Iraq snapshot - June 24, 2011

Iraq snapshot - June 24, 2011

The Common Ills

Friday, June 24, 2011.  Chaos and violence continue, Katty Kay confesses the education system failed her, more reactions to Barack's bad speech, Scott Horton and Patrick Cockburn talk Iraq, Iraq War veteran Aaron Hughes talks about the disconnect ("And when service members get home and they realize that there's no one in this entire country that understands that and understands what they've gone through and wants to listen to them, when the media is continually talking about American Idol or some other pop issue instead of dealing with the actual issues -- that we are conducting two occupations currently, that we are conducting operations in Pakistan, that we are conducting operations in Libya and Yemen.  We have service members on the ground in all of these countries and those service members are experiencing things and they are doing it as they believe on behalf of their country and their country doesn't even know it.  The country doesn't even know what we do.  And then we get home. And then there's nothing.  There's no way to connect that.  And that disconnect, that's the crime and that's the PTSD. That's-that's all of the trauma right there -- is the inability to understand what happened and why no one else understands."), Iraqis take to the street to protest, and more.   US President Barack Obama gave his ridiculous I'm-ending-the-Afghanistan-War . . . in-2014-if-I'm-still-in-office speech Wednesday. Yesterday historian and journalist Gareth Porter discussed the speech on Flashpoints (KPFA) with guest host Kevin Pina.  Excerpt:   Kevin Pina: What has he offered? What has President Obama put on the table in his speech yesterday?   Gareth Porter: I'm afraid my analysis is not a very optimistic one in the sense that I'm afraid he's offering a scam which is very similar to that that he's undertaken in Iraq.  And I say that because what he did in his speech if you really carefully read through it, there's a passage that really demands parsing in light of the Iraq experience -- where he talks about the "responsible withdrawal" from Afghanistan being similar to what we did in Iraq.  By that, he's talking about essentially, you know, once he's withdrawn the full increment of the so-called "surge" troops, that is the 33,000 that he added as a result of a decision in 2009 -- in December 2009 --   Kevin Pina: Subsequent to George Bush's committments --  troop committments.   Gareth Porter:  Well that's right. I mean, first of all, he put in an increment that the Bush administration had already agreed on, he kind of taking up the burden of the Bush administration, that is in March 2009.  But then in Decemeber 2009 came the big 33,000 increment which now he's talking about withdrawing that by the end of 2012 -- sorry, not the end of 2012 but September 2012, excuse me.  And that is not everything that the military and the Pentagon wanted but I calculate that it's about 80% of what they asked for. [ . . .]  My concern is beyond 2012.  He's completely, without any details going to manuever.  What he's going to do about Afghanistan once the surge troops have been removed.  And what he has said is that it will be, like I said, it will be like Iraq.  There will be a responsible withdrawal.  He says there'll be some withdrawal after 2012.   Kevin Pina:  And a larger role for contractors?    Gareth Porter:  He doesn't talk about that but we know that there are contractors in Afghanistan.  But look, there's -- The big problem here is that what he's talking about is the potential for a perpetual war in Afghanistan.  He's really conceeded to the military the idea that even beyond 2013 -- 2013 -- the United States will continue to have combat troops there.  Now he's being very vague in terms of what the policy is going to be like afterr 2013.  But it's clear if you look at what happened in Iraq that this is what's going to happen.   Dana Milbank (Washington Post) heard echoes of George W. Bush's "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" and also questioned the veracity of the claims Barack made:   "Drawdown from a position of strength" sounds eerily like the "return on success" phrase that George W. Bush used in Iraq -- and the similarities did not end there. "We take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding," Obama told the nation. "We have ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance." To be sure, the president was characteristically muted in his celebration, warning of "huge challenges" ahead. His staff was rather less restrained; speaking under the cloak of anonymity, his aides held a teleconference Wednesday afternoon with audible chest thumping. "We haven't seen a terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan for the past seven or eight years," one boasted, finding "no indication that there is any effort within Afghanistan to use Afghanistan as a launching pad to carry out attacks. . . . The threat has come from Pakistan over the past half-dozen years or so, and longer." So if there hasn't been a terrorist threat coming from Afghanistan for seven or eight years, why did Obama send tens of thousands of additional troops into a conflict that has claimed more than 1,500 American lives? And why is he leaving most of them there?   Justin Rainmondo (Antiwar.com) also sees questions the statements made and notes how truly illogical they were:    Ah yes, those glorious days of "unity" -- when no one, save a brave few, dared stand up against the war hysteria. When anyone who looked vaguely Muslim was attacked in the streets. United in hatred and fear -- what a grotesque nostalgia for our "progressive" president to give voice to! Like his predecessor, Obama has often praised this mystic post-9/11"unity," including twice in this speech, and therein lies the mark of the tyrant, who always welcomes the unthinking submission to authority wartime brings.  This war-narrative is getting threadbare, however, and has some significant gaps: suddenly, we are told that, seemingly out of nowhere, "our focus shifted," and "a second war was launched" – apparently all by itself, by means of spontaneous combustion. One hardly expects him to mention of the key role played by his own party, which stood by and cowered -- or cheered -- as George W. Bush led the nation down into the quagmire, banners flying. But the distancing act -- "by the time I took office" – is a little too glib: Bush gets all the blame for Iraq, and the decision to escalate the Afghan war is pushed off on "our military commanders." But isn't Obama the commander-in-chief? Our president, a prisoner of history, bravely confronts circumstances shaped by others. He praises himself for making "one of the most difficult decisions I've made as President," the launching of the "surge" in which 30,000 more troops were sent to the supposedly neglected Afghan front. "We set clear objectives," he avers, and yet our ultimate goal was -- and still is -- obscured in murk: does anyone, including the President, know what victory looks like?   And in what may be the first editorial board of a daily newspaper since Barack's speech earlier this week to call for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Santa Fe New Mexican offers "Light? What Light? Bring 'em All Home" The president couldn't have chosen worse words Wednesday as a framework for announcing a minimal troop withdrawal from Afghanistan: "The light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance." Shades of Lyndon Johnson, linked forever to the "light at the end of the tunnel" he sought to show a press and public increasingly and properly wary of our war in Vietnam. That war, fought on behalf of a corrupt regime with our military's hands tied, would go on for another half-dozen years after Johnson's public-relations campaign on behalf of futility and 60,000 American deaths before we abandoned the place amid chaos.     Let's move on over to Iraq and let's start by noting The Diane Rehm Show (NPR).  When Diane ignores Iraq on her Friday 'round up' of pretend stories and non-issue, it's disgusting because she knows better, she knows when the US is at war, it is the job of the US press to cover it.  But Diane, for all her faults, was not a War Whore.  Katty Kay was.  The trash from England -- who forever thinks she's about to step into a time machine and be transported back to the 90s where she can Chris Matthews can cackle as they trash Hillary Clinton (Katty's always jumping at the bit to trash Hillary to this day) -- shouldn't be allowed on NPR to begin with.  Truly, the media needed to get accountable after selling the illegal war on Iraq. Accountability would mean two-bit whores like Katty Kay weren't put back on the airwaves.   