Bush Is a Puppet and Ehud Olmert Holds the Strings


Israeli PM Ehud Olmert Claims to be Able to Order Bush Around
By Juan Cole / January 13, 2009

So outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was speaking in Ashkelon on Monday, and he said the most amazing thing. The USG Open Source Center translated the relevant passage from his speech, in which he claimed he had the ability to control US foreign policy and summarily over-rule the Secretary of State.

 

“Olmert Says Israel Determined To Go On, Recalls Phone Talk on UNSC Vote With Bush
Telephone report from Ashqelon by political correspondent Shmu’el Tal — liveA
Voice of Israel Network B
Monday, January 12, 2009 . . .
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

[Olmert:] “It transpired all of a sudden that a vote would be held in 10 minutes’ time. I tried to find President Bush, and I was told he was attending an event in Philadelphia.”

‘I know that if somebody tried to find me on the phone right now, it would have to be something unusual and extraordinary for them to say: Leave it all and go to some room to talk to me. In this case, I said: I don’t care, I have to talk to him right now.

He was taken off the podium and brought to a side room. I spoke with him; I told him: You can’t vote for this proposal.

He said: Listen, I don’t know, I didn’t see, don’t know what it says.

I told him: I know, and you can’t vote for it!

He then instructed the secretary of state, and she did not vote for it.

It was a proposal she had put together, one she formulated, one she organized, one she maneuvered. It left her rather embarrassed, abstaining in the vote on a proposal she herself had put together. That was why the French and the Brits said she had pulled a fast one on them, she having been the one to spur them to submit the proposals.”

Olmert’s account cannot be accurate as to detail. Bush was not interrupted during his speech in Philadelphia, and the speech was given many hours before the UN vote. But that kind of discrepancy is easily resolved if we want to believe that Olmert is telling the truth. When he called the White House, he may have initially gotten a staffer who said something like, Bush is away at Philadelphia for a speech. Olmert could have misunderstood the staffer to say that Bush was still giving the speech.

But that Condi Rice worked hard to get that UN resolution and that the other diplomats were shocked when she suddenly instructed Zalmay Khalilzad to vote against it is well known and was reported in the Arabic press at the time. Raghida Dergham wrote in the London-based pan-Arab daily, al-Hayat, on Jan. 10, 2009 (OSC trans.):

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner chaired the session, since his country is the UNSC’s chairman this month, which was attended by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband . . . [etc.]

Rice surprised the meeting by abstaining from voting after the Americans had left a clear impression during the negotiations of their intention to vote in favour of the resolution. . .

British diplomacy played a consensual and leading role which contributed to breaking the cycle of delay and procrastination by French diplomacy. Reporting on the penultimate session of the ministers, sources said Kouchner tried to postpone the voting until today on the pretext that Presidents Husni Mubarak and Nicola Sarkozy approved this delay but the Egyptian foreign minister replied back immediately denying this was true about the Arab stand. The sources said the Saudi foreign minister demanded that Kouchner put his country’s stand aside and respond to the demand to hold a session for voting. The British foreign secretary was on the point of presenting the consensual resolution regardless of the French and US stand. Russia intervened at the last moments and told the Arab side it was ready to participate with Britain in putting up the draft resolution officially for a vote. US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad arrived suddenly at the meeting to report his country’s stand. . .

So Dergham’s account, gleaned from UN sources in New York, shows that Rice had been more in favor of the cease-fire resolution than Bernard Kouchner of France, who used his position as chair to attempt to delay it coming up for a vote. You could imagine Olmert calling up Sarkozy and urging this delay. But Kouchner could not stand against the combined pressure of Britain, Russia and Saudi Arabia, and had to allow the vote to go forward. Then everyone was surprised by Rice’s about-face. And it was reported at the time that she changed her mind after a phone call from Bush.

So the substance of Olmert’s allegations are consistent with Dergham’s account, gleaned from interviews with eyewitnesses to the process among the Arab participants: “Rice surprised the meeting . . .”

It is therefore reasonable to think that Olmert did talk to Bush last Thursday, and that he did have Rice over-ruled. One can only imagine that he had tried hard to dissuade Rice from participating in the drafting process at all, and had tried to have her veto the resolution, in accordance with standard US procedure of shielding Israel from the UNSC. She must have blown him off or been evasive, alarming him that there would be a UN ceasefire resolution before which Israel might have to bow. My own guess is that Olmert had Bush tell her to veto it altogether, but you have to wonder whether she and Khalilzad engaged in their own little final rebellion and so just voted “present,” which allowed the resolution to pass. (Olmert has ignored it.)

Olmert reports that Bush had no idea what the substance of the resolution was, and this anecdote is consistent with what we know about how this White House has functioned. Bush admitted to Bob Woodward that an important decision on sending some troops to Iraq had been made by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and that Bush had not sat in on the relevant meetings. So Rice was at the UN on her own, thinking she was a plenipotentiary of Bush, and Olmert was annoyed at this attitude and decided to put her in her place.

Why did Olmert spill the beans on his backroom maneuvering against Rice? It is a very damaging thing that he said. As Daniel Levy, who had been a Labor Party adviser on peace negotiations, told The Los Angeles Times’s Paul Richter:

This is terrible for the United States . . . This confirms every assumption they have in the Arab world about the tail wagging the dog. . . . It’s a story you’re likely to hear quoted there for years to come.” Levy also accused Olmert of “unparalleled arrogance.”. . .”There are some things you don’t say, even in Ashkelon, even in Hebrew . . .

The likelihood is that Olmert was stung by severe criticism of his government for allowing the UNSC cease-fire resolution to be passed. His Kadima Party is in a neck and neck race with the even more hard line and far rightwing Likud Party, with elections to be held on February 10. Presumably Olmert was trying to deflect the Likudniks’ charges that Kadima was inept or impotent, and to improve the standing of his would-be successor, Tzipi Livni (now the Foreign Minister).

Olmert is having to step down as prime minister because of a corruption scandal that blew up in his face and made him look petty and greedy. As a mediocre politician with an over-sized ego, he doesn’t have many opportunities left to try to rehabilitate his reputation. If he pushed W. around for Israel’s sake while she warred with the Hamas terrorists (his way of thinking), then maybe that would take some of the edge off his unseemly money-grubbing and massive list of failures, which include the 2006 Lebanon War.

Finally we come to the really big mystery. If the substance of what Olmert said is correct, even if he got some details wrong, then why in the world did Bush listen to him? Bush is outgoing and faces no new elections. His party cannot benefit or suffer with the Israel lobbies from a decision he took in relative secrecy since it won’t even face another election for 2 years, by which time this Gaza war will be completely forgotten.

Why in the world would Bush over-rule the US Secretary of State, for the sake of Olmert, in the midst of delicate negotiations with European and Arab allies? Here are the only possibilities I can think of:

1. Bush is as dumb as he looks and just agrees with the last person he spoke to.

2. Bush hates it when the roar of cannon dies down, and is a sadist who enjoys prolonging war far too much to ever actively back a ceasefire.

3. Olmert has something over Bush. I remember that Bush had taken on Sharon in September of 2001, calling for a Palestinian state and ordering Sharon to stop colonizing the West Bank. Sharon was so furious that he compared Israel’s situation to that of Czechoslovakia in 1938, when the rest of Europe let Hitler grab part of it. But by spring of 2002 Bush was bending over backward to please the Likud. What changed? Something did. There is a mystery to be explained here. I only point out that along with the previous two explanations, this one would make sense of otherwise baffling behavior on Bush’s part.

Precisely because his overly frank speech raises these sorts of questions, I expect Olmert to deny the entire address, and then it will be expunged from the public record and never spoken of again.

In any case, this slippage of the veil over the way US foreign policy is being dictated by a foreign country reinforces the need for a Peace PAC or ‘For America’ PAC to counter-act the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is obviously way too powerful for Israel’s own good. J-Street and Brit Tzedik Ve Shalom and Tikkun and other liberal Jewish-American organizations are trying to do the right thing here. Whereas AIPAC gets plenty of help from the evangelicals, the rest of us are letting down the majority of the Jewish community that supports the peace process by not helping it lobby on this issue.

That resolution Olmert tried to spike means that his government’s continued war on Gaza (he ordered 60 airstrikes on Monday through early Tuesday) is even more illegal than the whole enterprise was to begin with.

