to our dinners."

The Washington Post columnist David Ignatius recently highlighted the Hebron Fund and noted that "critics of Israeli settlements question why American taxpayers are supporting indirectly, through the exempt contributions, a process that the government condemns. A search of IRS records identified 28 US charitable groups that made a total of $33.4 million in tax-exempt contributions to settlements and related organizations between 2004 and 2007." The Hebron Fund has been the subject of complaints to the IRS regarding its tax-exempt status. The complaints request investigations of allegations that it raises funds for the development of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The Israeli organization Gush Shalom recently urged the National Lawyers Guild, an American organization, to encourage American tax authorities to strip US non-profits that support Israeli settlements of their tax-exempt status.


November 03, 2009

Population Growth and Hunger: Is there a relationship?

November 3, 2009

Are there too many people?

There is "a staggering fertility decline.

"In the 1970s only 24 countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less, all of them rich.

"Now there are over 70 such countries, and in every continent, including Africa." (Fertility: Go forth and multiply a lot less)

People are starving?

"Experts estimate that corruption in India indirectly kills more than 8,000 people a day by diverting money from food programs into the pockets of crooked officials." (India's New Anti-Corruption Laws May Not Work )

We still have the feudal system.

Bangladeshis making cheap clothes for supermarkets are paid as little as 3p an hour.


The book World Hunger: Twelve Myths (12 Myths About Hunger.) tells us the following:

1. The world produces enough food.

But low incomes prevent many people from getting enough to eat.

The elite (A) prevent the poor from owning land (B) pay starvation wages.

2. Climate is a factor.

In America many homeless people die from the cold every winter.

Rich people in Kenya will not starve. Kenya exports food.

3. Birth rates are falling rapidly worldwide.

In countries like Nigeria, Brazil and Bolivia, lots of food is grown but many people are too poor to buy a decent meal.

The Netherlands has little land per person but manages to feed its people and export food.

Countries like Cuba and Sri lanka have managed to greatly reduce population growth rates.

They have done this by improving the lives of the poor, especially poor women.

4. Efforts to feed the hungry are not causing the environmental crisis.

Large corporations are mainly responsible for deforestation.

Most pesticides are applied to export crops.

Cuba overcame a food crisis through self-reliance and sustainable, virtually pesticide-free agriculture.

5. We must fight the prospect of a ‘New Green Revolution' based on biotechnology, which threatens to further accentuate inequality.

6. Large landowners often leave much land idle.

A World Bank study of northeast Brazil estimates that redistributing farmland into smaller holdings would raise output an astonishing 80 percent.

7. The market only works efficiently when everyone has a decent income.

8. As a result of 'Free Trade', Brazil exports soybean ­to feed Japanese and European livestock.

Export crop production squeezes out basic food production.

Since NAFTA there has been a net loss of jobs in the USDA and Mexico.

9. Poor people, such as the Zapatistas in Chiapas, seek change.

We should remove the obstacles often created by large corporations, U.S. government, World Bank and IMF policies.

10. Most U.S. aid works directly against the hungry.

US aid is used to keep repressive governments in power.

11. Low wages ­in the Third World may mean cheaper bananas, shirts, computers and fast food for Americans and Europeans.

But the system leads to greater poverty for the majority.

Corporations seek cheaper and cheaper labour.

12. ­The 'right to unlimited accumulation of wealth' ­is in conflict with 'ending hunger'.


November 02, 2009

Would Israel arrest a Jewish terrorist with only Arab victims?

By Avi Issacharoff
Haaretz, November 2, 2009

It's reasonable to assume that if Yaakov (Jack) Teitel had focused only on attacking Palestinians, he would have encountered few problems with law-enforcement authorities. His big mistake, it seems, was targeting non-Arabs as well.

