11/11/2009
Gaza – Ma’an – De facto Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh told a delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross that Gaza is "not looking for more violence," but that he was sure Israel has "plans to target the Gaza Strip once again.”
During a meeting with the delegation on Wednesday, Haniyeh said he "hopes what he said would not prove to be true, that the world will stop Israel from killing more children." If Israel does decide to attack, he added, "our people will not surrender, they will fight back," a statement from his office said.
The comments follow a string of threats from Israeli officials, saying the country's next war will be with Gaza. In one notable example, Israeli Military Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi told a cadre of graduating military officers, “The army will return to face the places where they [Gaza militants] launch rockets which is in the most densely populated areas, [soldiers will return] to fight in the villages, cities, mosques, hospitals, kindergartens and schools because the enemies want to impose this method of fighting against Israel."
November 13, 2009
Obama, Hatoyama and Okinawa
Yes We Can (But We Won't)
By DOUGLAS LUMMIS
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 ideaspeddler@gmail.com
Source
By DOUGLAS LUMMIS
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 ideaspeddler@gmail.com
Source
Taliban Establish Rival Government in Nuristan
After US Pullout, Taliban Appoints Officials
by Jason Ditz, November 12, 2009
In a sign that the Taliban’s de facto control over the Nuristan Province is becoming more and more formal, one of the commanders of the group’s forces in the province says the Taliban is setting up a rival government.
According to Dost Mohammed, the commander in question, the group has established its own judiciary and is appointing administrative officials, and is setting about to provide basic needs to the remote province’s residents.
The US abandoned Nuristan more or less in its entirety after an early October attack against its last two outposts in the province left eight soldiers killed. Officials maintained that they were planning to abandon the outposts anyhow.
But when the US left the outposts, they also ended virtually their entire presence in the province, with only a handful of soldiers left behind to protect the provincial governor. If the Taliban’s government gains traction, the governor may quickly become irrelevant.
November 12, 2009
British soldier faces 10 years in jail after being arrested during anti-war demonstration
Daily Mail
Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:23 EST
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton is facing 10 years in prison for refusing to return to Afghanistan. He is pictured here at the 'Stop the War' demonstration in October
A soldier facing charges of desertion for refusing to return to Afghanistan has been arrested and charged with five further offences after joining an anti-war demonstration.
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton led a protest in London last month against the continued presence of British troops in Afghanistan.
He was already facing a court martial but according to the Stop the War Coalition the new charges carry a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
The group's convener Lindsey German said last night : 'This is not about breach of military regulations. In the last few days a range of military personnel have been speaking in the media in defence of this appalling war. I doubt if any of them have been arrested.
'This is about the persecution of a soldier who believes in telling the truth in accordance with his conscience.
'He is saying what the majority of the population believes - that this war is unwinnable and immoral. The anti-war movement will be doing everything possible to get him released.'
Lance Corporal Glenton, 27, from the Royal Logistic Corps, addressed a rally of more than 5,000 anti-war protesters packed into London's Trafalgar Square in October.
He told the crowd he had witnessed sights during his time in Afghanistan that forced him to question the morality of his role.
The married soldier, from Norwich, told onlookers: 'I'm here today to make a stand beside you because I believe great wrongs have been perpetrated in Afghanistan.
'I cannot, in good conscience, be part of them. I'm bound by law and moral duty to try and stop them.
'I'm a soldier and I belong to the profession of arms. I expected to go to war but I also expected that the need to defend this country's interests would be legal and justifiable. I don't think this is too much to ask.
'It's now apparent that the conflict is neither of these and that's why I must make this stand.'
The Ministry of Defence refused to comment when asked about the further charges.
But spokesman confirmed Lance Corporal Glenton is currently subject to disciplinary action. He said: 'I can confirm that disciplinary action against a serving soldier from the Royal Logistic Corps is currently in progress.
'As this matter is subject to court martial proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.'
The soldier, based in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, is facing a court martial, adjourned to January, for alleged desertion after going absent without leave in 2007.
He is charged with disobeying a lawful command. He joined the Army in 2004.
If convicted, he faces two years in prison.
Speaking during last month's rally, he said: 'The occupation in Afghanistan is at best dubious in terms of legality and morality.
'I can't be involved in it on that basis and, not only that, I am also bound to try and stop it, try and change things.
'That's the law, the occupation of a country like that, regime change, these things are all illegal.'
