October 12, 2009

Report: Israeli police unit disguised as medics

October 12, 2009

Bethlehem – Ma’an – While Israel often accuses Palestinians of misusing ambulances as cover for attacks, a report from the country’s second-largest newspaper suggests Israel may want to first clean up its own house before accusing others.

In its special magazine supplement, the Hebrew-language daily Ma’ariv exposed an undercover unit created by Israeli police that disguises its operatives as medics, Bedouins, ultra-Orthodox Jews, or even Israeli civilians faking car trouble.

According to the report, the special unit is responsible for targeting Palestinians listed on Israel’s long “wanted” list.

Seventeen policemen form the unit, which was created at the end of July, described by Ma’ariv as the first of its kind. The team is reportedly most often deployed in Bedouin residential centers in the Negev, where it boasts 30-40 arrests each month from all over Israel.

The head of the special unit, Yousi Makhluf, proudly explained that its members “are the best men, with more experience, very high investigative intelligence experience, speak Arabic, and have good relations with Bedouins.”

“There are no geographical borders that limit the work of the unit, which works in Ramle, Haifa, Ashdod…” he added. “A number of [its members] have served in the army’s undercover unit and worked in the West Bank and Gaza, where they were trained in the most advanced methods of disguise and blending in.”

Meanwhile, a nongovernmental media organization expressed concern on Saturday about reports that undercover Israeli operatives were posing as photojournalists during Palestinian demonstrations against Israeli policies in Jerusalem.

In a statement, Awad Awad, a photojournalist working with the Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (MADA), said that concerns arose from reports the organization received from residents of the East Jerusalem neighborhood Ras Al-Amoud.

Awad quoted residents saying they saw Israeli agents carrying cameras and disguised as press photographers on Thursday and Friday. The same agents, they, arrested young men who participated in the demonstration.

Speaking to Ma’an on Saturday, residents of the area reported identical incidents. Witnesses said they saw Israelis dressed as photographers seize several young male protesters.

Ras Al-Amoud saw some of the fiercest clashes between stone-throwing protesters and Israeli riot police. Reported intrusions by Israeli settlers into the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the third holiest site in Islam, have sparked over a week of demonstrations.

The next day, a photo published on the website of The New York Times also showed plainclothes Israeli officers seizing a Palestinian man during a demonstration in East Jerusalem.

In its statement, MADA warned that Israeli operatives disguising themselves as photographers could endanger the lives of actual photojournalists.

The Toxic Legacy of Christopher Columbus

By William A. Cook

When beliefs morph into truth, regardless of the realities of time and place, the non-initiated become fodder for those with the zeal and power to enforce their will. Thus the great discoverer of the Americas “fantasized that he had located— or had come close to—the site of the paradise into which Jehovah had placed Adam and Eve” ( Ned Hopkins, CTA Action, 1992). The “Christ-bearer,” baptized in his unquestioned faith, utilized his birth name to justify his actions, reasoning that God gave license to him as His servant. Perhaps, as we bear down on the anniversary of Columbus’ achievements, we might consider how it has been possible for a Medieval world of unbridled superstition, intolerance, and religious myopia to envelop the advanced civilizations of western culture at the beginning of the 21st century.

The irony of this review that watches Columbus sail from the ports of Spain as the Spanish Crown expelled or slaughtered the Jews and Muslims in 1492, empowered by their Christian faith, resides in the realty that the west and the Muslim world of the 21st century clings still to the superstitions that gave rise ultimately to the greatest holocaust the world has ever known, as David Stannard notes in his work, The American Holocaust. If Columbus precipitated an invasion of the western powers into the “new” hemisphere, what Hopkins claims “…resulted in the largest exchange of people, animals, and plants that the planet has ever seen…,” it also resulted in the near extermination of an entire race and multiple cultures. The justification for this invasion found expression in the authority of the Roman Catholic faith to bring salvation to the “savages” and civilization to the primitives who lagged behind the advances of European cultures.



What mindset allows such darkness to blind what the eyes can see? Before Columbus an estimated 10-18 million people lived and loved in what we now call the United States. The Hopi and Zuni cultures thrived in the south west for an estimated 4000 years before the Spanish arrived. In the east the Algonquian, Iroquoian, and Muskogee peoples existed as far back as 10,000 years. The Iroquois formed a confederacy with five other tribes in the late 15th century that lasted long enough that Benjamin Franklin could visit its assembly and learn from it. These “savages” had a constitution and a code to guide behavior that included a prohibition of blood revenge, a social compact communitarian in nature, communal land, and hunters that provided for the community not for themselves. “There were no mendicants or paupers among them” (French Jesuit 1657) and “… the Chiefs are generally the poorest among them … obliged to give to others” (Dutch missionary). It might be said that these “savages” were taught “to think for them selves but to act for others.” What a novel thought for the “civilized” beasts that invaded this continent from Europe.