Experience - and statistics - show that Israeli law enforcement is remarkably lax when it comes to tackling violence against Palestinians. Twelve years ago, Teitel confessed to killing two Arabs and then took a break from such activity. Sure, he was detained for questioning after the murder of shepherd Issa Mahamra, but he was released due to insufficient evidence. As with many other cases of murder and violence committed against Palestinians, the story of the shepherd from Yatta and the taxi driver from East Jerusalem disappeared into oblivion - until Teitel returned and attempted to harm Jews, bringing the wrath of public opinion, the Shin Bet security service and the Israel Police down on his head.

The (justifiably) prevailing feeling among Palestinians in the West Bank is that their blood is of no consequence. It's hard to find a Palestinian today who will make an effort to approach the Israeli police about a settler assault, unless Israeli human-rights groups help him. The way Palestinians in the territories see it, Israeli law is enforced only if Jews are harmed, while incidents in which Palestinians are murdered, beaten or otherwise wounded are treated cursorily at best - and more often, are ignored entirely.

For instance, at least six shooting attacks against Palestinians in 2001-2002 have remained unsolved. The most shocking incident took place in July 2001, when three members of the Tamaizi family were shot to death by a man in a skullcap, according to relatives. The gunman asked the driver of the vehicle to stop, as it drove from one end of the village of Idna to the other, after a family wedding. When it stopped, he opened fire. But it's doubtful that Israelis remember that 3-month-old Dai Marwan Tamaizi, born after his parents underwent 14 years of fertility treatments, was killed that day - as were Mohammed Salameh Tamaizi, 27, an only child, and Mohammed Hilmi al-Tamaizi, 24, who was engaged to be married.

One relative recalled last night that to this day, the Israeli authorities have not bothered to update the family on the outcome of their investigation.

Investigations by Palestinian-rights advocacy group Yesh Din has found that 90 percent of police investigations of cases in which Israelis are suspected of committing offenses against Palestinians in the West Bank are left unsolved and are closed. In a 2006 case, four settlers were suspected of beating an elderly Palestinian man with a rifle, leaving him unconscious for three weeks - but police didn't check the alibis of two of the suspects, and a third wasn't even questioned.

There are many more such incidents that indicate that the impression of Palestinians in the West Bank is rooted in reality. Maybe it's Arab terrorists simply interest the law-enforcement authorities more than Jewish terrorists.


Chilean repression of Mapuche community

Continued aggressions of the Chilean state have led the Arauco Malleco Coordinator of Mapuche Communities in Conflict (CAM), a radical indigenous Mapuche organization, to formally renounce their Chilean citizenship and declared war on the government.

The declaration was issued on Oct. 20, the same day that two trucks belonging to the El Bosque forestry corporation were intercepted by CAM and set on fire in the province of Malleco.

As reported by the Latin American Herald Tribune, “the attacks, which began at 1:10 a.m., came hours after five Mapuches were formally indicted under a Pinochet-era anti-terrorism law for similar assaults carried out Oct. 11 near the city of Victoria.”

The declaration, much more than a symbolic gesture, comes at a time of increasing violence against Mapuche children and youths, particularly over the past three months, when Mapuche communities began reclaiming illegally occupied lands in the region of Araucania.

For instance, according to the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), on Oct. 16 “a large group of police, for as yet unknown reasons, began to fire pellets and tear gas canisters” in a school in Temucuicui, Araucania. “Several children suffered pellet wounds and had trouble breathing,” reports IPS News.

Hundreds of Mapuche and non-Mapuche activists protested the attack on Oct. 23—including several children, who carried the empty canisters with them as the marched in Temuco, Araucania’s capital. New Tang Dynasty Television reports.

Mapuche delegates also reached out to the United Nations Fund for Children (UNICEF) to “make a clarion call to the… government, civil society, churches, international institutions, world-renowned personalities and millions of volunteers who are responsible for protecting children’s rights.”

UNICEF responded on Oct. 26 by urging the protection of indigenous children and calling for a full and impartial investigation by the government. “What we have now is completely contradictory reports,” states Gary Stahl, the organization’s Chile representative. Nonetheless, “there is a different way to act depending on whether there are children present,” he adds.