Of course if that happened, we wouldn't realize just what a stupid imbecile Katty Kay is.    There was Katty, in the second hour, avoiding Iraq even when National Journal's Michael Hirsh managed to work it in for one sentence.  Katty quickly changed the subject.  At the end of the show, Katty found there was time to fill.  So she launched into China -- where no US forces are on the ground.  Maybe Brit's shouldn't host American programs that the US government pays for if they're so stupid that they really think that after the violence in Iraq this week, China was the way to go?   But there was Katty, wanting to talk abot Syria and proving she's the stupidst and sorriest excuse for a journalist today.   KATTY: How nervous are people, Nancy?  I mean, not just in Syria, of course, but in all . . . I mean -- uh, how many countries does Syria border?  I can't count them, but it's right there in the middle of that area.  And it's causing -- the ripples of what is happening in Syria are being uh watched very carefully from Israel --   Nancy A. Youssef: That's right!   KATTY: -- from Lebanon, of course, from Turkey, from Iran.  They must all be watching what's going on there.     Do they not teach geography in England?    She doesn't know what borders Syria but managed to cheerlead the impending Iraq War?     Iran does not border Syria.  Iraq, howevver, does.  What a stupid moron.   She wants to talk about Syria but doesn't know the countries around it.  In 2002 and 2003, you couldn't escape Katty insisting that the US must go to war with Iraq.  And today she doesn't even know that Iraq borders Syria.  (And that Iran doesn't.)     NPR can't deal with Iraq these days and not just Diane's bad show, but all of NPR -- forty dead in four Baghdad  bombings yesterday and not one damn story on any of their three major "news magazines" NPR airs daily.  That's putting the Crock in the Joan B. Kroc Fellowship.  Iraq does get discussed elsewhere, it can be done.  On Antiwar Radio, Scott Horton spoke with journalist Patrick Cockburn about Iraq. Scott Horton: My first question, if it's alright, is going to be about the sujbect of your book there, Moqtada al-Sadr, and the future of Iraq and whether or not that includes the American occupation after the end of this year which is the deadline for withdrawal in the Status Of Forces Agreement.  I'm sure you're aware that the Secretary of Defense and others in the administration have made it pretty clear that they want Malki to "invite us" to stay longer.  I just wonder, of course, you've always told me on this show is that Moqtada al-Sadr is the answer to that question.  Is that still the case and is his position still the same?   Patrick Cockburn: If US troops remain then this is not going to be without opposition -- particularly from Moqtada, from the Sadrists.  So, you know, up to now the assumption has been that they would not stay. I don't think they've quite taken on board that having some troops -- depending on how many troops -- stay, having troops remain and trying to be some sort of player in Iraq you know is going to create a reaction in the opposite direction.     Scott Horton: Well so I mean as far as the oversimplified math of it goes, is it still a matter of Maliki, the prime minister, needs Moqtada al-Sadr's support and Sadr will not support him if he makes this compromise and therefore he will not? Is it that easy?   Patrick Cockburn: No, everything in Iraq is sort of complicated because everybody has the ability to  checkmate everybody else. I mean Maliki got back in because ultimately the Sadrists backed him.  He got support from the US and -- excuse me [coughs] -- he got support from Iran.  Somebody, an Iraqi leader, said to me, you know it's a lucky Maliki, you know, he's got support from the Great Satan -- which the Iranians call the US.  And he got support from the Axis of Evil -- which is what the US calls Iran. Now he needed Moqtada to get back. He needed various other people to get back. He did deals. Now is he going to drop everybody say now he's back in and return to what made him so unpopular previously and try and sort of set up an autocracy.  We don't know. He keeps sort of ducking and diving. But I don't think having a continued US presence is going to stabilize Iraq.   The Youth of Iraq continue attempting to save their country with protests demanding the basic rights owed alll human beings.  Today's protests were called "Firm Roots Friday."  The Great Iraqi Revolution notes, "Our Correspondent in Baghdad: Streams of crowds approaching Tahrir amidst pressures and hurdles imposed by heavily deployed security forces around the Squar while the crowds chant 'THEY ARE ALL THIEVES!'"  Here for video of the Baghdad protesters chanting "'Jethab Nourie Al Maliki' (Nourie Al Maliki is a Liar)!!!"  And they note:   A witness in Tahrir stated to GIR that the streets leading to Tahrir have been cutoff at some distance from Tahrir - he also stated that the police questioned him about his camera and was told by a soldier that journalists should get permission from them before entering Tahrir! He was cursed and insulted by them and so were all journalists!   And:   Youngman Haider Hamzouz: I was harassed in Tahrir, today by Police, Army and some individuals in plain clothes... after they had insulted me ; there was an attempt to beat me up by a soldier and was forced to delete some of the videos I had shot of ambulances passing through Tahrir.. I was questioned for 45 minutes close to Tahrir..I am well now... but the Press isn't...It is in Danger.     Meanwhile Tony Clarke is a member of the House of Lords in England (he's Labour Party, for those who wonder) and he's penned "Obama must tackle Iraq's new dictator" (Independent of London): Few could have expected it. Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, once the darling of bi-Partisan US administrations, today seems engulfed in domestic upheaval as the Arab Spring has shown no sign of abating in Iraq. But rather than choosing to resign power respectfully like in Tunisia and Egypt, al-Maliki seems to have made up his mind to hold a firm grip on power using deadly force like fellow dictators in Libya and Syria. No longer able to tolerate the weekly demonstrations by Iraqis in central Baghdad's al-Tahrir Square, and with widespread arrests failing to subdue the population irate over corruption and lack of basic services, earlier this month al-Maliki sent his thugs under the disguise of ordinary government supporters to brutally attack protestors demanding the resignation of his government. Iyad Allawi, a former Iraqi Prime Minister and the de-facto leader of the opposition movement, recently launched a stunning televised attack on al-Maliki accusing him of running a new dictatorship in Iraq and owing his Premiership to Iran's theocratic rulers. Will the cry for Barack to face reality get larger? Will Nouri continue to be the designated thug of the occupation? Al Mada reports that Nouri spent yesterday blaming others for his problems including insisting that politicians and the media worked together to malign his 100 Days and that the 100 Days program he implemented was a success. As per usual, Moqtada al-Sadr issues statements of support for Nouri. He did the same when protests were really taking hold last February. Moqtada al-Sadr has apparently cast himself in the role of First Lady of Iraq. Al Mada also offers a profile of Ayad Allawi based on anonymous sourcing and it paints him as depressed, considering ending political participation, weighing whether to make London home, etc. He is said to be depressed over the continued upheaval in Iraq and Nouri's inability to lead. Al Rafidayn reports on another political player in the mix, Ammar al-Hakim. The Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq president is calling for all participants to continue dialogue and he cautioned against reaching the "point of no return."  In related news, Aswat al-Iraq reports, "The head of the National Alliance Ibraheem al-Jaffari discussed today with Vice-Premier Saleh al-Mutlaq the most prominent question in the Iraqi arena and means of providing the best of services to the citizens. H called for an end to the dilemma with the security ministries and dialogue to bring viewpoints closer for national interests." Reuters notes a Baijia home invasion resulted in the murder of 1 police officer and his wife and a children's doctor was kidnapped in Kirkuk today. Aswat al Iraq notes 1 police officer was shot dead in Baghdad and 1 clothing store owners was shot dead in Mosul.     