Whether we observe the Spaniards in central and south America or the Puritans in New England, we find a Eurocentric racist mindset cobbled with an imperialistic belief in their own superiority given vitality by their religious tenets that they are the chosen of God, redeemed – and hence destined for everlasting life in the presence of God Almighty. Indeed the western mind has been bathed in such moral epistemology since medieval times and sustained by historians and politicians who defend colonialism by conquest as a God given duty. “The colonialist … reaches the point of no longer being able to imagine a time occurring without him. His irruption into the history of the colonized people is deified, transformed into absolute necessity,” as Frantz Fanon puts it.

All that is needed to sustain such a mindset is obliteration of the peoples being subjugated, to transform them from people to “savages” or barbarians, primitives without souls, without culture or intelligence, irrelevant “cockroaches” to be discarded, driven from the land, or killed. Thus do we witness the civilized European inflict their beliefs on the natives through acceptance of the “requerimiento” that ordered them to accept the truth of Christianity and allegiance to the Spanish Crown or suffer torture or death. Or in the case of the Puritans as they moved against the Pequot people, face extermination as Godless minions of Satan.

Then, strangely enough, as Edward Said remarked, the “Settler group adorns itself with the mantle of the victim: the European homeland of the colonists—or the metropolitan European power that politically controls the settlement area—is portrayed as the oppressor, while the European settlers depict themselves as valiant seekers of justice and freedom, struggling to gain their deserved independence on the land that they “discovered” or that is theirs by holy right.” (as quoted by Stannard).

Perhaps Columbus and the Puritans might be excused for their actions since they were raised in a world that knew the truth of God’s word from the dominant religious and political forces of their times. As a consequence they found license to slaughter at will in the name of their God. “[The Spaniards] took babies from their mother’s breasts, grabbing them by the feet and smashing their heads against rocks … They built a long gibbet, low enough for the toes to touch the ground and prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles. … Then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive” (Bartolome de Las Casas). Such is the power of myth in the medieval mind. What one believes justifies all. So Columbus and the Conquistadors mercilessly plundered and ravaged a people and their land.


Such dependence on myth to establish belief that drives the actions of a state to destroy another is surely the product of by gone times, times where superstition, prejudice, racism festered like some infection embedded in the heart and mind, the toxic atmosphere that propelled Columbus and the Puritans. Today, in our advanced DNA omniscience, in a world driven by globalization, prodded by ideologies of democracy, equality, liberty and the realization that we humans can bring these virtues to the entire world, surely such myths no longer exist.

How explain then America’s proclivity to torture under our most Christian of Presidents? Did he not send his forces to Iraq at God’s behest to bring the infidels the “gift” of God’s freedom and liberty in the manner of King Ferdinand of Spain who enlisted his servant Columbus to bring “souls to God” on his behalf? Didn’t our president’s advisor, Dick Cheney, justify “extraordinary interrogation techniques” to bring the recalcitrant to the truth, or die? How like the “requerimiento” that offered the Native life or death in the name of God Almighty.

What differentiates the slaughter of the natives by bloody massacres that wiped out whole tribes, as the Conquistadores swept across the south west or the Puritan massacre of the Pequots, in the fiery hell they designed for those God helped them destroy, from the razing of Fallujah by the American forces as they leveled the city to the ground and in the process scorched and seared the residents in the unforgiving fire of white phosphorus? What has changed since Medieval times? What progress is discernible but the technology of death? The racist mindset clamped on the brain by arrogance of belief in white superiority remains firmly in place justifying what the soul knows in its silence to be merciless slaughter that needs no God to trumpet its evil.

How similar the incantations of the righteous “settlers” arriving from a foreign land to lay claim to the homes of an indigenous people, people bought and brought to Israel by American dollars, defying law and logic in the process, condemning those who have lived on the land for centuries as invaders or usurpers of their God given rights as proclaimed in an ancient book of dubious authenticity but useful for purposes of theft. How strange that civilized people throughout the world witness this ludicrous behavior as rational, finding confrontation of truth and international law uncomfortable and so allow the robbery to continue.

Not even the barbaric behavior of these demented souls that find favor with their G-d when they club to death an old shepherd or mob children in the streets on the way to school or burn Palestinian homes or throw the residents of an apartment into the streets and take their home for themselves or, as soldiers in the IDF, glorify their G-d by killing defenseless and innocent women and children in Gaza, can nudge the indifferent people of the world to scream to the heavens that some sick stupidity is loose in this ancient land that is senselessly claimed to be the holiest piece of real estate on the planet.