He said military personnel told him not to appear at the rally.
But despite the threat of prison, he said he was determined to speak out.
He said: 'People keep telling me I'm brave but I don't feel brave at all - I feel fairly terrified. It's not going to stop me, I'm going to keep going.
'I won't be silenced. I'll keep talking and doing what I think is right.
'I have to or I'll have to live with this forever if I don't.'
Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:23 EST
© PA
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton is facing 10 years in prison for refusing to return to Afghanistan. He is pictured here at the 'Stop the War' demonstration in October
Lance Corporal Joe Glenton led a protest in London last month against the continued presence of British troops in Afghanistan.
He was already facing a court martial but according to the Stop the War Coalition the new charges carry a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.
The group's convener Lindsey German said last night : 'This is not about breach of military regulations. In the last few days a range of military personnel have been speaking in the media in defence of this appalling war. I doubt if any of them have been arrested.
'This is about the persecution of a soldier who believes in telling the truth in accordance with his conscience.
'He is saying what the majority of the population believes - that this war is unwinnable and immoral. The anti-war movement will be doing everything possible to get him released.'
Lance Corporal Glenton, 27, from the Royal Logistic Corps, addressed a rally of more than 5,000 anti-war protesters packed into London's Trafalgar Square in October.
He told the crowd he had witnessed sights during his time in Afghanistan that forced him to question the morality of his role.
The married soldier, from Norwich, told onlookers: 'I'm here today to make a stand beside you because I believe great wrongs have been perpetrated in Afghanistan.
'I cannot, in good conscience, be part of them. I'm bound by law and moral duty to try and stop them.
'I'm a soldier and I belong to the profession of arms. I expected to go to war but I also expected that the need to defend this country's interests would be legal and justifiable. I don't think this is too much to ask.
'It's now apparent that the conflict is neither of these and that's why I must make this stand.'
The Ministry of Defence refused to comment when asked about the further charges.
But spokesman confirmed Lance Corporal Glenton is currently subject to disciplinary action. He said: 'I can confirm that disciplinary action against a serving soldier from the Royal Logistic Corps is currently in progress.
'As this matter is subject to court martial proceedings, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.'
The soldier, based in Abingdon, Oxfordshire, is facing a court martial, adjourned to January, for alleged desertion after going absent without leave in 2007.
He is charged with disobeying a lawful command. He joined the Army in 2004.
If convicted, he faces two years in prison.
Speaking during last month's rally, he said: 'The occupation in Afghanistan is at best dubious in terms of legality and morality.
'I can't be involved in it on that basis and, not only that, I am also bound to try and stop it, try and change things.
'That's the law, the occupation of a country like that, regime change, these things are all illegal.'
He said military personnel told him not to appear at the rally.
But despite the threat of prison, he said he was determined to speak out.
He said: 'People keep telling me I'm brave but I don't feel brave at all - I feel fairly terrified. It's not going to stop me, I'm going to keep going.
'I won't be silenced. I'll keep talking and doing what I think is right.
'I have to or I'll have to live with this forever if I don't.'
Remember Daniel Pearl?
By Jenifer Dixon *
November 6, 2009
November 6, 2009
Daniel Pearl was an American Jewish journalist, who was assassinated by the Afghans in 2002. I looked his name up on the Internet, and after 55 references to him, I quit. Why do I bring this up? I do it because at that time, I remember hearing about Daniel Pearl 24/7 on more than one "mainstream" station. There are biographies of Daniel Pearl. There are celebrations of Daniel Pearl. There are endless stories about Daniel Pearl's assassination. There is a Daniel Pearl Foundation. Etc. etc. etc.
Now, here is some information that was never presented on "mainstream" media. According to Palestine Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow by Dr. Tareq M. Suwaidan there were 9 Palestinian journalists killed in the Intifada between 29 September 2000 to 30 December 2003 by the IDF. That is 9 journalists killed by the Israelis and not a word mentioned.
I was listening to an Internet broadcast from Global Research on the question of Palestine. Both the interviewer and interviewee were Jewish. Nonetheless, they expressed a concern about the "Israeli Palestinian conflict." They had on their show an interview with a Palestinian journalist from Gaza, but his accent was so thick as to be incomprehensible. They then decried the tragedy of the cycle of violence, but assured the audience that this too would end. However, I noticed that the woman being interviewed by Mr. Lendeman, a Rachel somebody, a professor at Emory University, was the author of of several books on "Islamic terrorism". I also noticed that they did not go into any detail on the situation in Gaza or in Palestine. They also told the audience that the censorship of these stories from the Occupied Territories originated high up in the chain of command in a "mainstream media."