In the US, an Iraq War veteran is in legal trouble. He is 26-year-old Elisha Leo Dawkins. Susannah Nesmith (New York Times) reports Elisha has been "in federal lockup" for a month with the government planning to deport him because of a passport application and his apparently not being a citizen. His attorney explains that Elisha was raised in this country and led to believe he was a citizen. He was never informed he wasn't. The US military considered him a US citizen and gave him a very high security clearance. The State Dept issued him a passport. Kyle Munzenrieder (Miami New Times) adds, "Dawkins applied for a passport in order to serve in Guantánamo. A question on the form asked if he'd ever applied for a passport before. He checked no. That wasn't entirely true. He had begun an application for a passport before deploying to Iraq but never finished the process. That single check on a box is why he now sits behind bars." Carol Rosenberg (Miami Herald) explains, " His lawyer says he grew up fatherless and estranged from his mother, staying with relatives in Miami, believing he was a U.S. citizen. He even obtained a Florida Birth Certificate to get a passport to travel to war as a soldier, with neither the Navy, the Army nor the state of Florida apparently aware of a two-decade-old immigration service removal order issued when he was 8 years old." He joined the military, the US sent him into war. That should be the end of the story, he should be considered a citizen if he wasn't before. But that's not how the policies work. What actually is required is for him to apply for citizenship. And now that he knows he's not a citizen, he could apply but a conviction -- yes, a conviction on what he's being charged with -- would mean that he would be barred from becoming a citizen. If anyone in the government really valued the service those being sent to war zones are doing, this wouldn't be happening. Barack Obama should be ashamed that his administration is prosecuting this case. And he should be ashamed because as much as Elisha deserves to stay in the US and have citizenship, so do many others and Barack's done nothing on that issue despite a lot of pretty words in 2008 about citizenship for immigrants.  Elisha's attorney might want to explore whether Elisha has PTSD.  If he does, I don't understand how the US government could legally deport him and believe they would have to provide treatment immediately as well as drop deportation efforts.   Earlier this month, Aaron Hughes and other members of Iraq Veterans Against the War -- Malachi Muncy, Scott Kimball, and Sergio K --  appeared on KOOP's Rag Radio which airs each Friday in Austin (airwaves) and online (live from two p.m. Central time to three).  This week, IVAW has posted the audio to the hour long discussion.  We'll do an excerpt where they were discussing PTSD.     Aaron Hughes:  60% of the service members that are veterans of these occupations that have applied to the VA -- which is only a quarter of the service members that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan -- that's only a quarter of the service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan -- of that quarter, 60% of them are diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.   Thorne Dreyer: Now what do we mean by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?  I mean, back in the old days of war, we talked about people being shell-shocked.   Aaron Hughes:  Yeah.   Thorne Dreyer:  What -- As a clinical diagnosis, what are we talking about?   Aaron Hughes: Well the diagnosis changed.  In the Civil War, it was Soldier's Heart. In WWI, it was Shell-Shock.  And in WWII, it was Battle Fatigue.  And in Vietnam, it was Combat Stress.  And now -- now it's called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  They syllables keep getting longer as George Carlin pointed out in a comedy sketch.  But basically, it's -- it's everything from nightmares to anxiety, to depression, to anger issues.  And they can be subtle.  Like these-these issues, I think, you know for me, I was home in 2004 but it wasn't until 2006 that I realized I was dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when I had a basically a psychotic break.  I lost it.  And that was triggered by listening to 50 cal. rounds in a audio tape going off.  And I -- I just disappeared emotionally and psychologically.  But, you know, I think -- I think what a lot of service members don't realize is how deep these issues and how much they're underneath the surface.  And that's why a lot of service members, they may even volunteer to go back on a third deployment like Malachi did and he can talk to you a little bit about that.  But before he does, I just -- I just want to point out that the percentages go up every time somebody goes on a deployment.  And these brothers that are going -- brothers and sisters -- that are going on their third, fourth and fifth deployment, some of them are never going to come home.   Thorne Dreyer:  Malachi -- and you guys, when you signed up, you weren't signing up for -- you weren't expecting to be going back and back and back.  I mean, that wasn't part of the deal.  Tell us about that and tell us about your multiple deployments.   Malachi Muncy: Yeah-yeah.  I actually volunteered for my second deployment.  You know, I had a really, really rough first deployment.  My wife had tried to kill herself and I didn't get to go home for that.  My mother has another psychotic break and was institutionalized.  My father died while I was deployed.  I did get to go home for that. And on top of that, 36 hour missions and roadside explosives like you said and uhm -- So it was a really rought deployment.  I didn't really get to take in everything, I couldn't compute everything.  And so when I came home, I was cut loose pretty quick -- cut loose to being a civilian -- civilian-soldier, you know, National Guard.  And, uh, got in trouble with the law for shoplifting.  I was taking a lot of methamphetimes and anything that could get me up and going, driving fast, doing all sorts of crazy adreneline stuff and I ended up trying to commit suicide in October of 2005.  And -- and after that event, I came to the conclusion that I needed -- I either needed help or I needed to get back to Iraq because all these problems weren't in Iraq, these problems were here at home.  And so I volunteered to go back and they took me back and it wasn't a big deal to them that I had tried to kill myself.  It wasn't a big deal to them that I had pointed a weapon at an NCO on my first deployment.  They didn't have any problem with where I was mentally so long as I took specific meds and there was no oversight as to whether or not I took those meds.  It was just, 'Here we have on this piece of paper that you're taking those meds.  Good to go."   Thorne Dreyer: Is transitioning back one of the real problems because they don't -- they don't -- they prepare you to kill but they don't prepare you to, you know what I mean, let go of that stuff?  Right?   Aaron Hughes: This is Aaron again.  I would -- I would argue that it's not so much the transition home as it is the disconnect. This country isn't at war.  The service members are at war.  And when service members get home and they realize that there's no one in this entire country that understands that and understands what they've gone through and wants to listen to them, when the media is continually talking about American Idol or some other pop issue instead of dealing with the actual issues -- that we are conducting two occupations currently, that we are conducting operations in Pakistan, that we are conducting operations in Libya and Yemen.  We have service members on the ground in all of these countries and those service members are experiencing things and they are doing it as they believe on behalf of their country and their country doesn't even know it.  The country doesn't even know what we do.  And then we get home. And then there's nothing.  There's no way to connect that.  And that disconnect, that's the crime and that's the PTSD. That's-that's all of the trauma right there -- is the inability to understand what happened and why no one else understands.  In fact, that's actually the definition of trauma: It's an experience that you haven't processed and therefore you can't communicate it. You keep rewinding it in your head.  You keep trying to relive it over and over and over again which is why you have nightmares, why you have dreams, why you have anxiety.  But you can't because you never actually experienced it the first time. And when you get home, there's no one that's experienced these wars. And that's -- that's where the trauma exists.