Source / Informed Comment

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

US Congress: Accused of War Crimes


I Accuse! An Open Letter to Congress
By Sarah Shields / January 13, 2009

I accuse you, the US Congress, of having voted for US House Resolution 34 by an overwhelming margin, 390-5. In the name of protecting Israel’s security, this Resolution instead protects Israel’s “right” to hold a whole population accountable for the violations of a few. By condoning Israel’s behavior over the past two weeks as self-defense, HR 34 condemns one and a half million Gazans to capital punishment without trial for crimes they have not committed. By publicly acknowledging and approving Israel’s behavior, you now share responsibility for the outcomes.

I accuse you of having the blood of hundreds of innocent children on your hands. I accuse you of the death of Shahd Abu Halemeh, an infant of 18 months, whose corpse was found badly burned in the wreckage of Gaza. I accuse you of the deaths of the four Salha children, Rola (1), Baha (4), Rana (12), and Dyia (14), who died when the Israelis dropped a missile on their house. I accuse you of the deaths of those killed while seeking refuge from constant bombardment, people who sought protection at a school run by the United Nations. Despite the clear UN markings and flags, Israelis attacked the sanctuary, killing 30 and wounding 50. And I hold you responsible for the lives of the 252 other children killed in the first sixteen days of Israel’s attack on Gaza, and the deaths of those who will be killed as a result of your encouragement.

I accuse you of violating the laws made by the Congress of the United States, laws like the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, which insist that American-made weapons may not be used against civilian populations.

I accuse you of supporting flagrant violations of human rights. The combatants you voted to support are required by international law to care for civilian victims of war. Yet the Israeli government denied the International Committee of the Red Cross access to the sites they bombed for four days. The nightmares that resulted are too horrific to be imagined. Perhaps you could contemplate what the ICRC found when it was finally allowed to provide relief for the victims of Israeli bombing: four children, so starved that they could not stand up, huddled by their dead mothers. Food and water have become hard to find, and medicine is vanishing as the need for medical care explodes as more and more missiles land in Gaza. Israel has, nonetheless, targeted not only a UN school, but also a UN convoy bringing desperately needed supplies. The result, according to the ICRC’s director of operations, is catastrophic. “There is no doubt in my mind,” he stated, “that we are dealing with a full blown and major crisis in humanitarian terms. The situation for the people in Gaza is extreme and traumatic as a result of ten days of uninterrupted fighting. In that sense, their situation has clearly become intolerable.”

I accuse you of transgressing international law. The United States, as one of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, is required to protect civilians in war, and to call to account anyone who targets them. You have instead voted to support behavior considered criminal according to international law.

I accuse you of making our ally, Israel, less secure than ever before, as the orphans of today seek vengeance in the future. Instead of seeking a real peace, a peace of mutual security and prosperity, you have chosen to support only one side in this ongoing struggle, condemning the others to enormous suffering.

I accuse you of putting politics before humanity, of condoning the slaughter of innocents, of supporting war crimes instead of standing up for the most basic human right: the right to live without the terrifying fear of immediate death.

I hold you responsible, each of these 390 members of America’s 111th Congress. I accuse you of complicity in the most serious transgressions that humans can commit.

Source / Informed Comment

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Is the Gaza Invasion About Its Offshore Gas Fields?

Interestingly, one of our readers asks in a comment, “This doesn’t mean I agree with the invasion of Gaza which seems self-defeating – not because of the numbers killed (though that’s awful), but because tactically what is it going to get them?” Well, the answer could lie under the Mediterranean Sea offshore of the Gaza Strip, and Michel Chossudovsky helps us a little by reviewing some fairly recent history.

Richard Jehn / The Rag Blog


War and Natural Gas: The Israeli Invasion and Gaza’s Offshore Gas Fields
By Michel Chossudovsky / January 8, 2009

The military invasion of the Gaza Strip by Israeli Forces bears a direct relation to the control and ownership of strategic offshore gas reserves.

This is a war of conquest. Discovered in 2000, there are extensive gas reserves off the Gaza coastline.

British Gas (BG Group) and its partner, the Athens based Consolidated Contractors International Company (CCC) owned by Lebanon’s Sabbagh and Koury families, were granted oil and gas exploration rights in a 25 year agreement signed in November 1999 with the Palestinian Authority.

The rights to the offshore gas field are respectively British Gas (60 percent); Consolidated Contractors (CCC) (30 percent); and the Investment Fund of the Palestinian Authority (10 percent). (Haaretz, October 21, 2007).

The PA-BG-CCC agreement includes field development and the construction of a gas pipeline.(Middle East Economic Digest, Jan 5, 2001).

The BG licence covers the entire Gazan offshore marine area, which is contiguous to several Israeli offshore gas facilities. (See Map below). It should be noted that 60 percent of the gas reserves along the Gaza-Israel coastline belong to Palestine.

The BG Group drilled two wells in 2000: Gaza Marine-1 and Gaza Marine-2. Reserves are estimated by British Gas to be of the order of 1.4 trillion cubic feet, valued at approximately 4 billion dollars. These are the figures made public by British Gas. The size of Palestine’s gas reserves could be much larger.

Who Owns the Gas Fields

The issue of sovereignty over Gaza’s gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine.

The death of Yasser Arafat, the election of the Hamas government and the ruin of the Palestinian Authority have enabled Israel to establish de facto control over Gaza’s offshore gas reserves.

British Gas (BG Group) has been dealing with the Tel Aviv government. In turn, the Hamas government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields.

The election of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2001 was a major turning point. Palestine’s sovereignty over the offshore gas fields was challenged in the Israeli Supreme Court. Sharon stated unequivocally that “Israel would never buy gas from Palestine” intimating that Gaza’s offshore gas reserves belong to Israel.

In 2003, Ariel Sharon, vetoed an initial deal, which would allow British Gas to supply Israel with natural gas from Gaza’s offshore wells. (The Independent, August 19, 2003)

The election victory of Hamas in 2006 was conducive to the demise of the Palestinian Authority, which became confined to the West Bank, under the proxy regime of Mahmoud Abbas.

In 2006, British Gas “was close to signing a deal to pump the gas to Egypt.” (Times, May, 23, 2007). According to reports, British Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on behalf of Israel with a view to shunting the agreement with Egypt.

The following year, in May 2007, the Israeli Cabinet approved a proposal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “to buy gas from the Palestinian Authority.” The proposed contract was for $4 billion, with profits of the order of $2 billion of which one billion was to go the Palestinians.

Tel Aviv, however, had no intention on sharing the revenues with Palestine. An Israeli team of negotiators was set up by the Israeli Cabinet to thrash out a deal with the BG Group, bypassing both the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority:

Israeli defence authorities want the Palestinians to be paid in goods and services and insist that no money go to the Hamas-controlled Government. (Ibid, emphasis added)

The objective was essentially to nullify the contract signed in 1999 between the BG Group and the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat.

Under the proposed 2007 agreement with BG, Palestinian gas from Gaza’s offshore wells was to be channeled by an undersea pipeline to the Israeli seaport of Ashkelon, thereby transferring control over the sale of the natural gas to Israel.

The deal fell through. The negotiations were suspended:

Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror. (Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on “The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas,” March 1, 2006, quoted in Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon, Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza’s Coastal Waters Threaten Israel’s National Security? Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, October 2007)

Israel’s intent was to foreclose the possibility that royalties be paid to the Palestinians. In December 2007, The BG Group withdrew from the negotiations with Israel and in January 2008 they closed their office in Israel. (BG website).

Invasion Plan on The Drawing Board

The invasion plan of the Gaza Strip under “Operation Cast Lead” was set in motion in June 2008, according to Israeli military sources:

Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago [June or before June] , even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. (Barak Ravid, Operation “Cast Lead”: Israeli Air Force strike followed months of planning, Haaretz, December 27, 2008)

That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza’s natural gas:

Both Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler agreed to inform BG of Israel’s wish to renew the talks.

The sources added that BG has not yet officially responded to Israel’s request, but that company executives would probably come to Israel in a few weeks to hold talks with government officials. (Globes online- Israel’s Business Arena, June 23, 2008)

The decision to speed up negotiations with British Gas (BG Group) coincided, chronologically, with the planning of the invasion of Gaza initiated in June. It would appear that Israel was anxious to reach an agreement with the BG Group prior to the invasion, which was already in an advanced planning stage.