IPS news reports on another serious case—”that of a 17-year-old Mapuche youth with a badly injured leg, who was wounded by about 100 pellets allegedly fired by Carabineros (officers) in the area where the land disputes are raging, on Oct. 20.”

“After being shot he was not seen for a week, nor did he contact health services. At his village he was given up for dead. However, he reappeared Monday and was taken to the Traumatology Hospital in Santiago, where the damage to his leg was being assessed, according to local press reports. He said that he had been rabbit hunting when he was shot, that he did not know who shot him, and that he had gone into hiding because he was afraid.”

In another case last week, a group of military police were caught on filmAccording to Aporrea, the beating “stopped only when other police shouted that the press was there and they were being recorded.” beating a Mapuche youth who was trying to find some information about a member of his community who was arrested a week earlier.

When faced with the video, Eros Negron, the general chief of Araucania, said that the carabinero most active in the beating was fired.

At least nine other Mapuche youths were injured this month, including Felipe Marilan Morales, a ten year old boy who was shot in the forehead after the failed eviction of Mapuche from the estate of La Romana, one of dozens of privately-owned estates scattered on Mapuche lands.

Speaking on the reclamation, the Arauco Malleco Coordinator further demanded that the Chilean government cede the Mapuche’s historical territory, lands south of the Bio Bio River, in accordance with the 1825 Treaty of Tapihue.

Historically, the Bio Bio River marked the border separating the Mapuche from the region controlled by the Spanish. The territory did not become a part of the Chilean state until the late 1800’s following the “Pacification of Araucania.”

The territory has been steadily chipped away by multinational companies, farmers and land barons ever since.

More Information


Settlers harass Palestinians and steal crops during olive harvest

B'Tselem Video - October 2009 - West Bank

The video shows three events that took place during this year's olive harvest in the West Bank .

In the first incident, documented on 15 October by a volunteer in B'Tselem's camera distribution project, settlers are seen stealing olives from a grove belonging to a resident of al-Mughair village in Ramallah District, near which the Adey Ad illegal outpost has been established. The footage shows two settlers picking the olives and dragging filled sacks to a car. While filming the incident, the volunteer notified the authorities. Half an hour later, soldiers and personnel from the Israeli DCL arrived at the site and arrested the settlers. On 26 October, the investigation file was transferred to the legal division in the Judea and Samaria (SHAI) Police Department, which will decide, based on the evidence, whether to file an indictment.

The second incident also occurred in al-Mughair and was filmed by one of B'Tselem's field researchers. Several days after the complaint was filed regarding the stolen olives, village residents discovered that several dozens of olive trees had been cut in their groves. Residents of other villages in the West Bank also reported olive trees that had been cut or uprooted.

In the third incident, which took place on 19 October in Sinjil, Ramallah District, one of B'Tselem's field workers filmed settlers harassing olive pickers although soldiers were present. According to the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), residents of the village were also attacked by several dozens of settlers as they attempted to harvest olives. Army forces that were in the area removed the settlers and enabled the Palestinians to proceed with the harvest.

Information gathered so far about this year's harvest indicates that the harvest has been relatively limited in scope, due to the meager crops, and that less harassment of Palestinians by settlers has been reported than in previous years. However, reports have been received of olive trees being cut or uprooted in several areas in the West Bank . In addition, during 2009, the conditions for receiving permits to cross through Separation Barrier have been made more stringent, increasing the difficulty faced by Palestinians who are separated from their land by the Barrier.

Length: 02:52 mins

Ongoing U.S. efforts to protect and coddle Israel

An Israeli columnist issues a scathing indictment of Israel and calls on the U.S. to apply pressure.