Violating Palestinian Rights

Violating Palestinian Rights

by Stephen Lendman

June 25, 2011 Besides its Knesset, security forces and intelligence services, Israel's High Court and Civil Administration ravage Palestinian civil society repressively. Two examples illustrate the problem. On June 22, a B'Tselem press release headlined, "Sharp increase in West Bank home demolitions," saying: Through late June, Israel's Civil Administration, its Judea/Samaria (West Bank) governing body, illegally "demolished more Palestinians homes....than in all of last year." Most often, soldiers and Border Police accompany them, forcefully evicting longtime residents. Over the most recent seven day period, 33 residential buildings were demolished in Jordan Valley Fasayil, al-Hadidiyeh, and Yarza communities, as well as southern Hebron Hills Khirbet Bir al-'Id. As a result, 238 Palestinians, including 129 minors, lost homes. Since January 2011, 103 Israeli controlled Area C (62% of the West Bank) structures were demolished, affecting 706 Palestinians, including 341 minors. This represents a sharp increase over 2010 and 2009 when 86 and 28 were bulldozed respectively. At the same time, Civil Administration officials made few plans to help Palestinian communities. Instead, they prevent new construction and development beyond what now exists, "making it impossible for Palestinians to build legally in these areas." Israel contrives ways to enforce policies. For example, some homes are demolished in areas the IDF declares "firing zones," including half of Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea land, even places located along main traffic arteries or next to or comprising settlements. As a result, even though Palestinian dwellings date back generations, they're prohibited from living there henceforth. Discriminatory planning and building laws affect communities like Khirbet Bir al-Id, adjacent to the 1998-built Mizpe Ya'ir outpost. Though illegal, Israel approved connecting it to water, electricity, other public services, and basic infrastructure, funding it, including an access road. Moreover, it did nothing to prohibit its establishment, compared to Civil Administration harshness, demolishing Palestinian structures on their own land without permit permission. The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) helps rebuild homes. It also resists "land expropriation, settlement expansions, by-pass road construction, policies of 'closure' and 'separation,' " destruction of agricultural land and crops, and the occupation's repressive effects overall, beyond its original mission to oppose and resist Palestinian house demolitions. From June 1967 - July 28, 2010, ICAHD said Israel destroyed nearly 25,000 Palestinian structures, based on Interior Ministry, Civil Administration, OCHA, other UN sources, and Palestinian Center for Human Rights data, as well as Israeli and other Palestinian human rights groups, Amnesty International (AI), Human Rights Watch (HRW), its own field work, and other sources. It classifies demolition types as: -- punishment for actions associated with the structures (about 8.5%); -- administrative for lacking building permits (about 26%); -- land-clearing/military demolitions for any reason, including achieving IDF goals or accompanying extrajudicial assassinations (about 65.5%); and -- other undefined reasons. Israel, in fact, annexes Palestinian land one home demolition at a time. From July 10 - 25, 2011, ICAHD will again rebuild a bulldozed home, belonging to the Abu Omar family. Built in 1990 on privately owned land, Israel demolished it in 2005. Ahmed Abu Omar applied for permit permission, but agricultural zoning restrictions denied him, a familiar story heard often to prevent Palestinians from living on their own land. With his wife and seven children, he built anyway, but was told in 2003 he did it illegally followed by a March 2005 demolition order. A month later, Israel bulldozed it despite his lawful presence, offering no compensation for destroying his property. Since then, the Omars got by in a small house provided by neighbors and an ICAHD-built small, temporary shelter. Omar describes the experience as "dying every day." ICAHD decided to help him. The family response was gratitude and eagerness to regain what they lost. "Their courage to defy the Israeli Occupation's atrocious practice of demolition, forced eviction, and land expropriation is an inspiration to" everyone to resist. ICAHD stresses that the "right to adequate, permanent, and safe housing, when fulfilled, provides the foundation for the realization of other rights," including to work, education, healthcare and other social benefits, as well as self-determination and political, civil and human rights. "When Palestinians are denied their right to housing, other economic, social, cultural, and political rights" are compromised. As an occupying power, Israel is legally bound to provide them, and is prohibited from collectively punishing. It nonetheless persists because world leaders don't stop it. Palestinians, of course, lose out in isolation, ignored by powers that can help. Israel's High Court of Justice (HCJ) Orders Cast Lead Victims Case Reheard On June 23, a Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) press release headlined, "Israel (HCJ) vacates verdict in Case Lead Case: Appoints New Panel of Judges and Orders Case on behalf of 1,046 victims be Re-heard." Earlier on April 28, Israel's High Court dismissed a Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) petition filed on behalf of over 1,000 Cast Lead victims. It asked the High Court to order Israel's State Attorney "to refrain from raising a claim under the (two-year) statute of limitations in future civil suits" for just compensation. An earlier article discussed the case, accessed through the following link: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-israeli-discrimina tory-laws.html Pertinent information from it is repeated below. At issue, is the universally recognized right to compensation for violations of international law, what neither Israeli governments nor its High Court respect. Its April 28 dismissal of legitimate redress is a blight on its reputation as an equitable tribunal. It's also a serious setback for Israel's victims. "Significantly, the Court's decision to dismiss the petition was procedurally flawed." It denied PCHR its lawful right to reply by May 3. It showed Court complicity with rogue officials and soldiers, shielding them from justice, as well as denying legitimate compensation to their victims. Moreover, the UN Cast Lead Fact-Finding Mission concluded that such actions amount to "persecution, a crime against humanity." International law, in fact, recognizes the right of all victims to redress, including compensation, when violations have been committed against them. Yet Gazans are now prevented from "accessing justice, in violation of their fundamental rights." They now face three major obstacles: (1) Statute of limitations: Under Israeli law, civil damage claimants have two years to act from the date of the incident, or lose out entirely. However, Gaza's closure and other restrictions prevented them from submitting filings within the required time. In fact, before August 2002, the period allowed was seven years. (2) Monetary barrier: Israeli courts require claimants to pay court insurance fees before filing. While courts may, in fact, wave them, they're always applied to Palestinians, putting them under an unfair burden. Moreover, exact amounts aren't fixed. They're determined on a case-by-case basis. For lost or damaged property, they're usually a percent of its value. In cases of injury or death, no formal guideline exists. PCHR said that in recent wrongful death cases it filed, claimants had to pay insurance costs of $5,600, an insurmountable amount for most Palestinians. "Simply put," said PCHR, "claimants from Gaza - crippled by the economic devastation wrought by the occupation and the illegal closure - cannot afford this fee and their cases are being dismissed and closed," denying them justice. (3) Physical barriers: Under Israeli law, valid testimonies require victims or witnesses be in court to undergo cross-examination. Under siege, however, since June 2007, Gazans were denied permission to appear. As a result, their claims were dismissed. Moreover, PCHR lawyers are prohibited from entering Israel to represent clients and must hire Israeli ones at extra cost. However, plaintiffs also are denied entry to meet with attorneys, and they, in turn, get no permission to enter Gaza. In fact, the entire process is rigged to insure injustice, another indictment of cruel and discriminatory intolerance. PCHR said the policies and practices it challenged "perpetuate a climate of pervasive impunity." As a result, they effectively made Gaza an "accountability free zone," what, in fact, applies throughout Occupied Palestine, reinforced by rogue justices misinterpreting international law by violating it. On June 15, Israel's High Court in part agreed, ordering new judges rehear the case, whether or not justice this time will be rendered. It's rare Palestinians get it in any Israeli military or civilian court. PCHR's petition was litigated by Michael Sfard and Carmel Pomerantz, challenging the two-year statute of limitations and numerous other judicial barriers, including blockading Gaza under siege. It's on behalf of 1,046 Cast Lead victims, representing most cases prepared after the war. "They cover virtually the entire spectrum of international humanitarian law violations," including "the most infamous cases," affecting the Samouni, Abu Halima, and Al-Daia families. The Al-Samounis lost 23 of their 48 members, Masouda Al-Samouni saying: "I have no hope, no future. I lost everything in the offensive. I was in the corner with my children just watching. I was screaming and crying. I saw everything, the blood and the brains. There was smoke everywhere. I saw my brother-in-law falling down, and my mother-in-law. I realized that my three brothers-in-law and my mother-in-law were dead....I was injured in the chest and couldn't move....I was bleeding and five months pregnant." Soldiers entered Ateya Al-Samouni's home forcibly, shooting him in cold blood. Mona Al-Samouni saw her parents shot to death. Others witnessed similar trauma. Survivors suffer from depression and nightmares. They're also impoverished. The Halima family's experience was similar, losing eight members, including six children. Seven others were injured, including four children. Israel killed the entire Al-Daia family, destroying its residence, then blaming the tragedy on an operational error when, in fact, it deliberately targets non-military sites, including homes, schools, hospitals, universities, mosques, historic sites, and many others unrelated to military necessity. As a result, most Cast Lead casualties were civilians. It was no accident. It's now up to Israel's High Court to provide redress, though no amount will restore lost lives or remove permanent scars.