Moreover, these negotiations with British Gas were conducted by the Ehud Olmert government with the knowledge that a military invasion was on the drawing board. In all likelihood, a new “post war” political-territorial arrangement for the Gaza strip was also being contemplated by the Israeli government.

In fact, negotiations between British Gas and Israeli officials were ongoing in October 2008, 2-3 months prior to the commencement of the bombings on December 27th.

In November 2008, the Israeli Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of National Infrastructures instructed Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to enter into negotiations with British Gas, on the purchase of natural gas from the BG’s offshore concession in Gaza. (Globes, November 13, 2008)

Ministry of Finance director general Yarom Ariav and Ministry of National Infrastructures director general Hezi Kugler wrote to IEC CEO Amos Lasker recently, informing him of the government’s decision to allow negotiations to go forward, in line with the framework proposal it approved earlier this year.

The IEC board, headed by chairman Moti Friedman, approved the principles of the framework proposal a few weeks ago. The talks with BG Group will begin once the board approves the exemption from a tender. (Globes Nov. 13, 2008)

Gaza and Energy Geopolitics

The military occupation of Gaza is intent upon transferring the sovereignty of the gas fields to Israel in violation of international law.

What can we expect in the wake of the invasion?

What is the intent of Israel with regard to Palestine’s Natural Gas reserves?

A new territorial arrangement, with the stationing of Israeli and/or “peacekeeping” troops?

The militarization of the entire Gaza coastline, which is strategic for Israel?

The outright confiscation of Palestinian gas fields and the unilateral declaration of Israeli sovereignty over Gaza’s maritime areas?

If this were to occur, the Gaza gas fields would be integrated into Israel’s offshore installations, which are contiguous to those of the Gaza Strip. (See Map 1 above).

These various offshore installations are also linked up to Israel’s energy transport corridor, extending from the port of Eilat, which is an oil pipeline terminal, on the Red Sea to the seaport – pipeline terminal at Ashkelon, and northwards to Haifa, and eventually linking up through a proposed Israeli-Turkish pipeline with the Turkish port of Ceyhan.

Ceyhan is the terminal of the Baku, Tblisi Ceyhan Trans Caspian pipeline. “What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline.” (See Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 23, 2006)

Source / Global Research

Thanks to Jeffrey Segal / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Even Israelis Are Asking : Who Will Save Israel From Itself?

The Israeli government’s justifications for the war are being scrutinised. Photo by Gallo / Getty.

Israeli commentators and scholars, self-described ‘loyal’ Zionists who served proudly in the army in wars past, are now publicly describing their country, in the words of Oxford University professor Avi Shlaim, as a ‘rogue’ and ‘gangster’ state led by ‘completely unscrupulous leaders.’

By Mark LeVine / January 12, 2008

One by one the justifications given by Israel for its latest war in Gaza are unravelling.

The argument that this is a purely defensive war, launched only after Hamas broke a six-month ceasefire has been challenged, not just by observers in the know such as Jimmy Carter, the former US president who helped facilitate the truce, but by centre-right Israeli intelligence think tanks.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, whose December 31 report titled “Six Months of the Lull Arrangement Intelligence Report,” confirmed that the June 19 truce was only “sporadically violated, and then not by Hamas but instead by … “rogue terrorist organisations.”

Instead, “the escalation and erosion of the lull arrangement” occurred after Israel killed six Hamas members on November 4 without provocation and then placed the entire Strip under an even more intensive siege the next day.

According to a joint Tel Aviv University-European University study, this fits a larger pattern in which Israeli violence has been responsible for ending 79 per cent of all lulls in violence since the outbreak of the second intifada, compared with only 8 per cent for Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

Indeed, the Israeli foreign ministry seems to realise that this argument is losing credibility.

During a conference call with half a dozen pro-Israel professors on Thursday, Asaf Shariv, the Consul General of Israel in New York, focused more on the importance of destroying the intricate tunnel system connecting Gaza to the Sinai.

He claimed that such tunnels were “as big as the Holland and Lincoln tunnels,” and offered as proof the “fact” that lions and monkeys had been smuggled through them to a zoo in Gaza. In reality, the lions were two small cubs that were drugged, thrown in sacks, and dragged through a tunnel on their way to a private zoo.

Israel’s self-image

The claim that Hamas will never accept the existence of Israel has proved equally misinformed, as Hamas leaders explicitly announce their intention to do just that in the pages of the Los Angeles Times or to any international leader or journalist who will meet with them.

With each new family, 10, 20 and 30 strong, buried under the rubble of a building in Gaza, the claim that the Israeli forces have gone out of their way to diminish civilian casualties – long a centre-piece of Israel’s image as an enlightened and moral democracy – is falling apart.

Anyone with an internet connection can Google “Gaza humanitarian catastrophe” and find the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territories and read the thousands of pages of evidence documenting the reality of the current fighting, and the long term siege on Gaza that preceded it.

The Red Cross, normally scrupulous in its unwillingness to single out parties to a conflict for criticism, sharply criticised Israel for preventing medical personnel from reaching wounded Palestinians, some of whom remained trapped for days, slowly starving and dying in the Gazan rubble amidst their dead relatives.

Meanwhile, the United Nations has flatly denied Israeli claims that Palestinian fighters were using the UNRWA school compound bombed on January 6, in which 40 civilians were killed, to launch attacks, and has challenged Israel to prove otherwise.

War crimes admission

Additionally, numerous flippant remarks by senior Israeli politicians and generals, including Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, refusing to make a distinction between civilian people and institutions and fighters – “Hamas doesn’t … and neither should we” is how Livni puts it – are rightly being seen as admissions of war crimes.

Indeed, in reviewing statements by Israeli military planners leading up to the invasion, it is clear that there was a well thought out decision to go after Gaza’s civilian infrastructure – and with it, civilians.

The following quote from an interview with Major-General Gadi Eisenkot that appeared in the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth in October, is telling:

“We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective these [the villages] are military bases,” he said.

“This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorised.”

Causing “immense damage and destruction” and considering entire villages “military bases” is absolutely prohibited under international law.

Eisenkot’s description of this planning in light of what is now unfolding in Gaza is a clear admission of conspiracy and intent to commit war crimes, and when taken with the comments above, and numerous others, renders any argument by Israel that it has tried to protect civilians and is not engaging in disproportionate force unbelievable.

International laws violated

On the ground, the evidence mounts ever higher that Israel is systematically violating a host of international laws, including but not limited to Article 56 of the IV Hague Convention of 1907, the First Additional Protocol of the Geneva Convention, the Fourth Geneva Convention (more specifically known as the “Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949”, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the principles of Customary International Humanitarian Law.

None of this excuses or legitimises the firing of rockets or mortars by any Palestinian group at Israeli civilians and non-military targets.

As Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur, declared in his most recent statement on Gaza: “It should be pointed out unambiguously that there is no legal (or moral) justification for firing rockets at civilian targets, and that such behavior is a violation of IHR, associated with the right to life, as well as constitutes a war crime.”

By the same logic, however, Israel does not have the right to use such attacks as an excuse to launch an all-out assault on the entire population of Gaza.

In this context, even Israel’s suffering from the constant barrage of rockets is hard to pay due attention to when the numbers of dead and wounded on each side are counted. Any sense of proportion is impossible to sustain with such a calculus.

‘Rogue’ state

Israeli commentators and scholars, self-described “loyal” Zionists who served proudly in the army in wars past, are now publicly describing their country, in the words of Oxford University professor Avi Shlaim, as a “rogue” and gangster” state led by “completely unscrupulous leaders”.

Neve Gordon, a politics professor at Ben Gurion University, has declared that Israel’s actions in Gaza are like “raising animals for slaughter on a farm” and represent a “bizarre new moral element” in warfare.

“The moral voice of restraint has been left behind … Everything is permitted” against Palestinians, writes a disgusted Haaretz columnist, Gideon Levy.

Fellow Haaretz columnist and daughter of Holocaust survivors, Amira Haas writes of her late parents disgust at how Israeli leaders justified Israel’s wars with a “language laundromat” aimed at redefining reality and Israel’s moral compass. “Lucky my parents aren’t alive to see this,” she exclaimed.