They fail to mention that at the end of July of 2006 Israeli military forces attacked Al Manar TV in Beirut. In January of 2002, the Israeli military forces blew up a Palestinian broadcasting center in Ramallah. In April 2002, Israeli military forces inflicted devastating damage to the offices of the Palestine Monitor. In August of 2009 Israeli troops raided Radio Bethlehem and ordered the staff to stop broadcasting.
I then pulled a report that detailed, some 75 assaults from Israeli security forces on journalists working in the Occupied Territories, both Palestinian and foreign, in the year 2000 alone. Nine were attacked on the 1st day of the Intifada. 9 again? Ready for some numerology?
This obviously indicates an intended desire to squelch the truth on the ground as it happened, and the heavy-handed suppression of Palestinian press, indeed of all press.
Then to beat all, I found this item entitled "Israeli media mogul Haim Saban mulls stake in Al Jazeera." This story dated October 8, 2009 in Ha'aretz states that the Israeli businessman is negotiating for 50% of this "beacon" of the voice of the peoples of the Middle East. Okay. What more needs to be said? Or as Washington Post promotional copy puts it "if you don't got it, you just don't get it"
Remember Daniel Pearl? Of course, you do.
* Jenifer Dixon is a writer and former activist who lives in the Washington, DC area. She has published in the Washington Post, Voices of Women, WomenWise, Rainbow Visions, the Palestine Chronicle and Arab-American News. The website GlobalSpin was her contribution to the Net for three years. She was also a contributing writer to the book Challenge to Genocide: Let Iraq Live
Buyer beware: Climate change and the Ventura case study
| By Nikki Alexander Online Journal Nov 12, 2009 | |
A seemingly wholesome local event recently led to some disturbing discoveries about a global GHG [greenhouse gas emissions] matrix that will affect people everywhere in all countries.
Students from The Bren School of Environmental Science and Management (University of California Santa Barbara) gave a presentation to city planners and citizens on their “Ventura Case Study.” Bren is working on this project for their client, AECOM, to calculate Ventura’s baseline greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in preparation for compliance with federal and state regulations.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been leading the charge for state regulations while Senator Barbara Boxer is sponsoring federal climate change legislation. AECOM states in its proposal that California is a prime target for compulsory GHG reduction strategies because it has shown a willingness to conform, whereas some other states are rebelling.
The
The
Dennis Aigner, dean from 2000-2005, specializes in litigation involving contract disputes, regulation of public utilities, government contracting, health care, insurance, banking and defense. His stated research interests include corporate environmental management,
Ernst von Weizsäcker, dean from 2005-2008, is a member of the Club of Rome, a group of global planners that annually release Armageddon scenarios based on predictions of overpopulation and famine. In their 1991 book, entitled The First Global Revolution, they state, “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.” (p.115) He also served on the World Commission on the Social Dimensions of Globalization and was a member of the Bundestag, the federal parliament of
The relationship between AECOM and the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management is a closed loop. AECOM’s 2008 “Global Thought Leadership” annual report states:
“We become an integrated part of our clients’ organizations . . . partner with technical academies and community schools.”
The Ventura Case study was initiated by three AECOM employees that are Bren graduates. The students are not allowed to interact with community residents and are restricted to working ONLY with policy-makers. That’s a Bren rule. One of the student presenters reported that collecting this data would be nearly impossible without help from someone inside the city government. The policy-maker within the City of
With annual revenue of $6 Billion, AECOM is a multinational corporation with offices in 100 countries. Their 2008 Annual Report proudly announces that AECOM “helped
Will this taxpayer money be well spent by AECOM? Bloomberg reported that “a new Defense Department audit said AECOM billed the US Army $19 dollars apiece for 12-cent washers on one of the largest contracts in
An extensive list of architecture and engineering firms have been swallowed up by AECOM’s “targeted acquisition” strategy to buy out the green competition and monopolize what they describe as a guaranteed “contract pipeline” from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Defense, as well as federal stimulus funds and state taxpayer bonds. They are also working with FEMA “in their quest to create integrated water systems. Worldwide, we are actively involved in the supply, treatment, distribution and collection of water.” Their proposal states that
Using
The cap and trade market will operate through the Chicago Climate Exchange, set up by Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management, which is also staffed by Goldman Sachs executives. GIM and Goldman Sachs each have a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange which in turn has a 50 percent stake in the European Climate Exchange. Trading carbon credits is projected to become the new multi-trillion dollar commodity bubble.
Everyone -- businesses, towns, universities, farmers -- will be required to buy GHG permits -- a global tax on energy use. Those who exceed the “cap” on GHG emissions will pay a fine or “offset” their pollution by buying carbon ”credits” from entities that don’t exceed the cap. Al Gore is an example of how this cap and trade casino will work. His
If mortgage-backed securities appeared to be the ultimate Ponzi scheme, just ponder the scale of this gambling casino when everything on earth is entered into the global GHG database and converted to carbon default swaps, carbon-backed securities and collateralized GHG obligations. As global energy rationing requires incremental GHG reductions, credits will become increasingly scarce and therefore more lucrative. Those who can afford to keep playing the game will be the ultimate winners. The primary derivatives traders that recently paralyzed the credit markets and collapsed the global banking system have already positioned themselves on the Chicago Climate Exchange to cash in on the carbon commodity bubble -- Bank of America, Citigroup, the Rockefeller cartel and, of course, Goldman Sachs.
The major corporate polluters and destroyers of ecosystems have bought up the patents and technologies invented by green entrepreneurs and purchased the competition through acquisitions and mergers in order to corner the market in climate change mitigation -- an industry projected to exceed $5 trillion, not counting the cap and trade casino. As global unemployment rises in this “jobless recovery,” taxpayer-funded state bonds and federal contracts will be awarded to corporate contractors to capture and reroute water, reconfigure energy grids and transform land use to comply with GHG regulations.
At the residential level, homeowners will be subject to federal code enforcement policies that supersede state and local codes; workers will be required to reduce their vehicle miles traveled and cities will be required by law to reduce their overall energy consumption, potentially supplying water and electricity to far away towns through interconnected energy grids too big to fail. At the global level, nations will be required to alter their agriculture, domestic industries, imports and exports to comply with global GHG rationing, essentially surrendering political control of food, water and energy to external global authorities.
All of this social engineering is grounded in the premise that GHG emissions are a global threat that warrants supranational regulations. Some scientists attribute global warming to solar activity, some to cyclical electromagnetic polar shifts and others cite data demonstrating that the oceans and atmosphere have recently been cooling. Regardless of which theories are correct, the political exploitation of the GHG paradigm has shifted the responsibility for environmental destruction (for which we have hard evidence) from major corporate polluters to society at large, placing the cost of remediation on victims and innocent bystanders.
There are good reasons to live sustainably, regardless of climate change theories. The violent extraction of “natural resources” by profit-seeking corporations has destroyed or poisoned virtually all of the earth’s living systems, impoverished the global south and driven whole species into extinction. What matters is that we repair the damage, reforest the earth and decontaminate the air, soil and water.
To keep things in perspective, switching to fluorescent light bulbs will accomplish far less than prohibiting coal mining corporations from blowing up mountain tops in Appalachia and burying the surrounding areas in toxic sludge; or reigning in Pentagon GHG emissions from chemtrails, star wars missiles and predator drones, not to mention the huge volumes of energy squandered every time the Pentagon invades and destroys a country. How much oil does the
What regulations are being proposed to hold the World Bank accountable for massive water dislocations and environmental destruction? Why is Monsanto allowed to contaminate our food supply with GMOs and mutate the earth’s natural seeds on every continent? Corporate agribusiness, a life-threatening polluter, received total exemption from all GHG regulations in the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, demonstrating that financial interests trump social responsibility.
Has the federal government lifted its ban on
If environmental destruction by the most glaring offenders is not the primary target of remediation, the stated goal of this GHG dragnet is disingenuous. Corporate destruction of the planet will not be repaired by trading imaginary carbon credits, depriving indigenous populations of access to food, privatization of energy grids or by imposing global energy restrictions and taxes on the financial underclass. Taxpayer-financed federal stimulus funds and state bonds would be better spent on localizing sustainable agriculture, reforestation, repairing ecosystems, securing clean water for all the earth’s species and developing free energy.