Benny Morris, the most prolific of Israeli historians, in an interview in Ha’aretz contends that the annihilation of the Native Americans was unavoidable. “The great American democracy could not have been achieved without the extermination of the Indians. There are cases in which the general and final good justifies difficult and cruel deeds that are carried out in the course of history.” Dr. Adi Ophir, in commenting on this interview notes: “Morris seems to know what the general and final good is: the good of the Americans, of course. He knows that this good justifies partial evil. In other words, under specific circumstances, Morris believes that it is possible to justify genocide. In the case of the Indians, it is the existence of the American nation. In the case of the Palestinians, it is the existence of the Jewish state.” (“Genocide Hides Behind Expulsion,” Adi Ophir, 1-16-2004). How convenient an argument to give credibility to the genocide in Palestine, especially since the declaration of the American state occurred 289 years after the arrival of Columbus. But logic does not play a role here; superstition does.

Consider the logic of the new Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, as he castigated the world leaders at the UN two weeks ago for allowing a holocaust denier to address their assembly. “Shame on you,” he yelled, lifting his covenant with the God of Abraham high above the podium to prove that the land of Palestine belongs by historical right to the Jews, “Shame on you” for not accepting the fact that G-d gave this land to the Jews, as though their belief in what is now known to be fiction must be used to justify the decimation of the Palestinians. “If as archeology suggests, the sagas of the patriarchs and the Exodus were legends, compiled in later periods, and if there is no convincing evidence of a unified invasion of Canaan under Joshua, what are we to make of the Israelites’ claims for ancient nationhood?” (The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman, 98).How ironic that the “real” descendents of the people of ancient Judea are the people of Palestine who centuries ago converted to the Christian or Muslim faiths, not the Ashkenazi European Jews like Netanyahu who have no Semitic blood connection to the land but only an acceptance by conversion to the Jewish faith (Shlomo Sand, When and How the Jewish People Was Invented). What a convenient way to justify theft of another’s home and land.

How can we pretend that the United States and its “only friend” in the mid-east have the right to impose their beliefs on other states? Have these modern day colonists not, as Fanon said, deified their own being and justified their actions as the will of their imagined God as though no other God exists or no belief in a different divinity can be conceived? How can we pretend that flechette bombs, depleted uranium weapons, dimes, white phosphorus, bunker buster bombs, cluster bombs and all the machinery of modern war designed to decimate thousands of people, to inflict heretofore unseen wounds on mind and body, can in any rational way be justified as civilized or humane? Perhaps, like Columbus and his Conquistadores, we should forgo the luxury of technological prowess and return to the shield and sword so the full carnage we inflict might be visible to all of us as the screams of the baby and the mother sink deep into our hearts and the blood splatters over our face and we must face what we have wrought.

- William A. Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of Tracking Deception: Bush’s Mideast Policy.

Source

A Dollar Rout or More Bernanke Trickery?

By MIKE WHITNEY
October 12, 2009

Consumer credit is falling fast. In July, consumer credit plunged by $19 billion, followed by an August drop of $12 billion, a 5.8 percent annual rate. Credit card spending decreased by nearly $10 billion in August, while non-revolving debt, including auto loans, fell by $2 billion. Credit has shrunk for 7 consecutive months, the longest period of decline since 1991. The banks have shrugged off their commitment under the TARP program to increase lending to consumers and businesses. They've either deposited their excess reserves with the Fed, where they earn interest, or invested them in the equities markets for better returns. The bottom line: Credit is shrinking and the economy is slipping further into deflation.

From MarketWatch:
U.S. banks are reducing their lending at the fastest rate on record ... According to weekly figures provided by the Federal Reserve, total loans at commercial banks have fallen at a 19% annual rate over the past three months, while loans to businesses have dropped at a 28% annualized pace...

... if the decline is mainly due to weak banks unable or unwilling to lend, then a turnaround in credit creation may have to wait until banks' balance sheets are repaired, a process that could be delayed by further expected defaults in consumer loans, mortgages and commercial real-estate loans. (Rex Nutting, "Banks cutting back on loans to businesses", Marketwatch)
Unemployment is rising and the pool of creditworthy borrowers is declining. When credit contracts in an economy where salaries have stagnated and joblessness is increasing, demand falls and recession deepens. That is, unless government spending takes up the slack in excess capacity.

There is no organic growth in the economy at present. The so-called recovery is a result of fiscal stimulus and the Fed's extraordinary liquidity injections into the financial system. True growth and prosperity do not come via the printing press. The Fed's actions are just putting more and more pressure on the dollar.

From Bloomberg today:
Central banks flush with record reserves are increasingly snubbing dollars in favor of euros and yen, further pressuring the greenback after its biggest two- quarter rout in almost two decades...

Policy makers boosted foreign currency holdings by $413 billion last quarter, the most since at least 2003, to $7.3 trillion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Nations reporting currency breakdowns put 63 percent of the new cash into euros and yen in April, May and June...the highest percentage in any quarter with more than an $80 billion increase.

Global central banks are getting more serious about diversification, whereas in the past they used to just talk about it,” said Steve Englander, a former Federal Reserve researcher who is now the chief U.S. currency strategist at Barclays in New York. “It looks like they are really backing away from the dollar.” (Bloomberg News)
Congress has no say-so. Neither do the American people. The decision to skewer the dollar was made by the big banks and their allies at the Federal Reserve. Everyone else is just along for the ride. The Fed wants a cheaper dollar to increase exports, provide cheap capital for Wall Street, and to lower the true value of household and financial sector debt. But there are many pitfalls to "inflating one's way out of debt". It is a policy which should have been debated by the representatives of the people and not decided by unelected bank-oligarchs pursuing their own self-interests.