Around the world people are beginning to compare Israel’s attack on Gaza, which after the 2005 withdrawal of Israeli forces and settlers was turned literally into the world’s largest prison, to the Jewish uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Extremist Muslims are using internet forums to collect names and addresses of prominent European Jews with the goal, it seems clear, of assassinating them in retaliation for Israel’s actions in Gaza.

Al-Qaeda is attempting to exploit this crisis to gain a foothold in Gaza and Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria, as well as through attacking Jewish communities globally.

Iran’s defiance of both Israel and its main sponsor, the US, is winning it increasing sympathy with each passing day.

Democratic values eroded

Inside Israel, the violence will continue to erode both democratic values in the Jewish community, and any acceptance of the Jewish state’s legitimacy in the eyes of its Palestinian citizens.

And yet in the US – at least in Washington and in the offices of the mainstream Jewish organisations – the chorus of support for Israel’s war on Gaza continues to sing in tight harmony with official Israeli policy, seemingly deaf to the fact that they have become so out of tune with the reality exploding around them.

At my university, UCI, where last summer Jewish and Muslim students organised a trip together through the occupied territories and Israel so they could see with their own eyes the realities there, old battle lines are being redrawn.

The Anteaters for Israel, the college pro-Israel group at the University of California, Irvine, sent out an urgent email to the community explaining that, “Over the past week, increasing amounts of evidence lead us to believe that Hamas is largely responsible for any alleged humanitarian crisis in Gaza”.

I have no idea who the “us” is that is referred to in the appeal, although I am sure that the membership of that group is shrinking.

Indeed, one of the sad facts of this latest tragedy is that with each claim publicly refuted by facts on the ground, more and more Americans, including Jews, are refusing to trust the assertions of Israeli and American Jewish leaders.

Trap

Even worse, in the Arab/Muslim world, the horrific images pouring out of Gaza daily are allowing preachers and politicians to deploy well-worn yet still dangerous and inciteful stereotypes against Jews as they rally the masses against Israel – and through it – their own governments.

What is most frightening is that the most important of Israel’s so-called friends, the US political establishment and the mainstream Jewish leadership, seem clueless to the devastating trap that Israel has led itself into – in good measure with their indulgence and even help.

It is one that threatens the country’s existence far more than any Qassam rockets, with their 0.4 per cent kill rate; even more than the disastrous 2006 invasion of southern Lebanon, which by weakening Israel’s deterrence capability in some measure made this war inevitable.

First, it is clear that Israel cannot destroy Hamas, it cannot stop the rockets unless it agrees to a truce that will go far to meeting the primary demand of Hamas – an end to the siege.

Merely by surviving (and it surely will survive) Hamas, like Hezbollah in 2006, will have won.

Israel is succeeding in doing little more than creating another generation of Palestinians with hearts filled with rage and a need for revenge.

Second, Israel’s main patron, the US, along with the conservative Arab autocracies and monarchies that are its only allies left in the Muslim world, are losing whatever crumbs of legitimacy they still had with their young and angry populations.

The weaker the US and its axis becomes in the Middle East, the more precarious becomes Israel’s long-term security. Indeed, any chance that the US could convince the Muslim world to pressure Iran to give up its quest for nuclear weapons has been buried in Gaza.

Third, as Israel brutalises Palestinians, it brutalises its own people. You cannot occupy another people and engage in violence against them at this scale without doing even greater damage to your soul.

The high incidence of violent crimes committed by veterans returning from combat duty in Iraq is but one example of how the violence of occupation and war eat away at people’s moral centre.

While in the US only a small fraction of the population participates in war; in Israel, most able-bodied men end up participating.

The effects of the latest violence perpetrated against Palestinians upon the collective Israeli soul is incalculable; the notion that it can survive as an “ethnocracy” – favouring one ethnic group, Jews, yet by and large democratic – is becoming a fiction.

Violence-as-power

Who will save Israel from herself?

Israelis are clearly incapable. Their addiction as a society to the illusion of violence-as-power has reached the level of collective mental illness.

As Haaretz reporter Yossi Melman described it on January 10, “Israel has created an image of itself of a madman that has lost it”.

Not Palestinians, too many of whom have fallen prey to the same condition.

Not the Middle East Quartet, the European Union, the United Nations, or the Arab League, all of whom are utterly powerless to influence Israeli policy.

Not the organised Jewish leadership in the US and Europe, who are even more blind to what is happening than most Israelis, who at least allow internal debate about the wisdom of their government’s policies.

Not the growing progressive Jewish community, which will need years to achieve enough social and political power to challenge the status quo.

And not senior American politicians and policy-makers who are either unwilling to risk alienating American Jewish voters, or have been so brainwashed by the constant barrage of propaganda put out by the “Israel Lobby” that they are incapable of reaching an independent judgment about the conflict.

During the US presidential race, Barack Obama was ridiculed for being a messiah-like figure. The idea does not sound so funny now. It is hard to imagine anyone less saving Israel, the Palestinians, and the world from another four years of mindless violence.

[Mark LeVine is a professor of Middle East history at the University of California, Irvine, and is the author of Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam and the soon to be published An Impossible Peace: Israel/Palestine Since 1989.]

Source / Al Jazeera

Thanks to Col. Jeffrey Segal / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Los Angeles and Owens Valley : An Epic Struggle Over Water

Harry Williams, member of the Paiute Tribe, wants to protect the Owens Valley from development. Photo by Jennifer I. Fenton / WIP.

The struggle over Owens Valley’s water resources is spattered with tales reminiscent of an old Hollywood Western starring John Wayne. The story’s origins can be found in the long struggle of indigenous peoples to maintain their lands and way of life.

By Jennifer I. Fenton / January 12, 2009

“Steal my horse, run off with my wife, but damn you, don’t touch my water.” — Unknown

Unlike many modern cities and towns across the United States, the town of Bishop, California bursts in failed attempts to sprawl across the landscape that surrounds it. Pressed into the floor of the Owens Valley, and hedged in by looming mountain ranges to the East and West, Bishop’s city limits have remained virtually unchanged for decades. But while Bishop’s population remains stagnant, to the South, the city of Los Angeles continues to grow at breakneck speeds — growth that would be impossible without the clear gold that flows from the Sierra, through the Owens Valley, and into the gaping mouth of the City of Angels.

When Los Angeles was incorporated in 1850, it was a small city of 8,900. With no immediate water sources to support a larger population or agriculture, it’s placement in the desert of Southern California borders on the absurd.

I don’t remember when I became aware that Los Angeles was the identified villain in our town, but I do know I was young. My grandmother, a survivor of The Great Depression and a staunch conservationist, remembers drawing me a shallow bath as a child. This was not an unusual practice, as a resident of Los Angeles herself, she was required to pay a fee for the water she used. Apparently I was not particularly fond of the idea. “I want more water in my bath Grandma!” I demanded, to which she replied, “Water is a natural resource and we don’t want to waste it.”

History

The struggle over Owens Valley’s water resources is spattered with tales reminiscent of an old Hollywood Western starring John Wayne. The story’s origins can be found in the long struggle of indigenous peoples to maintain their lands and way of life. Harry Williams, a life-long resident of the Owens Valley, member of the Paiute Tribe, environmental activist, and self-taught historian, knows the area like the back of his hand.

Driving through the brush covered valley floor, Harry reveals the many channels – laboriously carved, created, and maintained long before the displacement of his ancestors began. “I love this land,” he tells me as we kneel beside a small sage brush, “and like the people who lived here before me, I want to protect it.”

With the gravel and sand crunching beneath our feet, Harry shows me how the area’s natives created a small piece of heaven by directing the flow of water pouring down from the Sierra into irrigation canals. These canals were then used to create Riparian areas throughout the valley floor, which in turn attracted game for hunting. As he talks, an expression of longing and pride overcomes his face, “We knew how to irrigate this land, and make it work, and look at what the City of Los Angeles has done – it was green and now it is desert.”

Local reports from long-time residents validate Harry’s claim. At 89 years old, Barbara S. makes no effort to hide her feelings about the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). “They were sneaky when they came here to buy land. Some of them even posed as young couples looking for farm land.” With disdain in her voice, she goes on, “Hell, they even made people believe they were buying land under the Reclamation Act – it was all bull crap!”