It’s not too late to insist on appropriate remedies -- until the Senate approves the final climate change bill. Your representative needs to hear from you now.See also: October 05, 2009
US Climate Change Bill Promotes Nuclear Industry
Israeli forces detain nine internationals
12/11/2009 20:28Bethlehem – Ma’an – Israeli forces detained two Palestinians and nine internationals working on the rehabilitation of agricultural lands within the project “Green Palestine” near the village of Umm Salamoneh south of Bethlehem on Thursday.
Ibrahim Awad, the coordinator of the Popular Committee against the Wall in the area said Israeli forces raided his land and detained him along with a member of the Village Council and nine internationals near the illegal Effrat settlement, while Deputy Director of Agriculture in Bethlehem Ibrahim Masha’leh said that Israeli forces detained "dozens of foreigners and the employees of the Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture in Umm Salamoneh village."
Bethlehem district is the second to embrace Project Green, after a successful debut in Tulkarem. The initiative is run by the Popular Committees in the area, and brings together local government, education professionals, and local councils for integrated solutions to providing a healthy living space for local residents.
The project is part of a larger national scheme governed primarily by the Ministry of Agriculture to aid not only farmers, but communities at large.
Hamas warns of another Israeli assault on Gaza
Source: Press TV
Ismail Haniyah cautions about Israeli plans for another military offensive against the Gaza Strip, reiterating that it is not the Islamic Hamas movement that is after a war.
Hamas is "not looking for more violence," the democratically elected Palestinian prime minster told a visiting delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross in Gaza on Wednesday.
Haniyah said he was sure that Israel has plans to target the Gaza Strip once again, recalling the Israeli army's onslaught against the Hamas-run coastal sliver in January, which left more than 1,400 people, mostly civilians, dead and thousands more wounded.
The Palestinian leader, however, expressed hope that his prediction would not materialize, and that "the world will stop Israel from killing more children."
Haniyah also vowed that any Israeli incursion would face strong resistance on the part of the Palestinian nation.
The comments follow a new round of threats from the military officials in Tel Aviv who have said that Israel's next war would be in Gaza.
In one of his notable remarks, the Israeli military Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi declared that the Israeli troops would return to the Gaza Strip "to fight in the villages, cities, mosques, hospitals, kindergartens and schools because the enemies want to impose this method of fighting against Israel."
This is while Israel is struggling to forestall the prosecution in the International Criminal Court of those officials and officers who launched the Gaza war, as a damning UN report highlighting Israel's deliberate killing of civilians is finding its way to the UN Security Council.
Hamas has vowed retaliation against any Israeli attack. "Our people will not surrender; they will fight back," Prime Minister Haniyah's office said, in a statement.
Ismail Haniyah cautions about Israeli plans for another military offensive against the Gaza Strip, reiterating that it is not the Islamic Hamas movement that is after a war.
Hamas is "not looking for more violence," the democratically elected Palestinian prime minster told a visiting delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross in Gaza on Wednesday.
Haniyah said he was sure that Israel has plans to target the Gaza Strip once again, recalling the Israeli army's onslaught against the Hamas-run coastal sliver in January, which left more than 1,400 people, mostly civilians, dead and thousands more wounded.
The Palestinian leader, however, expressed hope that his prediction would not materialize, and that "the world will stop Israel from killing more children."
Haniyah also vowed that any Israeli incursion would face strong resistance on the part of the Palestinian nation.
The comments follow a new round of threats from the military officials in Tel Aviv who have said that Israel's next war would be in Gaza.
In one of his notable remarks, the Israeli military Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi declared that the Israeli troops would return to the Gaza Strip "to fight in the villages, cities, mosques, hospitals, kindergartens and schools because the enemies want to impose this method of fighting against Israel."
This is while Israel is struggling to forestall the prosecution in the International Criminal Court of those officials and officers who launched the Gaza war, as a damning UN report highlighting Israel's deliberate killing of civilians is finding its way to the UN Security Council.
Hamas has vowed retaliation against any Israeli attack. "Our people will not surrender; they will fight back," Prime Minister Haniyah's office said, in a statement.
Goa bombers tried to leave Muslim imprint
By Prashant Rangnekar
Indian Express
November 8, 2009
Investigators believe that the Sanatan Sanstha men who were killed while allegedly planting bombs in Goa during Diwali celebrations last month were hoping to fan communal tensions by misleading the police through items they wanted to leave behind at the site: a shopping bag from a shop in ‘Khan Market’, Delhi, a bottle of traditional perfume popular among Muslims and an empty bag of branded Basmati rice on which all the words were in Urdu.
Indian Express
November 8, 2009
Investigators believe that the Sanatan Sanstha men who were killed while allegedly planting bombs in Goa during Diwali celebrations last month were hoping to fan communal tensions by misleading the police through items they wanted to leave behind at the site: a shopping bag from a shop in ‘Khan Market’, Delhi, a bottle of traditional perfume popular among Muslims and an empty bag of branded Basmati rice on which all the words were in Urdu.
The items were recovered by police from the site of the crude bomb blast in Margao on October 16 in which two Sanatan members, Malgounda Patil and Yogesh Naik, were killed. It was found after investigations and the subsequent arrest of two men suspected to be linked to Patil and Naik that they were allegedly carrying these items to leave them behind at the blast site and signal a Muslim hand.
“The material was enough to spark communal trouble in Margao and extremist elements from outside would have found it easy to aggravate it,” said an officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Margao, Goa’s main commercial city, is represented by Chief Minister Digambar Kamat in the state Assembly and has a large Muslim population. Kamat, incidentally, was near the site of the blast, taking part in the Diwali celebrations but was not hurt.
The alleged plan to indicate the bomb blast to be the handiwork of Muslim groups had echoes of the Malegaon bomb blast last year, the officer said. Members of Hindu extremist group Abhinav Bharat, who have been accused for that blast, had parked the motorbike packed with the bomb below the defunct first-floor office of the outlawed Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).
Patil and Naik are accused of planting three bombs at the crowded Diwali celebrations in Margao and another at a celebration in Sancaole town 20 km away. Of these, only one of the bombs in Margao exploded, prematurely police say. While Patil died within hours, Naik succumbed to his injuries in hospital days later.
Patil worked as an administrator at the Ramnathi headquarters of Sanatan while Naik, a teacher at a school for mentally challenged students, supplied milk to the organisation and circulated its mouthpiece Sanatan Prabhat.
Subsequently, the Special Investigating Team constituted by the Goa police to probe the blast arrested Vinay Talekar and Vinayak Patil, alleging that they were linked to the conspiracy. Sanatan has denied it had anything to do with the blast.
BMW to Build New China Plant on Luxury-Car Demand
Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, the world’s largest maker of luxury cars, plans to build a new China factory to meet rising demand for premium products in an economy that’s poised to surpass Japan in size.
The 5 billion yuan ($732 million) plant will have an initial capacity of 100,000 vehicles a year by 2012, eventually rising to 300,000, BMW’s Chief Financial Officer Friedrich Eichiner said today in Beijing. Capacity at BMW’s existing plant in northeastern China’s Shenyang will more than double to 75,000 by the end of 2010, he said.
BMW wants to make more 3-Series and 5-Series sedans in China as demand for top marques catches up with this year’s expected 28 percent growth in vehicle sales, enough for China to surpass the U.S. as the world’s largest vehicle market. Sales of China-made BMW cars and imported models including the Mini brand jumped 37 percent in the first 10 months.
“When the overall vehicle market grows, you can see an exponential growth in the premium segment of the market,” Eichiner said. “Our existing capacity just isn’t enough,” to meet that demand, he said.
Munich-based BMW lags behind Volkswagen AG’s Audi unit in China in the segment of vehicles that cost more than 280,000 yuan ($41,000) each. The company is also facing a challenge from Daimler AG, which assembles the Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedans in China. Daimler Chief Executive Officer Dieter Zetsche said yesterday he expects Mercedes to overtake BMW in China “soon.”
Happy Partners
BMW and its Chinese partner Brilliance China Automotive Holdings Ltd. will each contribute half of the expected investment to their new plant. The new factory will assemble a new 5-Series sedan with a longer wheel base, designed specially for Chinese buyers, who tend to be chauffer-driven in luxury vehicles rather than be owner-drivers.
“We are quite happy with our Chinese partner, so there’s no reason to look for a new partner,” Eichiner said at a press conference, in response to a question on whether BMW plans to make its flagship 7-Series luxury cars with SAIC Motor Co., China’s largest carmaker and a Volkswagen partner.
BMW sales were helped by a government mandate this year that allowed luxury marques to be procured by public offices including the central government and provincial agencies. The police escort that accompanied BMW executives to today’s press conference drove a BMW sedan, Eichiner said.
Chen Zhenggao, governor of Liaoning province where BMW’s China factory is based, said his government will “lead the way” to fit out its fleet with the German brand to support the venture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