The dollar's share of global reserves is steadily falling. Private industry and central banks are shedding dollars to avoid painful adjustments in the future. Last week, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and the Philippines launched currency market interventions to keep the dollar from plummeting. The situation is grave. The Fed's monetization and liquidity programs have made dollar-holders jittery. The central banks actions are the first sign of a disorderly unwind. The prospect of a dollar crash is now real.

Surprisingly, there is also a good chance that the dollar will strengthen short-term and that the misinformation about the dollar's future is being used to achieve the Fed's objectives. Fed chair Ben Bernanke is already monetizing the debt (via quantitative easing) and has slashed interest rates to zero. What else can he do? The only way to weaken the dollar further is through asymmetrical warfare, a disinformation campaign aimed at triggering a sell-off before the dollar strengthens when the stock market corrects and credit tightens even more. Is that what Bernanke has in mind?

The Fed has its back to the wall. It will do whatever is necessary to micro-manage the dollar's decline and retain its stranglehold on the global system.

Mike Whitney can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com

Source

Journalist vows to follow up on 'Israel organ theft'

Press TV - October 12, 2009

Six weeks after he caused a political storm over his article on alleged Israeli organ thefts, the Swedish journalist behind the controversy says he will not quit the story despite receiving hundreds of death threats.

Donald Bostrom told Press TV on Monday that he did not believe there was any real intention behind the threats, which he has been receiving via email.

While he said he could not guess who was behind the anonymous threats, he acknowledged that the piece had received a large amount of bad publicity over accusations of anti-Semitism, which he overruled.

"My article asks very simple question: what happened to this young man in Palestine?"

He added that he was proud of the way Stockholm had handled the issue according to the Swedish Constitution, staying out of the decision-making process at the Aftonbladet daily, which ran the piece on August 17.

He emphasized that with all the frenzy that piece caused, even causing a diplomatic row between Sweden and Israel, he felt it was his and the newspaper's obligation to follow up on article and further investigate and "explain" its facts.

The article accused Israeli forces of kidnapping and murdering Palestinian youths for the sale of their organs — a ruthless trade going back as far as 17 years.

It also noted a current case of an American Jew charged with trafficking kidneys of Palestinians.

Is Canada more pro-Israel than the US?


By Yves Engler, The Electronic Intifada, 12 October 2009

In June, Israel began barring some North Americans with Palestinian-sounding names entry through Ben Gurion Airport. Forced to reroute through a land-border crossing that connects the West Bank with Jordan, their passports were stamped "Palestinian Authority only," which prevents them from entering Israel proper.

The Obama Administration objected to the move by Israel that discriminates against American citizens of Palestinian origin. However, there has been no protest from Ottawa even though Time magazine and the Israeli daily Haaretz ran lengthy articles focusing on Palestinian Canadian businessmen harmed by this new policy. A few weeks ago the Globe and Mail reported that "Although some of the most high-profile cases of individuals being turned away involve Canadian citizens, the Harper government has, so far, made no protest."

This silence bolsters claims by some commentators that under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government, Canada has become (at least diplomatically) the most pro-Israel country in the world. Israeli officials concur. After meeting Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, four other Conservative ministers and Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff in July 2009, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who has openly called for the expulsion of Palestinian citizens of Israel, commented:

"It's hard to find a country friendlier to Israel than Canada these days. Members both of the coalition and the opposition are loyal friends to us, both with regard to their worldview and their estimation of the situation in everything related to the Middle East, North Korea, Iran, Sudan and Somalia. No other country in the world has demonstrated such full understanding of us."

Two days after Harper won a minority government in January 2006, Hamas won Canadian-monitored and facilitated legislative elections. Quickly after assuming power Harper made Canada the first country (after Israel) to cut its assistance to the Palestinian Authority. The aid cutoff, which was designed to sow division within Palestinian society, had devastating social effects.

Ostensibly the aid cutoff was due to Hamas's refusal to recognize Israel. Yet, Canada has not severed relations with Likud-led Israeli governments, which do not recognize the Palestinians' right to a state. Harper explained that "Future assistance to any new Palestinian government will be reviewed against that government's commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations." But support for Israel was never made contingent on "nonviolence" or an end to settlement construction.