The latest Haaretz column by the outstanding and courageous Israeli columnist, Gideon Levy, is entitled "America, Stop Sucking Up to Israel," and it highlights one of the most bizarre political facts: criticism of Israeli actions is far more tolerated and permitted in Israeli political discourse than it is in America's. It's simply inconceivable that any establishment journalist or national politician would ever echo Levy's scathing indictments of Israel's conduct and his calls for the U.S. to apply serious pressure and even threats to coerce changes in Israeli behavior. After describing the increasingly conciliatory actions towards Israel by the Obama administration in exchange for nothing but obstinance, Levy writes:

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched.

It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is viewed as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is force. . . . When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating the status quo will exact a painful price.

Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.

It's simply impossible to imagine that sort of harsh and blunt critique being voiced by any establishment political commentator or national politician in the U.S. In fact, one finds the exact opposite trend of the one Levy advocates. As Levy suggests, and as Spencer Ackerman insightfully documents and condemns, the Obama administration appears to be rapidly retreating on what was once its promising and commendable demand that Israel cease all settlement growth. The U.S. is unwilling merely to demand from Israel a cessation of activity which is illegal in the eyes of the entire world and destructive to American interests.

Even worse, the U.S. Congress appears poised -- yet again -- to enact a meaningless though odious Resolution that has no purpose other than to shield Israel from criticism; place ourselves squarely on Israel's side no matter what it does; and once again obstruct war crimes investigations. That Resolution -- co-sponsored by two members of Congress from each party, including supreme AIPAC loyalist Howard Berman, the Democratic Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee -- would advance the repellent through all-too-familiar personal smears against U.N. investigator Richard Goldstone by urging that the U.S. "oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration" of Goldstone's report -- which found both Isarel and Hamas likely guilty of "war crimes" in the war in Gaza -- on the ground that the Report was biased, flawed, one-sided, pre-ordained and false.

It's apparently not enough that the U.S. Government block all efforts to investigate its own war crimes while immunizing its own war criminals. Now the U.S. Congress has decided that they were elected to do the same for Israel.

Article continues with Moyers/Goldstone interview

October 28, 2009

Richard Goldstone confuses International Law

Written by M.Idrees - Pulse Media - October 28, 200

While Richard Goldstone deserves credit for publishing a fair report about Israel’s war crime during its assault on Gaza — especially in light of the storm of vilification that he has had to endure — one need not be so swayed as to exempt him claims from scrutiny. There are serious problems with his interpretation of International law, and far from being too critical of Israel, he is too generous.

In this interview Goldstone makes the tendentious claim that jus in bello, that is conduct during war, is unrelated to jus ad bellum, the justness of the war. He in fact goes so far as to claim that ‘it was a given’ that Israel had a right to attack Gaza. He makes this claim despite stating before hand that it wasn’t his remit to investigate jus ad bellum. This is therefore an astonishing statement to make for someone even remotely familiar with international law. Before one can consider jus in bello, the conditions for jus ad bello need to be satisfied. That is to say that before you investigate conduct you have to make sure that the war was just. And if this wasn’t the case — and it wasn’t — then Israel is responsible for launching a war of aggression, the ’supreme crime’ in international law. This also means that Israel bears the responsibility even for the violations of human rights carried out by Hamas because the supreme crime carries within it the accumulated evil of all that follows. For more on this, see my detailed argument in this earlier article.

Al Jazeera’s Shihab Rattansi talks to Judge Richard Goldstone about the investigation into the Gaza war. He travelled to the United Nations in New York to find out if the war on Gaza has transformed Richard Goldstone from a sober jurist into a man on a mission to discredit Israel on an international stage.

Report from J-street

The most difficult moment for me at the J Street came this morning. I was listening to a panel called Messaging Pro-Israel Pro-Peace.

Jim Gerstein, the first panelist presented good polling data about the attitude of American Jews towards Israel and the US role in the region. Lots of good numbers here, the kind of numbers that AIPAC prefers to ignore.

The survey shows that 7 out of 10 American Jews support US policies that help Israelis and Palestinians resolve their conflict–and this includes the US publicly disagreeing with both sides as well as exerting pressure on both sides (in other words, disagreeing also with Israel and exerting pressure also on Israel).