Enacted June 17, 1902, The Reclamation Act was put in place as the demand for water infrastructure from settlers grew. The intent of the legislation was to reclaim arid, uninhabitable lands and turn them into areas suitable for settlement, farming and “homemaking,” and the Owens Valley was recognized as an ideal location by the US Reclamation Service. As farmers and ranchers unwittingly sold their land and water rights to LADWP, the Reclamation Service abruptly ended the irrigation project. Acts of protest and violence became sport for locals, with some even going so far as to blast portions of the Los Angeles Aqueduct with dynamite. General distrust for the actions of LADWP among Owens Valley residents endures to this day.

The Fight for Water

As the years passed, Los Angeles grew, and so did its thirst for water. With the unregulated ability to divert surface water and pump groundwater, the desertification of the Owens Valley was well under way by the early 1920s. The Owens Lake and fifty miles of the Owens River dried up and by the early 1930s, LADWP left a mere 5 percent of land in the hands of local farmers and ranchers.

Decades passed and residents of the Owens Valley watched as the valley became more barren; springs, marshes, seeps, and wetland meadows began to dry up and disappear. With less vegetation and ground water, dust storms increased. However, when the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 was enacted, Inyo County decision makers and concerned citizens were finally given the legal means to fight back. In 1980, the voters of Inyo County passed an ordinance to regulate groundwater pumping that was later ruled unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the county was able to form The Water Department in 1981, an agency charged with monitoring the effects of groundwater pumping.

And with its formation came employment for my mother. Looking back now, I have to chuckle at the strangeness of it all. She was hired as a secretary, but in reality she was more of a secretary/biologist. When school was out for the summer, my mother would take me with her on days she “worked in the field.” Sitting on the hot, brown vinyl seat of a 1960s Dodge truck with no air conditioning, I would watch as she carried a yellow case marked with a radioactive sign to a thin pipe sticking up out of the ground. With a clipboard in her hand and a cigarette hanging from her mouth, she would place a perfectly fitted cylinder device down the tube, and then jot something down. At the age of eleven, I had little understanding of what she was doing (measuring water tables), but now I laugh when she proudly calls herself an “accidental environmentalist.”

The information my mother collected would be presented to the newly formed Water Commission that would then make recommendations to the Inyo County Board of Supervisors. “The recommendations we provided in the first Water Management Plan were right,” she tells me, “but it was shut down by court hearings, injunctions, and stalling tactics by LADWP.” In the midst of negotiation, litigation, and passionate disagreements, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors met with LADWP to develop a groundwater management plan. The meetings took place behind closed doors, much to the chagrin of residents. When they emerged with a proposal, it was discovered the recommendations of both the Inyo County Water Commission and a citizen’s advisory committee were ignored and that no enforcement measures for LADWP were in place.

In late 1983, a handful of concerned individuals formed a non-profit citizens group — the Owens Valley Committee (OVC). The group committed itself to educating the public and monitoring both local officials and LADWP. Ceal Klinger, a volunteer for the group, talks passionately about the accomplishments of the OVC. “There has been a long history with Inyo County being ignored by LADWP and we now have the resources to challenge them in court if we need to.” And that is exactly what the Owens Valley Committee in conjunction with other citizens groups has done. A Memorandum of Understanding between the OVC, LADWP, the Sierra Club, the California Department of Fish and Game and the California State Lands Commission, was enacted in June of 1997. The MOU provided for a number of measures meant to mitigate the long-term impacts years of ground pumping have had on the area.

In spite of the accomplishments of the OVC and other groups, perhaps the most egregious impact of LADWP’s water diversion is in the form of air pollution from the Owens Valley Lake bed. Ted Schade from the Great Basin Air Pollution Control District spent some time with me to explain what his agency’s role is in the Owens Valley.

Sitting behind his neat desk, Ted launches into a story that starts with tiny dust particles called PM10. Driven by high-speed winds traveling through the valley and into the lungs of residents, safe levels of PM10 are in the low hundreds, but residents were breathing in levels as high as ten thousand. Another MOU was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency in October of 1999, “We made three recommendations for LADWP to mitigate the damage to air quality. They chose to allow previously diverted water back into the dry lake, and PM10 is now in the hundreds.” Ted pauses momentarily. “They will need to do more to get it to acceptable levels, but we are getting there.”

Though united in their fight against LADWP, one contradiction continued to make its way into every conversation I had with Owens Valley locals. Among those who expressed feelings of frustration, anger, and resentment were also feelings of appreciation and gratitude for the agency’s existence. The land LADWP has owned for the past decades remains undeveloped. As I drove past the sweeping vistas of the Sierra and White Mountain ranges, untouched by the hand of progress, that same mixture of feelings overcame me as well.

[Jennifer Fenton lives with her family in Pacific Grove, California. She has a Master’s Degree in Counseling Psychology and works with gang entrenched youth, addressing social and individual issues that lead to gang violence. Jennifer writes about politics with an emphasis on how national and international political decisions influence people’s daily lives.]

Source / Women’s International Perspective

Thanks to Casey Porter / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Democracy, Israeli Style : Arab Parties Banned from Elections

photo of Avigdor Lieberman

Avigdor Lieberman the head of ultra-nationalist party Yisrael Beitenu shown during a party meeting in Jerusalem 23 October 2006, is the driving force behind the ban of the Balad party in Israel. Photo by AFP / Getty Images.

The Arab parties earned the ire of the most hawkish elements in the Israeli government by publicly opposing the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. Balad likewise made enemies by explicitly calling for equal rights for all citizens of Israel, regardless of national or ethnic identity.

By Jason Ditz | January 12, 2008

By a margin of 26-3, the Israeli Central Elections Committee decided to ban the Balad Party from running in next month’s election. By a margin of 21-8, they also banned the United Arab List-Ta’al (UAL-T). The two bans will prevent more than half of the current Arab members of Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset, from running for reelection.

The Arab parties earned the ire of the most hawkish elements in the Israeli government by publicly opposing the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. Balad likewise made enemies by explicitly calling for equal rights for all citizens of Israel, regardless of national or ethnic identity, which the ruling Kadima Party said would “undermine Israel’s identity as a Jewish state.”

A handful of Arabs will remain on the ballots across Israel, running for as-yet-unbanned Jewish majority parties, but with the general consensus among most of the population that Israeli Arabs are traitors based purely on their ethnic background, they would seem to have an uphill battle. Many disillusioned Arab voters may not vote at all, now that the only significant Arab parties aren’t allowed on the ballot.

During the discussion, Balad Chairman Jamal Zahalka called the move to ban his party “a test for Israeli democracy” and asked Avigdor Lieberman, the driving force behind the ban, “Why are you afraid of democracy?” Lieberman declared Balad a terrorist organization and said “whoever values life” would understand the need to ban it.

Israeli Central Elections Committee decided to ban the Balad Party from running in next month’s election. By a margin of 21-8, they also banned the United Arab List-Ta’al (UAL-T). The two bans will prevent more than half of the current Arab members of Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset, from running for reelection.

The Arab parties earned the ire of the most hawkish elements in the Israeli government by publicly opposing the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. Balad likewise made enemies by explicitly calling for equal rights for all citizens of Israel, regardless of national or ethnic identity, which the ruling Kadima Party said would “undermine Israel’s identity as a Jewish state.”

A handful of Arabs will remain on the ballots across Israel, running for as-yet-unbanned Jewish majority parties, but with the general consensus among most of the population that Israeli Arabs are traitors based purely on their ethnic background, they would seem to have an uphill battle. Many disillusioned Arab voters may not vote at all, now that the only significant Arab parties aren’t allowed on the ballot.

During the discussion, Balad Chairman Jamal Zahalka called the move to ban his party “a test for Israeli democracy” and asked Avigdor Lieberman, the driving force behind the ban, “Why are you afraid of democracy?” Lieberman declared Balad a terrorist organization and said “whoever values life” would understand the need to ban it.

Source / Antiwar News

Thanks to Carl Davidson / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Juan Cole Proposes a Different Approach to Curbing the Influence of AIPAC

AIPAC controls Washington now. Photo: source.