In March 2007, Palestinian political factions representing more than 90 percent of the Palestinian Legislative Council established a unity government. Still, the Conservatives shunned the new government all the while claiming to speak regularly (like the Israelis) with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. When the unity government's Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti traveled to Ottawa on a global peace tour, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay refused to meet him. Barghouti, who represents a secular party, explained at the time that "I think the Canadian government is the only government that is taking such a position, except for Israel." Barghouti had already met the foreign ministers of Sweden and Norway, the secretary-general of the United Nations and then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

However, once Hamas officials were ousted from the Palestinian Authority (PA), Ottawa restarted diplomatic relations and financial support. "The Government of Canada welcomes the leadership of President Abbas and Prime Minister [Salam] Fayyad in establishing a government that Canada and the rest of the international community can work with," explained MacKay after the unity government's collapse in mid-2007 and the appointment of a new government in Ramallah. "In light of the new Palestinian government's commitment to nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, and in recognition of the opportunity for a renewal of peace efforts, Canada will provide assistance to the new Palestinian government."

With Palestinian society divided and a more compliant authority in control of the West Bank, the Canadian International Development Agency contributed $8 million "in direct support to the new government." Part of this aid was directed towards creating a Palestinian police force "to ensure that the PA maintains control of the West Bank against Hamas," as Canadian ambassador to Israel Jon Allen was quoted by the Canadian Jewish News. US Lt. General Keith Dayton, in charge of organizing the Palestinian force, never admitted that he was strengthening Fatah against Hamas but to justify his program Dayton argued that Iran and Syria funded and armed Hamas. Bolstering Fatah to counteract the growing strength of Hamas was the impetus for Dayton's mission. However, the broader aim is to build a force to patrol Israel's occupation, a fact Dayton does little to dispel.

In January 2007, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay offered an immediate $1.2 million for Dayton's mission. A fifth of Dayton's initial staff was comprised of Canadians and during a press conference with MacKay in Jerusalem Condoleezza Rice said Dayton "has a Canadian counterpart with whom he works very closely." Two years later Dayton's military training force in the West Bank reportedly included nine Canadians, 16 Americans, three Brits and one Turk.

In June 2008, a Harper government press release announced that "Canada is a strong supporter of Palestinian security system reform, particularly through our contribution to the mission of Lt. General Keith Dayton, the US security coordinator, and to the European Union Police Coordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support."

Canada's contribution to the Dayton mission was part of a $300 million "aid" package that began in December 2007. According to the government agency Public Safety Canada, "a significant component [of the $300 million will be] devoted to security, including policing and public order capacity-building. This five year commitment will go towards the creation of a democratic, accountable, and viable Palestinian state that lives in peace and security alongside Israel."

But does anything close to a "viable Palestinian state" exist? Is Israel allowing it to be created? Growing Jewish-only settlements, Israeli bypass roads and the apartheid barrier all make a Palestinian state far from realistic in the short to medium term. Yet Canadian officials act as if Israel is working toward a Palestinian state.

In Gaza, Israel's occupation has turned into a blockade. For 27 months, Israel has reduced food and medicine from entering the tiny coastal territory to a fraction of what is needed by the besieged population. Yet, the Harper government has refused any criticism of the siege. Canada was the only country at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) to vote against a January 2008 resolution that called for "urgent international action to put an immediate end to Israel's siege of Gaza." It was adopted by 30 votes with 15 abstentions.

Instead, the Conservative government has been quick to congratulate Israel for any small pause in its blockade. In January 2009 International Cooperation Minister Bev Oda proclaimed that "We commend Israel's decision to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance [to Gaza] through a temporary ceasefire." A day after Oda's announcement, Israeli forces fired on a UN convoy during a ceasefire, killing a Palestinian aid worker. There was no follow-up statement from Oda condemning Israel's actions.

Compared to Ottawa's cheerleading most of the world was hostile to Israel's attacks on Gaza last winter. In solidarity with Gaza, Venezuela expelled Israel's ambassador at the start of the bombardment and then broke off all diplomatic relations two weeks later. Israel didn't need to worry since Ottawa was prepared to help out. "Israel's interests in Caracas will now be represented by the Canadian Embassy," explained The Jerusalem Post (Ottawa had been "doing this for Israel in Cuba" since 1973). In August 2009, the Canadian embassy in Caracas also began providing visas to Venezuelans traveling to Israel.

For defining Canadian policy as "we support Israel no matter what it does," B'Nai Brith International bestowed Harper with its Presidential Gold Medallion for Humanitarianism. The first ever Canadian to receive the award, Harper joined former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion, and US Presidents John F. Kennedy and Harry S. Truman. For its part, the Canadian Jewish Congress gave Harper its "prestigious Saul Hayes Human Rights award, named for a former CJC executive director, the first time it's been given to a sitting PM."

Despite the government's strident support for Israel, grassroots opposition to that country's policy has never been greater. Recent protests against the Toronto International Film Festival's spotlight on Tel Aviv were a major setback to Israeli public relations efforts. The festival embarrassment followed massive demonstrations against Israel's assault on Gaza, when many cities across the country witnessed their largest ever Palestinian solidarity demonstrations.

Alongside displays of opposition to specific Israeli policy, the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign is growing. Many social groups such as Independent Jewish Voices and Quebec's most active student Federation, ASSE, have joined the BDS movement, as have a number of unions, including the Canadian Union of Public Employees (Ontario), the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the teachers Federation in Quebec. Social movements in Canada have never been more critical of Israel.

Yves Engler is the author of the recently released The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy and other books. The book is available at http://blackbook.foreignpolicy.ca/.

UN, Interpol design 'global policing doctrine'

Press TV - October 12, 2009 14:04:04 GMT



The United Nations and Interpol, the global police organization, are poised to become partners in fighting crime by jointly creating an international police force.

Interpol, which is financed by 187 member nations, says the "global police doctrine" would allow the deployment of peacekeepers among rogue nations plagued by war and organized crime.

"We have a visionary model," said Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble, who described the joint partnership "an alliance of all nations."

He suggested that by relying on Interpol's resources, the United Nations would be able to handle international conflicts and transnational crime far better.

"If UN peacekeepers assigned to post-conflict zones or fragile states are asked to perform police-like functions and to combat transnational crime, then more peacekeepers should come from the ranks of police and be given access to Interpol's global databases," said Noble.

Modern peacekeeping efforts have evolved significantly since the blue-helmeted UN military force was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Since 2005, the number of police forces involved in UN peacekeeping operations has more than doubled from about 6,000 to 12,200 in 17 countries.

However, Interpol officials plan to steer the organization into providing "advice and consulting services" in the area of policing during peacekeeping operations, AFP reported.

"Interpol is not going to send troops out into the field here and there throughout the world," said Interpol director of legal affairs Joel Sollier. "What Interpol is going to do is provide technical assistance, technical support."

On Sunday, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in a video message told a gathering of justice and foreign ministers from more than 60 countries in Singapore that the UN welcomes the initiative.

"They forge trust in uniformed men and women. They generate confidence that peace can succeed,” he said, describing the UN Police (UNPOL).

See also:

Waco Siege “Enforcer” To Rule Over Global Police Force

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 12, 2009

October Surprise: Peace Prize to a War Criminal

By Stephen Lendman
October12, 2009

The Nobel Committee's tradition is long and inglorious, but for the well-informed no surprise. Consider its past honorees:
-- Henry Kissinger;

-- Shimon Peres;

-- Yitzhak Rabin;

-- Menachem Begin;

-- FW de Klerk;

-- Al Gore;

-- The Dalai Lama, a covert CIA asset;

-- Kofi Annan, a reliable imperial war supporter;

-- UN Peacekeeping (Paramilitary) Forces that foster more conflicts than they resolve;

-- Elie Wiesel, a hawkish Islamophobe;

-- Norman Borlaug, whose "green revolution" wheat strains killed millions;

-- Medecins Sans Frontieres, co-founded by rabid war hawk Bernard Kouchner, now France's Minister of Foreign and European Affairs;

-- Woodrow Wilson who broke his pledge to keep "us out of war,"

-- Jimmy Carter who backed an array of tyrants and drew the Soviets into its Afghan quagmire that took a million or more lives;

-- George C. Marshall, instrumental in creating NATO and waging war against North Korea;

-- Theodore Roosevelt who once said "I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one;" and

-- other undeserving winners...."War is peace," what Orwell understood and why the award legitimizes wars and the leaders who wage them.

After the October 9 announcement, The New York Times quoted 2007 winner Al Gore saying it was "thrilling" without explaining it was as undeserved as his own. Writers Steven Erlanger and Sheryl Gay Stolberg called it a "surprise." For others it shocked and betrayed.

Palestinian Muhammad al-Sharif asked: "Has Israel stopped building settlements? Has Obama achieved a Palestinian state yet?"

Iyad Burnat, one of the West Bank's non-violent protest leaders, "started to go crazy" after hearing about the award. "I asked myself why. The Americans are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Palestine is still occupied....Why didn't (they) give the prize to (George Bush. He) worked very hard (for) eight years killing children, starting wars and supporting the occupation, and they gave the prize to (other choices). I think (the) prize makes the people more violent. Do you think that Obama can make peace....why didn't (they) wait until he actually made" it.

Straddling both sides, The Times said that the "unexpected honor....elicited praise and puzzlement around the globe."

It called it a rebuke of Bush's foreign policies instead of explaining it legitimizes wars and conflicts, the same ones Obama's pursuing more aggressively in Afghanistan and Pakistan under a general (Stanley McChrystal) James Petras calls a "notorious psychopath" - responsible for committing war crime atrocities when he headed the Pentagon's infamous Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). No matter, according to Erlanger and Stolberg's Times-speak:
"Mr. Obama has generated considerable goodwill overseas (and) has made a series of speeches with arching ambition. He has vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons; reached out to the Muslim world (and) sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, at the expense of offending some of his Jewish supporters."

In fact, his speeches are disingenuous and lie-filled. He disdains peace. The renamed "Global War on Terror" is now the "Overseas Contingency Operation." Torture remains official US policy. His administration reeks of Islamophobes. The Israeli Lobby remains comfortably dominant. Muslims are still target one. His ambition is global dominance. His method - imperial wars with a first-strike nuclear option.

The Nobel Committee's Twisted Logic in Announcing the Award

It reflects Obama's "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
Fact Check:

In less than nine months in office, Obama has been confrontational through destabilizing belligerence towards numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, China, Occupied Palestine, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Somalia, North Korea, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Honduras by deposing a democratically elected president and obstructing efforts to reinstate him.

"Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
Fact Check:

America has the world's largest, most threatening arsenal and global delivery systems. Besides Israel, it's the only major power with a first-strike nuclear policy against any country called a threat. Its drawdown plans will replace old weapons with better new ones, and so-called "missile defense" is solely for offense.

"Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multinational diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions play."
Fact Check:

Obama is pursuing the same policies as George Bush:

-- permanent wars and occupations;

-- record amounts of military spending at a time America has no enemies;

-- supplying arms and munitions to rogue state allies;

-- confronting independent ones with sanctions, belligerent threats, and more war;

-- subverting the rule of law;

-- pursuing a global jihad against human rights and civil liberties;

-- using Security Council pressure and intimidation to enforce policy and block constructive measures through vetoes; and

-- overall continuing America's hegemonic pursuit of "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.

Under Obama, "the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climate challenges the world is confronting."
Fact Check:

Obama's House-passed "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" is environmentally destructive, lets corporate polluters reap huge windfall profits by charging consumers more for energy and fuel, and creates new Wall Street bubble potential through carbon trading derivatives speculation.

According to Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, the "US stance retards progress at Bangkok climate talks" the way it's obstructed earlier efforts.

"Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
Fact Check:
Obama's polices have weakened them at home and abroad. Torture remains official US policy. Muslims, Latino immigrants, and environmental and animal rights activists are repeated victims. So are peaceful protestors. Police state measures are still law and tough new ones are planned. Civil and human rights issues are nonstarters. Warrantless illegal spying continues. Health care reform schemes will ration a human right, and the new Swine Flu vaccines are covert bioweapons.

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
Fact Check:

Under Obama, growing millions in America face poverty, unemployment, hunger, homelessness, despair, ill health, and early deaths at a time of permanent wars.

"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely the international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman."
Fact Check:

Skirting the truth, the Committee's twisted logic picks honorees who should face prosecutions for their crimes.

A 110-Year Tradition


Alfred Nobel (1833 - 1896) began it in 1901. Swedish- born, he was a wealthy 19th century chemist, engineer, dynamite inventor, armaments manufacturer, and war profiteer, later reinventing himself as a peacemaker.

Past nominees included Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Tony Blair, Rush Limbaugh and George W. Bush. Mahatma Gandhi got four nominations but never won. Nor did three-time nominee Kathy Kelly and other deserving choices, passed over for war hawks like Henry Kissenger whose credentials include:
-- three - four million Southeast Asian deaths;

-- many tens of thousands more worldwide;

-- backing coups and despots;

-- stoking global conflict and violence; and

-- compiling an overall breathtaking criminal record.

Others like:
-- Israeli leaders Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin and Menachem Begin matched him against Palestinian civilians;

-- Kofi Annan backed Western imperialism, years of genocidal Iraqi sanctions, the 2003 invasion and occupation, and the same lawlessness against Afghanistan; and

-- Al Gore, the 2007 choice, was infamous for putting politics above principles and made a career out of being pro-war, pro-business, anti-union, and no friend of the earth - credentials descriptive of Obama and his national security team, ideologically stacked with hawks.

As a result, American war making continues, sanctified and legitimized under Obama's peacemaker mantle. Or as CounterPunch's Alexander Cockburn put it in his October 10 "War and Peace" article:
The award is "a twist on the Alger myth, inspiring to youth (and future Nobel hopefuls): you too can get to murder Filipinos, or Palestinians, or Vietnamese or Afghans and still win a Peace Prize. That's the audacity of hope at full stretch." Nobel hypocrisy also by scorning peace in favor of war. The tradition continues.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.


Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Ethiopian Troops Pour Into Central Somalia

Ethiopian Forces Cross Border, Begin Rounding Up Somali Villagers

by Jason Ditz, October 11, 2009

Ethiopia appears to have launched yet another incursion into Somalia, with hundreds of Ethiopian soldiers pouring across the border into Central Somalia and rounding up villagers suspected of having ties to the insurgency.

Locals say the Ethiopian forces were accompanied by soldiers affiliated with the self-proclaimed Somali government and the forces cut off the communication lines in the villages.

Ethiopia previously launched an invasion of Somalia in 2006 with the blessing of the US government. The invasion was an attempt to prop up the Somali government, which at the time was struggling in the face of growing support for the Islamic Courts Union.

Ethiopia declared victory and left in December of 2008, though by then the Islamic Courts Union (which has since become part of the Ethiopia-backed “government”) had been supplanted by a more violent group, al-Shahaab, which rose to chase foreign forces out of the nation.

At this point, the government controls little more than a handful of city blocks in Mogadishu, though its forces often will briefly occupy central Somali villages before being driven off by militants.

It is unclear what Ethiopia hopes to accomplish with the latest incursions, as, rhetoric aside, their much larger 2006 invasion force failed to impose rule on any significant portion of the nation and the situation has only gotten worse since then.

Related:


Source

Israeli officials warn against support for UN report

By Ben Lynfield in Jerusalem
October 11, 2009

A jittery Israeli government reacted furiously yesterday after a top British diplomat voiced support for aspects of a UN report that could lead to prosecution of Israeli army officers for alleged war crimes.

The UK ambassador to the UN, John Sawers, told Israel Army radio that the report on last winter’s Gaza war contains “some very serious details which need to be investigated by both the Palestinian authorities and the Israeli authorities.”

He added that “serious information” in the document gives rise to the suspicion that violations of the laws of war were committed.

The remarks, three days before the report is expected to be raised in the security council at Libya’s behest, highlighted a British position that is rhetorically distinct from that of Washington, which has been strongly backing an Israeli campaign to scuttle the report on the grounds it is biased.

Mr. Sawers took issue with the prevalent Israeli idea that the commission headed by South African judge Richard Goldstone had reached its conclusions in advance of its research. “This investigation was led by a serious figure, Richard Goldstone, a South African Jew with long experience in justice. It’s not as if he was in any way biased,” he said.

Israeli officials warned in response that any British support for the report would boomerang. If a precedent is set of Israelis being prosecuted for acts during the Gaza war, Britons could also be placed in the dock for actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, they said. “London, which is also in the midst of a war against terror, could find itself in handcuffs if it supports the document,” they said.

The report issued last month said that both Israel and Hamas were guilty of war crimes during the conflict in which nearly 1400 Palestinians and thirteen Israelis died. It said the Israeli military had proven unable to investigate itself and recommended the war crimes allegations be referred to the International Criminal Court if “good faith investigations” were not underway within six months.

Israel’s concerns about a renewal of diplomatic momentum for the report have intensified in recents days after the Palestinian Authority began working to revive debate over it at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The Palestinian moves aim to reverse a highly unpopular decision by PA President Mahmoud Abbas ten days ago under US and Israeli pressure to postpone a discussion for six months.

Source

October 11, 2009

Sarkozy accused of nepotism after handing top post to 23-year-old son

From The Times
By Charles Bremner
October 9, 2009

Jean Sarkozy

President Sarkozy caused embarrassment among his political allies yesterday with news that his 23-year-old student son is to be handed the powerful post of boss of Europe’s biggest business district.

As the Opposition cried nepotism, stalwarts of Mr Sarkozy’s Union for a Popular Movement said that the President was going too far in lining up Jean, a third-year student, to head the public agency that runs La Défense, the island of corporate towers in the west of Paris.

Patrick Devedjian, a Cabinet minister and the current Défense boss, is being moved aside for the President’s second son. He reacted bitterly yesterday with a quotation from Corneille, the 17th-century dramatist: “For souls nobly born, valour does not await the passing of years.” Privately, other UMP officials said that Mr Sarkozy was exposing himself to accusations of dynasty building.

Patrick Jarry, the Communist Mayor of Nanterre, which borders La Défense, said that the President’s younger son had no legitimacy and no qualifications for such a post. “This is nothing less than an attempt to ensure the permanence of the clan and lock down the executive power in the area,” he said.

If the job is confirmed in December, the ascent of the fledgeling politician will be even more meteoric than that of his father, who won the mayor’s post in Neuilly, the rich suburb that adjoins La Défense, at the age of 28.

Unlike the President, who forged his own way in local politics, the elevation of “Prince Jean” has been greatly assisted by his father’s power in the area. Sarko Jr, who has blond golden-boy looks and is much taller than le père, won a Neuilly seat in the Hauts-de-Seine county council, Mr Sarkozy’s old fiefdom, last year and then was handed the job of heading the UMP group there.

Chairmanship of the Epad, the agency that manages the business district, is a political post in the gift of the council, so there is little doubt that Jean will receive the appointment. As head of the public agency, which was run by his father until 2007, he will oversee the multibillion-euro expansion of the district, where numerous big companies have their headquarters.

Le Dauphin, as Jean is also known, will be able to celebrate his new part-time post at the same time as the extension of the Sarkozy dynasty. Jessica Sebaoun, his heiress wife, is to give birth to the President’s first grandchild in December.

Jean’s promotion was seen by the opposition Socialist party as part of Mr Sarkozy’s scheme to create a new Greater Paris region, controlled by the UMP. The Cabinet endorsed the 30-year plan yesterday in the face of opposition from the Socialists, who control both Paris and the surrounding Île-de-France region.