You can find all the survey info here:

Matt Dorf, the next panelist talked about communications and messaging: what we say matters a lot, he said.

Keep this in mind as we move to the third panelist, Dr. Calvin Goldscheider. Here comes demography to help us say what we need to say about being pro-Israel pro-peace.

Dr. Goldscheider did a rapid survey in no more than a few minutes about the changing ratio of Jews to Arabs in what is now Israel. In a few seconds, we heard about the role of Jewish immigration, the Russians (not all of them are Jewish), the temporary workers from Asia (now numbering a quarter of a million) and so forth. Not a word about the Nakba, isn’t that a bit odd?

But let’s focus on the present. The question on the table, Is there a demographic threat?

The good news, says Dr. Goldscheider, is that in the context of the State of Israel, Arab minorities present no demographic threat unless we include the occupied territories and give the inhabitants there equal rights. Inclusion without equal rights leads to the end of democracy. Inclusion with equal rights leads to the end of the Jewish majority in the state. And that is why a two-state solution is a must: to preserve Jewish democracy.

The Palestinians are of course non-players in this Jewish democratic drama. At most, they are a threat just for being there. At best, they are a minority that we must keep under demographic control.

Oh, but the Palestinians are playing their part well. You see, in the 1960’s Palestinians had an average of nine children per family. Now they only have four. (Phew).

Four children is a lot, but nine is a lot more, explains the kind demographer in case we cold not do the math. Audience laughs.

Now, I am Jewish and I am also a Latino man living in California–a state where we have a pluralistic demographic composition: not one group, not even non-Latino whites, amount to 50% of the population. If I were to hear white people bemoaning the demographic threat that the rise of people of color in the state represents, I would call it like it is, and that is racism, pure and simple. I have no use for the phrase demographic threat. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a sharp pain in my gut.

What we say matters a lot; that’s what we were told in this workshop. If we need to use racism to message ourselves as Pro-Israel pro-peace, there is something very wrong here.

Is this the best J Street can come up with?

To be clear, I am not talking now about one-state, two-states, or three. I am talking about saying dayenu to this demographic threat mentality. I am talking about understanding fully and completely that you cannot save Israel’s democracy one bit when you celebrate the fact that 20% of its citizens has an increasingly lower birth rate (yeay!) so that their proportion in the population will not grow (double yeay!). If this is what you believe, don’t waste your time on avoiding the threat; you’ve lost the democratic values a long time ago.

My only consolation is that at least I can bring these issues to the public’s attention — even to the attention of the J Street conference participants.

Were I to be in Israel this very week, I would be furiously fighting against a bill advancing in the Knesset that would bar the Israeli government from providing funding to activities that deny Israel’s definition as a Jewish or democratic state.

– Sydney Levy

UN approves nuclear free resolution

Press TV - October 28, 2009 07:58:58 GMT

The UN General Assembly

The United Nations has approved a draft resolution proposed by the Islamic Republic of Iran on destruction of nuclear weapons under international supervision.

The resolution was ratified at the First Committee of the UN General Assembly despite the opposition of the United States and its allies.

Based on the resolution, the UN General Assembly calls upon all nuclear countries to comply fully with all commitments made regarding nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation and not to act in any way that might compromise either cause or lead to a new nuclear arms race.

It also asks member states to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons.

The assembly stressed that Israel join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and allow its nuclear installations to come under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The United State, France, United Kingdom and Israel voted against the resolution.

October 25, 2009

Is equality a ‘nightmare’ for liberal Zionists?

by Adam Horowitz on October 24, 2009

Ali Abunimah responds to Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Jeremy Ben-Ami:

Here, Jeremy Ben-Ami describes a one-state solution as a "nightmare":

JG: But they’re by no means Zionists. Helena Cobban, who is going to be speaking on this blogger panel, is close to a one-stater, as far as I can tell.