Only an America First PAC Can Stop the Madness
By Juan Cole / January 12, 2009

I want to follow up today on my postings over the weekend on how organizing to defend progressive congressional representatives and punish reactionary ones is far superior to street protests as political action on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

People wrote to defend street protests or minded that I said I was annoyed. I stand by what I said. Street protests have not stopped the US Congress from turning Israel into a massive arms arsenal in the Middle East or from granting it $3 billion a year, in part for such military purposes. (Israel has received the lion’s share of US foreign aid in recent decades, even though people in Rwanda need the help more and even though the Israeli per capita income in the early zeroes has been something like $17,000 a year, more than Portugal or Poland and similar to Greece.) Protests have not stopped US complicity in the creeping Israeli colonization of the West Bank, including the area around Jerusalem. They have not stopped the 2006 or 2009 wars of their client on weak and virtually defenseless opponents such as the south Beirut tenement buildings or Gaza hospitals.

Street protests have their uses as a means of creating a political movement, but they are helpless in this case because the important decisions are taken on Capitol Hill. I wrote on Saturday:

Europe has ceded dealing with the Israelis to the United States. The people of the United States have ceded dealing with the Israelis to the US Congress. The US Congress generally abdicates its responsibilities when faced with large powerful single-issue lobbies such as . . . the Israel lobbies. So Congress has ceded Israel, and indeed, most Middle East, policy to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its myriad organizational supporters, from the Southern Baptist churches to the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. The Israel lobbies take their cue on what is good policy from the Israeli government and the Likud Party. So, US Israel policy is driven by . . . the Israeli rightwing. That is why Congress voted 309 to five to support Israel’s war on the people of Gaza, with 22 abstaining.

The US Senate and the US House of Representatives are not afraid of street protests in San Francisco. And why should they be? What sort of threat is it to them, that we say if they don’t change their legislation we will . . . walk in the street? Their response would be, “Make sure you have comfortable shoes; now, I have to see this nice lobbyist in my office in a thousand dollar suit and alligator shoes who has an enormous check for my current political campaign.”

The representative would say to us, “I want to be reelected. You cannot stop that by walking in the street, nor can you help me win by doing so. This televangelist from an Israel lobby, in contrast, is going to help me buy loads of television commercials dissing my opponents in the next election. And, if I don’t help the gentleman out, he’s threatening to give the money instead to my rival and unseat me. So you’ll forgive me if I turn my back on you and wish you well with your, uh, walking. But I’ve got an election to win, rather than to lose, and you are irrelevant to that task.”

And the big oak door in the Dirksen building slams in our faces.

The US Congress is the best proof of evolution. Its members are constantly subjected to unnatural selection by single-issue lobbies.. Run for office demanding gun control, and you will likely lose, because the National Rifle Association will arrange for its members to fund your opponent’s campaign. If you do win, the NRA will redouble its efforts for the next time, which if you are a representative, is only 2 years later. After a while, there just aren’t a lot of strong gun control proponents in Congress.

It is the same with the Israel lobbies, which are just as single-minded. We have had people in Congress who dared criticize Israel. They were Paul Findley, Charles Percy, William Fulbright, Roger Jepson, Pete McCloskey, Earl Hilliard, and Cynthia McKinney. They were all successfully ousted by AIPAC-coordinated campaigns. US political races are close and candidates have flaws, so AIPAC often denies in public that it made the difference and implies with high dudgeon that there is something wrong with alleging that it did. In private, AIPAC officials boast endlessly on the HIll about how no one messes with them and survives.

The reason AIPAC and its constituencies among the Evangelicals and American Likudniks has been so successful is that there is virtually no countervailing political force. Madison and other Founding Fathers set up the US, as Ian Lustick has argued, on the assumption that on most important issues there would be opposing factions who would check each other in the legislature. The drawback of their system is that when there is only one effective faction on an issue, it completely dominates politically. Madison’s system worked to prolong the heyday of Big Tobacco far beyond what was reasonable. Anti-smoking campaigners who knew that smoking kills you dead could not make headway with Congress because the tobacco-growing and cigarette industries would counter-lobby.

But on some issues there is no one on the other side of it to lobby and threaten Congressmen. Thus, there was not much precentage until recently in pushing for an end to the boycott on Communist Cuba, since the Florida Cuba lobby would punish you politically and virtually no one would reward you.

Sometimes it is alleged that AIPAC is so successful because those Americans who support Zionism are extremely wealthy. But this thesis is wrong on two counts.

First, the general society in the US generates $13 trillion a year, and no small single-issue faction can compete with that vast public wealth. The general public could always out-fund a smaller single-issue opponent if the general public was motivated to do so. While in the past, raising small $25 and $50 contributions from large numbers of people was difficult, Obama showed that it can now be done.

Second, AIPAC does not manage to get its affiliated PACs to give that much money to individual campaigns (pdf), as the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs points out.

Sometimes it is just $1000 or $2000, sometimes it is much more. Of course, one has to take into account that they might fund a rival with much more money if the congressperson defied them.

I wrote on Saturday:

a lot of US congressional races, which happen every two years, are close, and [even] $4000 is very welcome, especially when there are no costs to signing AIPAC letters and supporting AIPAC positions because there is nobody to speak of on the other side. And if the money comes in every campaign, along with lots of office visits and letters and local community support, it builds loyalty over time.

AIPAC gets in before the ground floor, introducing potential candidates to big donors and has its supporters in the Democratic party machine, e.g., vet candidates. Tom Hayden, a leftist American if there ever was one, had to be approved of by the Bermans to amount to anything in southern California Democratic politics, and it led to his taking an unfortunate stand on the 1982 Lebanon War of which he came to be ashamed. If all this is true for Hayden, imagine how it is with some used car salesman in southern Indiana.

So I am proposing a coordinating committee that would have two purposes:

1. It would develop a large database of leaders of concerned civic organizations so as to tip them when big votes in Congress were coming. These organizations would then tip their members, who would deluge Congress with millions of emails on what is at stake. There are lots of allies in US civil society for this enterprise, including religious congregations (liberal synagogues, Presbyterians, Catholics, Quakers, Mennonites, Muslim mosques, Unitatiran Universalists, etc.). Such an effort could also mobilizer Greens, Libertarians, and Socialists, as well as sections of the Democratic and Republican Parties.

2. It would direct sympathetic PACs to donate money in close races to anti-war candidates,and to defend representatives and senators who dared buck the Israel lobbies from reprisals. It would also try to unseat hawks like Joe Lieberman and Saxby Chambliss.

This America First Public Affairs Committee could easily be organized and could quickly become very influential. All we would need to do is win a couple of rounds with AIPAC and suddenly congressional votes would be much closer.

It would also coordinate the lobbying of those existing small PACs which are more narrowly focused but which have a strong interest in the peace process — J Street, the Peace Action Political Action Committee, the Arab American Political Action Committee, the National Iranian American Council, etc., etc.

From looking at the reaction to my post on Saturday, I can see that a lot of people just don’t understand how all this happens. They don’t know that the US Congress is arming Israel to the teeth and passing laws that implicitly enable colonization of the Palestinians and make it impossible for the Palestinians effectively to resist, even peacefully. Others accept the argument but think that Congress can’t be changed in this regard. But of course it can be changed.

There is also a false meme that I am talking about blogging here. I am not. I am talking about a lobby, an organization with brick and mortar offices.

I pointed out Saturday,

I underline that such an organized push in American politics for more equitable policies in the Middle East is not anti-Israel, but rather intended to help Israel find a way forward with its neighbors that does not involve continued displays of sado-masochistic politics on both sides. Make no mistake. AIPAC and other rightwing Israel lobbying organizations are enablers and drug dealers, hooking Israeli politicians on the high of power and violence, and we can only heal Israel and Palestine by cutting off that supply.

Such an effort would also have wider implications for US foreign policy. In the coming two or three decades, the US military industrial complex will want to fight several ruinous wars on major oil-producing and gas-producing states not in the US political orbit, such as Iran. At the moment, the US public is helpless before such ambitions, because the War Lobby is even more effective than the Israel lobbies are.