60 dead in car bomb blast at Afghan hospital

60 dead in car bomb blast at Afghan hospital

Press Association

June 25, 2011 The death toll from a car bombing outside a medical clinic in eastern Afghanistan has risen to at least 60, authorities said. The Afghan health ministry said 120 people also were wounded in the blast in the Azra district of Logar province, 25 miles east of Kabul. Din Mohammad Darwesh, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said the blast hit a hospital in the Azra district of Logar province. Afghan officials said they were planning a helicopter trip to the remote area to help dig victims out of the rubble and transport them to better medical facilities. Meanwhile, authorities said at least 10 people, including a police officer, were killed when a bicycle rigged with explosives blew up in a bazaar in northern Afghanistan yesterday. The Afghan Interior Ministry said the blast struck the bazaar in the Khanabad district of Kunduz province. The ministry said in a statement today that 24 other people were injured in the attack, including five women and a policeman. A sport utility vehicle packed with explosives blew up outside the clinic, levelling the 10-bed medical centre, Afghan authorities said. The massive blast in the mountainous district also wounded at least 120, the Afghan Health Ministry said. Dr Mohammad Zaref Nayebkhail, the provincial health director, said the clinic guards tried to prevent the bomber from driving into the compound. "The driver didn't stop and he entered the compound and reached the main building of the health centre, where the truck detonated," Dr Nayebkhail said. The force of the blast caused the building housing the clinic to collapse, trapping at least 15 people underneath the rubble. "Right now, local people are helping to dig out bodies or wounded people from the ruined buildings," he said. Dr Nayebkhail said the clinic had recently been expanded to meet the health needs of the far-flung district's population. An emergency response team of nurses, doctors and other provincial officials was to fly by helicopter to the area to help search for survivors in the rubble of the remote clinic, he said. Din Mohammad Darwesh, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said 25 people were killed and more than 40 wounded in the blast. It was not possible immediately to reconcile the difference, but differing casualty figures are common immediately following such an attack. The Taliban denied responsibility for the bombing. Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the movement, told The Associated Press in a phone interview said that "this attack was not done by our fighters". Late yesterday, another blast - this one caused by a bicycle rigged with explosives - ripped through a bazaar in the Khanabad district of Kunduz province in northern Afghanistan, killing at least 10 people, including a police officer. At least 24 people were wounded in the attack, according to an interior ministry statement. Also, Nato said an alliance service member was killed in an insurgent attack in eastern Afghanistan today. Nato did not release any other details about the death. The death brings to 47 the number of Nato service members killed in June and more than 200 killed this year.