JB: J Street officially will not use the term "One-State Solution." That is an oxymoron because it is a one-state nightmare. That is the thing we are most opposed to — moving in a one-state direction.

JG: A nightmare for practical reasons or a nightmare for moral reasons?

JB: A nightmare for the Jewish people. There would be no more Israel. One state is not a solution, one state is a dissolution.

Look at his words, it’s really amazing. He could be a white supremacist in the south contemplating the end of Jim Crow, or an Afrikaner talking about the end of apartheid. All this is apparently so unremarkable however when it comes to Zionists contemplating the end of Jewish supremacy. This, as well as J Street’s other recent actions, convince me more than ever that this organization will not be part of the solution. It is at best Kadima to AIPAC’s Likud/Yisrael Beitenu. Which means in effect no difference at all. I think there are some sincere people who may have been attracted to J Street, but ultimately there’s no Zionist solution to the Zionist problem, just like there’s no racist solution to the problem of racism.

October 24, 2009

Israeli Settlers Sing And Dance In Front Of Palestinian House They Occupied In East Jerusalem

By Saed Bannoura
October 23, 2009

Dozens of fundamentalist Jewish settlers held prayers on Friday in front of a Palestinian home they occupied by court order in Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, in East Jerusalem. After praying, the settlers held a dance and party.

Dozens of Israeli policemen and Border Guard units were intensively deployed in the area.

Members of Al Ghawi family, who lost their home to the settlers, and residents of Sheikh Jarrah, gathered near the home and banged on pots and construction materials to protest the settlers’ party.

Several residents played tapes of the Holy Quran in front of a home that belongs to Qasem family.

On Thursday, the Israeli District Court in Jerusalem decided to bar resident Khalid Abdul-Fattah Al Ghawi from the area for 15 days.

The decision came following Tuesday clashes in the neighborhood.

The Jerusalem Municipality informed Al Ghawi family that they have until Sunday to remove their protest tent which became their home after their eviction.

October 23, 2009

Barak Breaks the Israeli Silence on Iran Nuclear Deal

Al Manar

23/10/2009 A senior European Union official told Israeli officials this week that “Israel” is not privy to the details of the exchanges between Iran and the Western countries regarding its nuclear program. “You do not understand the extent to which you are not in the picture. You do not know how much you do not know and what is happening in Iran,” he said.

Accordingly, a number of senior Israeli officials backed the European official’s statements by saying that the release of the draft of an agreement with Iran caught Israel by surprise. However, a senior official in the U.S. administration told Haaretz Thursday that from the minute the talks began on a deal over the uranium enrichment program of Iran, Israel was updated on every detail by the United States, and was given detailed reports on the talks with the Iranians and the ongoing dialogue on a nearly daily basis.

The Israeli Prime Minister’s Bureau refused to comment.

However, Defense Minister Ehud Barak broke Israel’s official silence on a draft plan under which most of its enriched uranium will be exported abroad for processing into a form usable in its research reactor, saying there was a need to halt all uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.

“Iran received legitimization for enriching uranium for civilian purposes on its soil, contrary to the understanding that those negotiating with it have about its real plans – obtaining nuclear [weapons] capability,” Barak said. He acknowledged that the deal, if signed, would significantly reduce Iran’s stock of enriched uranium, but said what is needed is a complete halt to its enrichment program.

“The talks [with Iran] must be of short, limited duration,” he added. “The principle we are recommending to all the players is not, under any circumstances, to remove any option from the table.”

Iran is slated to sign the agreement Friday, along with the United States, France, Russia and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Many details of the agreement have not yet been published, but the bits released to the public call for Iran to transfer about 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium – about 75 percent of its known stock – to Russia. There, it will be enriched to a level of 20 percent and then transferred to France, where it will be processed into nuclear fuel and returned to Tehran for use in its research reactor, which makes medical isotopes. The entire process will take about 18 months.