With regard to protecting and rewarding the principled members of Congress who do put America first the collective blog Journalscape understood exactly what I am talking about and tried to dig up donation or contact information for the five who voted “no”:

Donate to Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio

Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin (no obvious link for donation page: tel. 202-225-4572)

Donate to Ron Paul, R-Texas

Nick Rahall, D-West Virginia. Tel. 202-225-3452

Maxine Waters, D-California. Tel. 202-225-2201

These 5 and the 22 who voted ‘present’ are now on the endangered species list. (I did not find that anyone made a similar list of donation/ contact information for the 22; they are in danger, too). AIPAC officials are as we speak holding secret meetings with donors to strategize how to turn them or get rid of them even as we speak. But since the parts of the blogosphere that care about rights for Palestinians, about demilitarizing the Middle East, and about helping Israel attain its potential as a positive factor in Middle Eastern affairs instead of attack dog for people like Dick Cheney in the region, don’t seem to understand how pivotal lobbying, Congress, and loyalty to political friends are– likely we will go on losing 309 to 5.

Source / Informed Comment

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

New York Protest Against Gaza Assault Gets Ugly


15,000 March Against Israel’s Crimes in Gaza

Police riot; beat, pepper spray, and arrest protesters
January 11, 2009

Today, more than 15,000 people rallied in Times Square to protest Israel’s ongoing assault against the people of Palestine . The demonstration stretched from 42nd Street south to 38 Street, along 7th Ave , and was followed by a spirited march past the New York Times building to the Time Warner building on 58th Street where CNN’s New York office is located.

Organizers reported provocative and hostile police behavior throughout the event. Police massed at the end of the march route began cursing, taunting and attacking protesters. One uniformed cop was reported as yelling, “Why don’t you all blow yourselves up?”

Eyewitnesses reported that the police used pepper spray in an unprovoked assault on the protesters including teenagers and children as young as ten years old. Others
were pushed and struck by police.

At least 30 people were arrested during the day, and everyone who was arrested was beaten by police, some severely. Most were arrested while simply trying to leave
at the end of the march, when police charged and began arresting and beating people.

One provocateur grabbed a Palestinian flag and began trampling on it. When onlookers attempted to retrieve the flag, they were attacked and nine were arrested.

Organizers are reporting that the attacks and arrests clearly targeted Arab youth. Lamis Deek, human rights attorney and co-chair of Al-Awda New York, said, “The
systematic pattern of attacks and provocations and the sudden appearance of police amass at the end of the march were clearly a message from City Hall. This was clearly orchestrated and planned to try to attempt to intimidate and silence the mass protests that have taken place here, and will continue to take place. But these tactics will not keep us off the streets. We outnumbered the rally in support of Israel ‘s crimes by a hundred to one.”

As this is being written, march organizers have received reports that an undetermined number of people, including children, are still being held by the NYPD.

Organizers plan to pack the courtroom at 100 Centre Street in Manhattan at 9 am tomorrow morning when some of those arrested are being arraigned.

Source / Break the Siege on Gaza Coalition

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

A Special to the Rag Blog from OneLove, Our Foreign Correspondent


To Catch a Spy
By OneLove / The Rag Blog / January 11, 2009

Ahh, ain’t it a bitch. Your friend, buddy, Lover, comrade, comrade in arms, Brother, Sister, Affinity group member, long time associate, trusted mentor, favorite protege, You know who I mean. The ones you need to form the fist that will represent you and strike the blow in the grand struggle.

Every struggle has many fronts, yours deserves an opportunity. We have a right to assemble, to offer our solutions, to demonstrate, picket, march, write letters, communicate amongst ourselves, defend ourselves and to act against our common enemies. The enemy, our enemy, has no right to spy on us. In fact our enemy has no rights at all. That doesn’t stop them. So, What is to be done?

Be pro-active. Don’t just trust anyone, check them out. First the gut-check, get down with them, find out what they really believe, which side they are really on, where they are coming from, their class, class background, and class stand. Dig deep, where did they grow up, how did they grow up, what is it about them and their
experience that draws them to your particular struggle at this time. Sometimes there seems to be no rational reason for them to be on your side. No one acts without reason, what is their reason to organize or join an organization?

There have always been spies, traitors to the cause, and some are heartbreaking. Dovey Greenglass sent his sister to the electric chair. David Kazinsky sent his brother up for life. George Demmerly sent Sam Melville to his death sentence in D yard. A rat sent Lee Otis Johnson up for 40 years, and ruined his life. Now this latest rat plans to send the Texas 2 to prison. Security is important, you can’t
let them exist in your community or organization. In Chicago ’68, a pig disguised as a biker was allowed to hang out with people, many people spotted him as a pig, but didn’t takes appropriate action on the theory that “every one knows he’s a pig, let him hang with us and don’t tell him nada.” Later at a trial he came to the stand, with pictures of himself hanging with the some of the defendants, and then invented tales of what was discussed, all lies, but the fact that he could show he was there was enough to convince some on the jury that he had knowledge. By the way, even that jury had a spy on it.

Years ago checking someone out was difficult, but not impossible. At one time we had a connection in a large Insurance company, the company had a computer that listed every insurance policy held by anyone in the U.S. Life, health, car. homeowners, whatever, we used that to uncover a couple of pigs. Now-a-days we have our own computers. We can easily find out about anybody, court appearances, property owned, work records, driving records, tax records, marriage and divorce records, are all at our finger-tips. Use them. Will it cost you or your group a few dollars? Yes it will. Is it worth the expense? Compare to the legal and political costs of Brandon Darby’s spy-provocateur act.

Someone like Darby is much more of a problem. Someone already on the inside, then later turned out by the man. Not everyone trusted him; they should have done their homework, not just avoided him or the issue. I recommend the LSD test, but that’s not for everyone, remember the first cosmic commandment, “Thou shall not alter another’s consciousness.” That means No Dosing. However, group or family travel presents ample opportunities. Create unnerving situations and ask sharp questions.

In the current case, it would be interesting for some journalists to make a Freedom of Information Act request about any case numbers the lawyers can uncover. The initial FBI interview with Darby will tell you a lot. Where was the interview held? Did they twist his arm? They once twisted mine on a street in Washington, D.C. Did they offer him $$$? Colin Nyburger was once offered $200,000 for a secret. Did they chase him up the street shouting, “We don’t want to hassle you?” They did that to me, also, in Eugene, OR. Did they threaten to expose some dirty deed about him? Like they did to the in-the-closet gay FIFTH ESTATE snitch? The answer would be revealing. Maybe they jammed the guy up in some way, and he couldn’t help it, more or less. But to be in a position where the only alternative is to rat out your brothers and sisters is not often achieved overnight. My guess is that he walked into the FBI office in San Antonio and offered to be a snitch.

Activists, just because you are not and are not intending to do anything wrong or illegal doesn’t mean you won’t be targeted! The more your contribution furthers the struggle, the better chance you will be targeted for neutralization. But don’t be paranoid, be smart! They tried many ways to neutralize the original RAG, but we were smart and we fought back. Don’t you think that now they would be happy to neutralize the ragblog, and groups like Common Ground? The day they recruited that spy, they began to recruit his replacement.

Right now we can neutralize their strike by freeing the Texas 2….Then FREE MARILYN BUCK!!

Thanks to Mariann Wizard / The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Singin’ on Sunday: Michael Heart

We Will Not Go Down (Song for Gaza)

Thanks to Jeff Segal / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Rogues’ Gallery of Food Awards

Damage control: Chinese workers destroy a batch of melamine-tainted milk powder under the watchful eyes of enforcement officers in Shanghai. Photo: source.

My 2008 Food Products Hall of Shame Awards
By: Asinus Asinum Fricat / January 10, 2009

The main award goes to China for the sheer number of melamine-tainted products it manufactured and distributed, and if it was up to me to distribute real food awards (an institution that is sorely needed, IMHO), they’d be the recipients of quite a few more. I sincerely hope China will learn the many, many food safety lessons and review the entirety of their food production lines in a clear and verifiable manner if they want to entice the rest of the world with their foodstuffs. For now, I’m not advocating anyone to purchase any edibles made in China. It will change in due course.

China is not alone in my books. Case in point: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that last year 76 million Americans were struck by food-borne illnesses, and more than 300,000 were hospitalized. Sadly about 5,000 each year succumb to microbial infections.

Follow me to the Rogues’ Gallery of Food Awards.

Best Meat Recall Award: Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing of California agreed to take back more than 143 million pounds of raw and frozen meat when it was found in violation of inspection rules.