Among tear gas and injuries, Bil’in celebrates victory

Among tear gas and injuries, Bil’in celebrates victory

Noam Sheizaf

June 25, 2011 Hundreds gathered in the West bank village to witness the removal of the Separation Wall after more than six years of protest, but the IDF was in vindictive mood Protesters march from Bil'in to the wall, June 24 2011 (photo: Oren Ziv/activestills) Bil’in, West Bank – It was a hot Friday in Bil’in – one of those early summer days here that remind you what to expect come August. The crowd at the village’s center was unusually large: The weekly march to the fence—a protest which made this village an international symbol of unarmed resistance—was to take the form of a celebration, after the Israeli army has began moving the infamous barrier that separated Bil’in’s people from their land. Some context: Instead of having its separation wall on the Green Line—the internationally-recognized border until 1967—Israel decided to have it run deep into the Palestinian territory, cutting through villages and neighborhoods, separating farmers from their lands and families from their loved ones, and most important, annexing to Israel lands which had excellent market value, for their proximity to the Israeli cities along the Mediterranean coastline. Under the pretext of "security concerns," communities like Bil’in, Nil’in and Budrus saw their fields being taken away, olive trees uprooted, and valuable land annexed to nearby settlements. Palestinian residents of these villages made two important choices: To fight for their lands—the source of most of their livelihood–and in doing so, to use popular, unarmed resistance. It wasn’t something new for Palestinians–general strikes and mass protests were common in the years leading to the first Intifada–only that this time, the Palestinian farmers weren’t alone: Almost from the beginning of the protest against the security barrier they were joined by international and Israeli activists. You can read about the role these activists played in the struggle, and the effect it had on the Israeli society in this piece Joseph Dana and I wrote for The Nation a few months ago. Every week, and sometimes every day, Palestinians and activists would march to site of the planned wall, confront the army and try to reach the lost lands. Some tied themselves to the bulldozers, while others sat on the road in front of it for hours. In places where the work was completed, the protesters tried to make it to the wall or the fence, occasionally crossing or cutting it. They were met with beating, tear gas, arrests and even live bullets. A young Palestinian is seen injured during a protest against the wall in Bilin, April 2004 (photo: Anne Paq/Activestills) Around the time the protest began, the people of Bil’in filed a petition to the Israeli high court, demanding the barrier be removed and their land returned to them. It was not an easy decision on their part: Petitioning to court is seen as recognition of the Israeli occupation and the authority of its institutions over the lives of Palestinians in the West Bank, who have no civil rights or representation in those institutions. But the need to get even some of the land back overcame this argument. The Israeli Supreme Court is a relatively liberal institution, but at the same time, it is extremely hostile to Palestinians – contrary to its public image, the court rarely rules against settlements or the army, and in most cases it wouldn’t even hear Palestinian petitioners. This time, however, even the Israeli court couldn’t ignore the obvious attempt to rob Bil’in’s people of their property. In a landmark verdict against the army and the defense ministry, the court ruled that the land was taken from Bil’in not to increase security, but to make way for the nearby mega-settlement Modi’in Ilit. It ordered a new barrier to be constructed in a route that would have some of the land returned to the people of Bil’in. The court didn’t order the removal of Modi’in Ilit settlement, or the return of the land already built upon. It never does. What happened next was even more shameful: the army didn’t carry out the verdict. Months and years passed, and the barrier–part fence, part wall—wasn’t moved. Only after an escalation of the demonstrations and a threat of contempt of court on behalf of the defense establishment, did the work on the new barrier begin. A few days ago, after more than six years of struggle, the removal of the old security barrier near Bil’in began. the new barrier, already seen in the hills surrounding the village, will be a concrete wall. All these years, the protest in Bil’in continued. Every Friday, dozens of Bil’in residents marched in the direction of their lost lands. Occasionally, some kids hurled stones at the soldiers, but most of the time the protest was peaceful and creative. Yet it was met with brutal oppression: Hundreds of people were injured. Two – a brother and a sister – killed. Warning – graphic images]. Dozens of Palestinians, many of them minors, were arrested and held without trial for months in military prison. At nights, the army raided the village’s homes (as seen in the video above, one of many), searching for suspects in "incitement" offenses, i.e. organizing protest. One of these organizers, Abdallah Abu Rahmah, was tried for one year in military prison. When he finished his term, rather than releasing him, the army simply kept Abu Rahmah in prison, and meanwhile appealed the sentence. While serving his time, Abdallah met in prison his cousin, Adeeb, who was also arrested, tried and imprisoned. 99.8 percent of Palestinians’ trials end in conviction. Watch this emotional outburst by Adeeb in front of the soldiers in one of the protests: Both Adeeb and Abdallah remained men of peace. Like the rest of the people of Bil’in, they didn’t let their persecution change them. During the worse days of the struggle, they kept declaring that they are fighting the army and the occupation, not Israelis or Jews. When Jawaher Abu Rahma died from IDF tear gas, her family and friends invited the Israeli activists to her funeral. Here are some things Abdallah Abu Rahmah wrote in a public letter from Ofer military prison.. It’s more than worth reading. I have been accused of inciting violence: this charge is also puzzling. If the check points, closures, ongoing land theft, wall and settlements, night raids into our homes and violent oppression of our protests does not incite violence, what does? Despite the occupations constant and intense incitement to violence in Bil’in, we have chosen another way. We have chosen to protest nonviolently together with Israeli and International supporters. We have chosen to carry a message of hope and real partnership between Palestinians and Israelis in the face of oppression and injustice. . Tear gas, shot by the army, inside a bulldozer driven by a Palestinian protester, during the weekly protest against the Israeli wall in the West Bank village of Bilin, June 24, 2011 (photo: Oren Ziv/ Activestills.org) Politicians love to co-op success, so Bil’in saw visits from Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad and Israeli Palestinian MK Muhamad Barakeh prior to yesterday’s festive protest. There were around 40 Israelis present, and many international activists. A few hundred Palestinians led the march. A pickup truck with large speakers played music. At the village’s edge, a bulldozer joined the convoy—the people of Bil’in wanted to take part in dismantling the fence that had become the symbol of their misfortunes, and their lack of freedom. The army had other plans. When the bulldozer approached the old fence, dozens of tear gas canisters were shot simultaneously at the crowd. Live fire was used to stop the bulldozer. A teargas grenade penetrated the driver’s cockpit. He barely made it out alive out. The rest of the crowd—unarmed and not threatening anyone—was sprayed with "skunk," a stinking liquid, one of the most humiliating and dehumanizing crowd control weapons there is (and naturally, an Israeli invention). A few brave Palestinians in storm suits were trying to collect samples of the awful liquid (to be analyzed later, I was told), before collapsing from the effect of the smell and the gas. It all happened so fast that many members of the media didn’t have time to put on their gas masks and started chocking themselves. A protester, injured from tear gas, lies on the ground during the weekly protest against the Israeli wall in the West Bank village of Bilin, June 24, 2011 (photo: Oren Ziv/ Activestills.org) Standing a couple of hundred meters back, I couldn’t open my eyes and could feel my throat burn. I figure the army shot around 60 or 70 canisters at the protesters. As we walked back to the village, everyone around me was coughing and choking. Yet the spirit was high. The unbelievable violence – aimed against unarmed people, for the defense of a fence that is already been taken down (the new barrier is up and ready for a long time now), showed how scared and confused the army is, how lost it is because of the immoral and self-destructive mission it carries out. In the next few days, the army will continue to dismantle the fence it so vigorously protected yesterday. The people of Bil’in might continue the weekly demonstration. Even with the removal of the old barrier and the construction of a new one, much of their land won’t be returned to them. The simple fact is that as long as the occupation goes on, the Palestinians have every right to resist it. Israeli army begins to remove parts of the separation barrier, Bil'in, June 2011 (photo: Oren Ziv/activestills.org) Whether they chose to do so, or prefer to heal their community from the long struggle – it’s up to them. But the victory of Bil’in’s people—however partial or limited it was—has taught us a valuable lesson: Israel will have to either give up the occupation or to considerably escalate its methods for maintaining it, at a growing cost. Either way, the occupation’s days are numbered. A protester in Bil'in, October 2009 (Photo: Keren Manor/Activestills.org)

The Financial Collapse Of Greece-The Canary In The Coal Mine For The Global Economy?

The Financial Collapse Of Greece-The Canary In The Coal Mine For The Global Economy?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-financial-collapse-of-greece-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine-for-the-global-economy

The rest of the world needs to sit up and take notice of what is going on in Greece right now.  This is what can happen when you allow government debt to spiral out of control.  Once it becomes clear that you can't pay your debts, a financial collapse can happen very suddenly and you start losing your sovereignty to those that you must turn to for financial help.  So is the financial collapse of Greece the "canary in the coal mine"* for the global economy?  EU finance ministers have given the Greek government two weeks from Monday to approve another round of brutal austerity measures.  If the austerity measures are not approved, Greece will not receive the next bailout installment of 12 billion euros.  If that happens, the whole globe better buckle up because it is going to get crazy.

July 3rd is the deadline.  Basically the EU has put a gun to the head of the Greek government.  Without this bailout money, Greece will default and economic hell will break loose all across the country.

It is important to keep in mind that this is just the first Greek bailout that we are talking about.  Last year, the EU and the IMF agreed to provide the Greek government with a 110 billion euro bailout. The current 12 billion euro installment is part of that package.

Sadly, it has become apparent that the first bailout is not going to be nearly enough for Greece.  A second bailout, which will be the same size or even larger, is already being discussed.  This is going to put the Greek people even more under the heel of the money powers in Europe.

Keep in mind that all of these "bailouts" are just more loans.  There is no way that the Greeks are ever going to be able to repay all of this money.

But this is what happens when a nation lets debt get out of control.  For years and years it can seem like all of that debt does not have any consequences, but then the day of reckoning comes and it is a complete and total nightmare.

In order to get the next installment of 12 billion euros, European finance ministers are insisting that the Greek Parliament approves a package of austerity measures that will be worth approximately 28 billion euros.

At this point, it is uncertain whether those austerity measures will pass.

However, the pressure on the Greek government to get them pushed through is immense.

These austerity measures include tax increases, budget cuts and a "large-scale privatization program".

This is often what happens to third world nations that cannot pay their debts.  Organizations such as the IMF or the World Bank will come in and insist that they tax their people more, cut back on their spending and sell some of their public assets to big corporations.

As we can see from the wild protests that have been taking place in Greece, a significant percentage of the Greek population is not happy with all of these austerity measures.

Unfortunately, the EU and the IMF are able to put a lot more pressure on the Greek government than the Greek people are.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou recently gave the following warning to the Greek people about what could happen if this debt crisis ends badly....

The consequences of a violent bankruptcy or exit from the euro would be immediately catastrophic for households, the banks, and the country's credibility.

Not only would a Greek default be a total disaster for Greece, it would potentially be a total disaster for the entire global financial system.

Sung Won Sohn, an economics professor at California State University, recently made the following statement about the seriousness of the debt crisis in Europe....

"The European debt crisis has the potential to have as big an impact as the subprime mortgage crisis did in the United States"

So will these bailouts solve the problem?

No, giving Greece more loans is only going to kick the can down the road for a little while longer.

The truth is that Greece is bankrupt.  Unless huge amounts of Greek debt are forgiven, Greece is going to default sooner or later.

When confidence in the finances of a nation is lost, borrowing costs can go up very quickly.  Today, the yield on two year Greek bonds is up to 28.6%.

Anyone that has ever been late on paying their credit cards knows how painful an interest rate like that can be.

So why doesn't Greece just slash government spending to the bone and get their financial house in order?

Well, it is not that easy.  Harsh austerity measures have already been implemented.  As a result, unemployment is rampant and there is rioting in the streets.

The truth is that, as an article in The Guardian recently explained, austerity has taken a brutal toll on the Greek economy....

A year of wage and pension cuts, benefit losses and tax increases has taken its toll: almost a quarter of the population now live below the poverty line, unemployment is at a record 16% and, as the economy contracts for a third year, economists estimate that about 100,000 businesses have closed.

As the economy crumbles, Greece has descended into an almost permanent state of civil unrest.

The fact that the EU and the IMF want even more austerity measures has sparked some wild rioting In Greece in recent days.  You can see video of the stunning violence going on in Greece right here.

Not all protesters are being violent.  Some of them are showing their displeasure in non-violent ways.  For example, workers for Greece's state-owned electric utility are staging 48 hours of rolling strikes that are designed to create blackouts over large areas.

The frightening thing is that Greece is not alone.  Ireland has already received a bailout and they are probably going to need another one at some point.

Portugal is a financial basket case and they are probably next in line for a bailout.

The employment situation in Spain is absolutely nightmarish.  Spain will probably be able to squeak by without a bailout if the global economy stays stable, but if the dominoes start to fall Spain could be in a massive amount of trouble very quickly.

Not that many people are talking about Italy, but the truth is that Italy has a huge debt problem.  On Friday, Moody's warned that it may downgrade Italy's Aa2 debt rating at some point within the next 90 days.

Belgium and France also have very substantial debt problems.  They probably would not be the first dominoes to fall, but if the "contagion" starts to spread they could certainly have massive problems.

The truth is that Europe's entire financial system is extremely vulnerable right now.  Big banks all over Europe (and especially in Germany) are leveraged to the hilt.  All it would take to topple many of them is a stiff breeze.

When Lehman Brothers collapsed, it was leveraged 31 to 1.

Today, German banks are leveraged 32 to 1.

German banks are also holding a massive amount of Greek debt.

That is why there is so much fear that the crisis in Greece could spread across the rest of Europe and start toppling dominoes.

The sovereign debt crisis in Europe did not happen overnight and it is going to be with us for a long, long time even if the global economy remains relatively stable.

At the moment, the best that officials in Europe can seem to come up with is to put off the pain for another day.  Pimco's Mohamed El-Erian told CNBC the following on Monday....

"This problem is not going to go away. It's going to weigh on markets here and we're going to see the same set of headlines over and over again. We simply cannot continue to kick the can down the road, because we're coming to the end of the road in Greece."

So if Europe starts having major problems will the U.S. step in and help?

Yes, if the crisis in Europe gets worse, the Federal Reserve will probably step in just like they did back in 2008.

But the U.S. is rapidly approaching a day of reckoning like the one that Greece is going through.  The U.S. government has piled up the biggest mountain of debt in the history of the world and faith in the U.S. dollar is dying.

The economic crisis in the United States gets worse with each passing year.  Yes, the Federal Reserve can print up stacks of money and send it over to Europe, but that isn't going to solve anything in the long run.  The truth is that the U.S. is not even going to be able to keep itself from drowning.

The world financial system is far more vulnerable today than it was back in 2008.  The next wave of the financial collapse is going to hit at some point, and when it does it is going to probably be even more painful than the last wave.

Our world is becoming an incredibly unstable place.
--------------
*
Life for an actual canary in a coal mine could be described in three words: short but meaningful. Early coal mines did not feature ventilation systems, so miners would routinely bring a caged canary into new coal seams. Canaries are especially sensitive to methane and carbon monoxide, which made them ideal for detecting any dangerous gas build-ups. As long as the bird kept singing, the miners knew their air supply was safe. A dead canary signaled an immediate evacuation.
Even as gas detection technology improved, some mining companies still relied on the "canary in a coal mine" method well into the 20th century. Other animals were used occasionally, but only the canary had the ability to detect small concentrations of gas and react instinctively.
Today, the practice of using a bird to test the air supply has become part of coal mining lore, but the ideology behind it has become a popular expression. The phrase living like a canary in a coal mine often refers to serving as a warning to others. The actual canary had little control over its fate, but it continued to sing anyway. In one sense, living this way indicates a willingness to experience life's dangers without compromise.
In another sense, many business and political analysts use the term canary in a coal mine to describe a harbinger of the future. A melting glacier in Alaska, for example, may be described as a canary in a coal mine for global warming. One small event in an isolated area may not seem especially noteworthy, but it may offer the first tangible warning of a larger problem developing. In a political sense, a country's delegation abruptly leaving a meeting could be described as a canary in a coal mine for future negotiations.
Some large corporations also use a "canary in a coal mine" strategy for future growth or reduction. A small company may be used to test the waters for a new product line, for instance. Even if the company only experiences modest profits or losses, the parent corporation can evaluate the feasibility of the product without risking a large investment. By carefully observing any early indicators, industries can avoid major failures down the road or benefit from a jump on the competition.

Israel’s Jewish Exodus

Israel’s Jewish Exodus

Hard-line Israelis reject the idea of reasonable compromises for peace, arguing that any significant concessions to Palestinian sovereignty would threaten Israel’s security or the Zionist cause, but Lawrence Davidson notes that demographic trends, including a growing Jewish exodus from Israel, could have far worse consequences.

By Lawrence Davidson

June 15, 2011

If the historical goal of the state of Israel is to provide the world’s Jews a secure national home, a place of refuge in a world of real or potential anti-Semitism, it seems to have failed.

It has failed not because this writer says so, but because an increasing number of its own Jewish citizens say so.

There have been studies originating both in Israel and abroad that show “as many as half of the Jews living in Israel will consider leaving … if in the next few years the current political and social trends continue.” This finding is in addition to the fact that yerida, or emigration out of Israel, has long been running at higher numbers than aliyah, or immigration into the country.

The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics states that as of 2005, 650,000 Israelis have left the country for over one year and not returned. The great majority of these were Jews. In addition, polls show that at least 60 percent and as high as 80 percent of remaining Israeli Jews “sympathize with those who leave the country.”

Among those who stay, there is the conviction that the safe thing is to have a second passport issued by the United States or a European country.

As the Haaretz reporter Gideon Levy puts it, “if our forefathers dreamt of an Israeli passport, there are those among us who are now dreaming of a foreign passport.”

At present, the United States has issued over half a million passports to Israelis and a quarter million additional applications are pending. Germany runs second with 100,000 passports given to Israeli Jews and 7,000 new ones issued yearly.

Why the scramble for foreign passports? Well, according to Levy, “the excuses are strange and diverse, but at the base of them all are unease and anxiety, both personal and national. The foreign passport has become an insurance policy against a rainy day. It turns out there are more and more Israelis who are thinking that day may eventually come.”

There are two prevailing explanations for this phenomenon. The first is that it reflects the conviction that the safe haven that Zionism was suppose to create is not safe at all.

This is the position taken by the University of Pennsylvania political scientist Ian Lustick, who said:

“The danger for the Jewish state is that, given the choice between convincing Middle Easterners that Israel can be a good neighbor and leaving the neighborhood, more and more Israelis are attracted to the latter. … The logically extreme expression of escape is, of course, emigration.”

Lustick is supported by Stephen Walt, professor of international relations at Harvard University who suggests that “the Zionist ideal is losing hold within Israel itself” because the Israeli government “endlessly delays the [peace] process.”

The second explanation is that suggested by the editors of the Jerusalem Post who cite interviews with “hundreds of Israeli expats in North America.” Their conclusion is that when Israelis go abroad and stay, it is due to economic, and not political or security reasons.

Actually, the explanation offered by the Jerusalem Post is suspect. If the desire to emigrate is motivated mainly by economics, the demand for second passports would not be necessary.

Israelis travel freely in the United States and the economic interconnections between the two countries make it relatively easy for Israeli Jews to get “green cards” to stay and work. This is probably true in some other parts of the West as well, as long as you are not tagged as a war criminal.

However, when you combine the growth in emigration with the desire for foreign passports you get a different sort of message. Planning to possibly emigrate on a foreign passport implies that there are a number of Israelis who foresee the demise of the state.

In other words, they foresee a day when the Israeli passport will be worthless. Given the fact that emigration is something of an ideological sin for Zionists, it is no surprise that some of the emigrants tell pollsters their motivation is economic. It sounds better.

But in the end it hardly matters, leaving for whatever reason is the equivalent of voting with your feet.

Not Without Its Costs

This trend is no doubt encouraging to the Palestinians and their supporters, but it is not without its costs.

If we assume no change and project this development into the future, say 20 years or so, what will Jewish Israel look like?

First, the ratio of Jews to Israeli Arabs within the Green Line will certainly shrink. That is, the Arab population, which already has a higher birth rate than the Jewish one, will grow all the more rapidly, making up an increasing percentage of the population. Factor in the Occupied Territories and there will be more Palestinians than Jews.

One can, of course, say that this is as it should be. The notion that Palestine must have a Jewish majority has always been a perverse one. Nonetheless, as a consequence of the changing demographics, it is almost certain that Palestinian-Jewish Israeli relations, which have never been good, will get rapidly and proportionately worse.

Why so? The second point answers this question.

Second, of the Jews who remain in Israel, an increasing percentage will be ideological fanatics. Take a look at the religiously motivated, armed and aggressive settlers on the West Bank and then imagine them, along with those in black hats and pa’ot (unshaven sideburns), as making up 60 or 70 percent of the Jewish population.

That is a “Masada” majority who will be willing to “defend” their way of life in all of Palestine not due to patriotic propaganda, but out of real racial conviction and religious zeal.

Third, the other remaining Jews, the ones not necessarily fanatical, will be mostly docile. These are the ones who cannot get the foreign passports, who have no relatives abroad to vouch for them, and not enough resources to bankroll a new start even if they could find another place to go.

They will follow what orders they are given by their increasingly fanatical government for the sake of their jobs, their pensions, to put bread on the table, because their peers are doing so, etc.

Fourth, ideological fanatics confronting their worst nightmare, in this case the “demographic holocaust,” are not going to be devotees of democracy and human rights. Israel’s government will become more and more dictatorial.

We can already see this in today’s Israel where the Knesset, presently controlled by ideological parties, is in the process of passing anti-democratic laws. This is may be just the beginning.

In a population shorn of its middle class, there will be no real political opposition and the right-wing parties will become ever more aggressive against what they regard as anti-Zionist elements within the Jewish population.

Organizations such as B’tselem, Gush Shalom, Rabbis for Human Rights, the Committee Against Home Demolitions, and the like will be shut down. Supporters of these groups will become silent or go into exile, as will the small number of Israeli academics who now stand against government policy.

If they do not, they will likely end up in jail.

This, of course, is just conjecture. However, it is reasonable conjecture. And so we really ought to think about this.

In today’s Israel you can still tell the difference between those Jewish Israelis who want a just and humane settlement with the Palestinians and those who do not. If things keep going as they are now there will come a time when it will be much harder to make that distinction.

In other words, when the everyday man or woman just looking for economic or physical safety, just looking for a better place to raise the kids, packs up and leaves, the “neutral zone” of everyday life vanishes with them.

Society becomes a place where, as George W. Bush once put it, you’re with us or against us. And, if to be with us means to be a racist, a supporter of the God-chosen people and an active enemy of the inferior and doomed Amalekites, then that is how everyone still in residence will behave.

When and if that time comes, how are we on the outside, and especially those of us who are Jews, going to react to an Israel where those who seek a just peace are either silenced, imprisoned or exiled?

What do you do with a society where everyone must support injustice or be themselves condemned as traitors or criminals? Under these circumstances how do you tell the difference between the innocent and the guilty?

This is not a potential scenario unique to Israel’s situation. It has been played out before. The difference is that before the Jews were among the victims and not victimizers.

This is what happens when any group gives itself over to a doctrine, be it racial, religious or political, which destroys all notions of common humanity. That is what the prevailing ideology of Israel has done.

And, if history remains consistent, as Zionism “purifies” itself, gets rid of all those who would question it or compromise it, it must take its remaining adherents into the realm of unadorned horror. We should all be afraid of this. Very afraid.

Lawrence Davidson is a history professor at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He is the author of Foreign Policy Inc.: Privatizing America’s National Interest; America’s Palestine: Popular and Offical Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood; and Islamic Fundamentalism.

Black Hole Swallowing a Star

---

June 16, 2011

Unusual Celestial Event Was Black Hole Swallowing a Star

By SINDYA N. BHANOO

In what sounds like a one of a kind murder mystery, a dying star has fallen into a black hole and been ripped apart.
The event, which was observed on March 28, was originally thought to be a gamma ray burst from a collapsing star but researchers suspected something more sinister was at play. Their findings appear in a pair of papers published online by the journal Science.
Traditional gamma ray bursts involve a deluge of high-energy photons bursting through the air. They generally result from the explosion of a star or when two objects collide in space.
In this case the burst was unusually long, said Joshua Bloom, an associate professor of astronomy at Berkeley and the first author of one of the studies.
The burst also came from the center of a galaxy four billion light years away. Most galaxies are thought to have black holes at their center, a clue that tipped off Dr. Bloom and his colleagues.
“Astronomers are not so different from real estate agents — location, location, location,” he said. “This picture had emerged for me and I saw that this was a black hole swallowing up a star.”
He and his colleagues used data gathered by the Swift Gamma Burst Mission, the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Observatory to confirm their theory.
They also looked at historical data to look for similar events involving the same black hole, but they found no other occurrences.
“This is a singular event in the history of mankind,” Dr. Bloom said. “This black hole was otherwise sitting dormant, a star got too close, its gas got ripped apart and in doing so some of it got spit up.”
There are still a number of unanswered questions that the researchers are exploring, like how large the star was in comparison to the sun, how close it got to the black hole and role of the hole’s spin in the event.

June 21, 2011
	University of Warwick/Mark Garlick Recommend Artist's impression of the initial stages of disruption of a star as it flies close to the central black hole of a distant galaxy. The star is tidally shredded, and begins to fall into the hole.
June 21, 2011     University of Warwick/Mark Garlick Recommend Artist's impression of the end result of disruption of a star by a massive black hole. The star is disrupted into a disc around the star, which then falls into the hole, creating powerful jets. For this event we are looking down one of these jets.