Stupidest Food Product (since recalled) Award: Cambrooke Foods® makes “Low Protein Imitation Cream Cheese products in the vain hope that it might fool people into buying it. Because of possible health risks they have recalled as a precaution because some of their products may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Best Villain: not enough has been written about the evils of high-fructose corn syrup:

High-fructose corn syrup is a common sweetener and preservative. High-fructose corn syrup is made by changing the sugar (glucose) in cornstarch to fructose – another form of sugar. The end product is a combination of fructose and glucose. Because it extends the shelf life of processed foods and is cheaper than sugar, high-fructose corn syrup has become a popular ingredient in many sodas, fruit-flavored drinks and other processed foods.

To sum it up colas have truckloads of sugar and hardly any nutrients and may contain caffeine, an addictive drug. And it bloats your body with chemicals.

Consistency Category Award: a perennial food bandit is a packet of sour cream and onion potato chips. The damage: 150 calories for a dozen chips, 10 g fat (of which 3 g is saturated), and a ghastly 210 mg sodium! Empty calories to boot with extra trans-fats and a dash of MSG.

Worst Supporting Category Award: the most common form of bread in America is the mass-produced white, soft doughy bread in plastic bags with a long shelf life. Look at the ingredients in an average packaged white bread and you will see that it contains flour plus sugar, corn syrup (again) and a dozen other ingredients. True bread is simply flour and water with a pinch of salt and yeast. Stick to your local baker, that is if they still exist in your neighborhood!

Special Award for Underhandedness: what Kellogg’s does not want you to know: the company touts that its Special K Fruit & Yogurt cereal combines the crunch of whole grain goodness, the smooth creaminess of yogurt and the sweet taste of berries. Yeah, right! There is more refined rice than whole grain wheat, no berries (just dyed apple pieces), and no yogurt (just yogurt powder that is usually heat treated, killing any beneficial bacteria) in the cereal. And while I’m the Kellogg’s case, I might as well inform you that their “Kellogg’s Eggo Nutri-Grain Pancakes” is bereft of either “Made with Whole Wheat and Whole Grain” but consist primarily of white flour. Moving along.

Supporting Make-up Award: Anyone for chocolate-laden doughnuts? Consider this then: per unit you get to eat 300 calories, 19 g fat (of which 6 g is saturated). All doughnuts are high in trans-fats, sugar and are extremely calorific. Supermarket versions are the worst!

Sneakiness Award: if you thought that McDonald’s Chicken Selects Premium Breast Strips sound healthy, you’re in for a surprise: ounce for ounce, the Selects are no healthier than the chain’s Chicken McNuggets. A standard, five-strip order has 670 calories and 10 grams of artery-clogging fat. That’s about the same as a Big Mac, but the burger has 1,040 mg of sodium, while the Selects hit 1,660 mg!

Best Disguise Award: another calorific horror story is the Chipotle Chicken Burrito (tortilla, rice, pinto beans, cheese, chicken, sour cream, and salsa) It combines a whopping 1,040 calories and 16½ grams of saturated fat in one serving and the burrito is loaded with 2,500 mg of sodium!

Best Fantasy Story Award: EnvigaCoca-Cola/Nestle claims that their new drink combination of caffeine and an antioxidant extracted from green tea will cause people to burn more calories than the drink provides and help them control their weight. In fact, one in five people drinking Enviga burn fewer, not more, calories and long-term studies on the ingredients show no consistent effect on weight. ole!

From the excellent E-coli blog a sister site to Marler Clark’s:

Okay, so 2008 was NOT as big a year for E. coli recalls as was 2007. Total amount of beef recalled last year was around seven million pounds; far less than the 29 million pounds recalled during 2007.

A very interesting site I keep my eyes on is Bill Marler’s blog, published by Marler Clark’s (see sister site above, E-coliblog.com). Check out his 2009 food challenges:

Marler’s Ten Top Food Safety Challenges for 2009

Source / La Vida Locavore

Thanks to Diane Stirling-Stevens / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged | 3 Comments

Rafah Crossing: Let the Doctors Through !

Rafah crossing, Egypt

Report From Rafah: Doctors Stopped at the Border
By Bill Quigley / January 9, 2009

Rafah, Egypt — Dr. Nicolas Doussis-Rassias and many other volunteer doctors have been waiting in Rafah, Egypt for days. Nicolas and the other physicians came to Rafah to go through the border into Gaza to help the 3000 people wounded by Israeli bombs and heavy weapons.

Rafah is a heavily armed Egyptian border crossing into Gaza, a four hour drive away from Cairo. Sonic booms of high flying jets cut through the stark blue sky. Military drones hover over the border as the air smells of burning.

“Three thousand victims of bombs and gunfire would overwhelm the medical system of New York city,” Nicolas said. “Gaza now has no functioning medical system at all. Most of it has no electricity nor running water. These people are in crisis – they need medical help, so we are here to help them.”

But today, instead of helping the thousands of wounded, Nicolas and other doctors are holding up a hand lettered red and blue banner outside the Egyptian border station saying – Let the Doctors Through!

Why? Doctors of Peace and numerous other doctors from around the world have been prevented from entering Gaza for seven days. They cannot get in to help through Israel nor Egypt.

Nicolas is not an anti-Israeli radical. He is a jolly 49 year old Athens doctor. Father of two children, he is the president of a organization of volunteer Greek physicians called Doctors of Peace. These doctors pay their own way and volunteer to help the victims of war and natural disasters. They have helped out in Latin America with victims of Hurricane Mitch, in Sri Lanka with tsunami victims, and the victims of wars in Lebanon, Serbia, Turkey, and Pakistan.

But the borders of Gaza are sealed off preventing basic humanitarian and medical assistance from entering.

Richard Falk, the UN Special Reporter on Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, pointed out the human rights violations of the sealed border: “Israeli actions, specifically the complete sealing off of entry and exit to and from the Gaza Strip, have led to severe shortages of medicine and fuel (as well as food), resulting in the inability of ambulances to respond to the injured, the inability of hospitals to adequately provide medicine or necessary equipment for the injured, and the inability of Gaza’s besieged doctors and other medical workers to sufficiently treat the victims.”

The people of Gaza have been cutoff from basic medical and humanitarian resources for a long time by an ongoing blockade by Israel, but everything is much worse in the last few weeks.

Falk, like many others, also condemned the rocket attacks launched from Gaza against Israel. More than a dozen Israelis have died since the war began, as have more than 800 Gazans. But Falk’s harshest words were reserved for the catastrophic human toll from the Israeli airstrikes and “those counties that have been and remain complicit, either directly or indirectly, in Israel’s violations of international law.”

Frida Berrigan pointed out that “During the Bush administration Israel has received over $21 billion in U.S. security assistance, including $19 billion in direct military aid. The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. assistance programs. For example, Israel has 226 U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter and attack jets, over 700 M-60 tanks, 6,000 armored personnel carriers, and scores of transport planes, attack helicopters, utility and training aircraft, bombs, and tactical missiles of all kinds.”

Palestinian medical officials say more than half of the 800 dead and 3000 wounded are civilians. Denial of humanitarian and medical assistance to civilian casualties is a clear violation of basic human rights.

The people of Egypt are challenging the denial of medical help for Gaza. Halfway through our drive from Cairo to Rafah, we saw a hundred young Egyptians sitting in the middle of the highway protesting Egypt’s inaction.

After seven days, the border is starting to open a little. The Egyptian Red Crescent was allowed to deliver supplies to the border today and some of the waiting doctors were allowed in. With great show, two dozen Egyptian ambulances were allowed to enter the border area – only to be parked inside to wait for the injured to make it to the border. Two ambulances left Rafah with patients inside.

Doctors of Peace were still not allowed in today. Some physicians, tired from the seven day blockade, have started to return home.

Nicolas is going back to the Rafah border crossing tomorrow to try again. Why? “Because there are 3000 injured people who need help. I am going to keep trying.”

[Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola New Orleans. He is in Egypt as a human rights representative of the National Lawyers Guild, the Society of American Law Professors, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the War Resisters League. Kathy Kelly of Voices for Creative Nonviolence and Audrey Stewart are also in Egypt and contributed to this article. His email is quigley77@gmail.com.]

Source / CounterPunch

Thanks to Jeffrey Segal / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment