"Power to the People"
The Lost John Lennon Interview
By TARIQ ALI
and ROBIN BLACKBURN
Editors' Note: It was twenty-five years ago today that John Lennon was murdered outside the Dakota building on Central Park West in New York City. We doubt many CounterPunchers have read the following 1971 interview with Lennon done by CounterPunchers Tariq Ali and Robin Blackburn. It's a lot more interesting that the interminable Q and A with Lennon done by Rolling Stone's Jann Wenner. Tariq and Robin allowed Lennon to talk and spurred him on when he showed signs of flagging. Lennon recounts about how he and George Harrison bucked their handlers and went on record against the Vietnam War, discusses class politics in an engaging manner, defends country and western music and the blues, suggests Dylan's best songs stem from revolutionary Irish and Scottish ballads and dissects his three versions of "Revolution". The interview ran in The Red Mole, a Trotskyist sheet put out by the British arm of the Fourth International. As you'll see, those were different days. The interview is included in Tariq Ali's Streetfighting Years, recently published by Verso. AC / JSC
Tariq Ali: Your latest record and your recent public statements, especially the interviews in Rolling Stone magazine, suggest that your views are becoming increasingly radical and political. When did this start to happen?
John Lennon: I've always been politically minded, you know, and against the status quo. It's pretty basic when you're brought up, like I was, to hate and fear the police as a natural enemy and to despise the army as something that takes everybody away and leaves them dead somewhere.
I mean, it's just a basic working class thing, though it begins to wear off when you get older, get a family and get swallowed up in the system.
In my case I've never not been political, though religion tended to overshadow it in my acid days; that would be around '65 or '66. And that religion was directly the result of all that superstar shit--religion was an outlet for my repression. I thought, 'Well, there's something else to life, isn't there? This isn't it, surely?'
But I was always political in a way, you know. In the two books I wrote, even though they were written in a sort of Joycean gobbledegook, there's many knocks at religion and there is a play about a worker and a capitalist. I've been satirising the system since my childhood. I used to write magazines in school and hand them around.
I was very conscious of class, they would say with a chip on my shoulder, because I knew what happened to me and I knew about the class repression coming down on us--it was a fucking fact but in the hurricane Beatle world it got left out, I got farther away from reality for a time.
TA: What did you think was the reason for the success of your sort of music?
JL: Well, at the time it was thought that the workers had broken through, but I realise in retrospect that it's the same phoney deal they gave the blacks, it was just like they allowed blacks to be runners or boxers or entertainers. That's the choice they allow you--now the outlet is being a pop star, which is really what I'm saying on the album in 'Working class hero'. As I told Rolling Stone, it's the same people who have the power, the class system didn't change one little bit.
Of course, there are a lot of people walking around with long hair now and some trendy middle class kids in pretty clothes. But nothing changed except that we all dressed up a bit, leaving the same bastards running everything.
Robin Blackburn: Of course, class is something the American rock groups haven't tackled yet.
JL: Because they're all middle class and bourgeois and they don't want to show it. They're scared of the workers, actually, because the workers seem mainly right-wing in America, clinging on to their goods. But if these middle class groups realise what's happening, and what the class system has done, it's up to them to repatriate the people and to get out of all that bourgeois shit.
TA: When did you start breaking out of the role imposed on you as a Beatle?
JL: Even during the Beatle heyday I tried to go against it, so did George. We went to America a few times and Epstein always tried to waffle on at us about saying nothing about Vietnam. So there came a time when George and I said 'Listen, when they ask next time, we're going to say we don't like that war and we think they should get right out.' That's what we did. At that time this was a pretty radical thing to do, especially for the 'Fab Four'. It was the first opportunity I personally took to wave the flag a bit.
But you've got to remember that I'd always felt repressed. We were all so pressurised that there was hardly any chance of expressing ourselves, especially working at that rate, touring continually and always kept in a cocoon of myths and dreams. It's pretty hard when you are Caesar and everyone is saying how wonderful you are and they are giving you all the goodies and the girls, it's pretty hard to break out of that, to say 'Well, I don't want to be king, I want to be real.' So in its way the second political thing I did was to say 'The Beatles are bigger than Jesus.' That really broke the scene, I nearly got shot in America for that. It was a big trauma for all the kids that were following us. Up to then there was this unspoken policy of not answering delicate questions, though I always read the papers, you know, the political bits.
The continual awareness of what was going on made me feel ashamed I wasn't saying anything. I burst out because I could no longer play that game any more, it was just too much for me. Of course, going to America increased the build up on me, especially as the war was going on there. In a way we'd turned out to be a Trojan horse. The 'Fab Four' moved right to the top and then sang about drugs and sex and then I got into more and more heavy stuff and that's when they started dropping us.
RB: Wasn't there a double charge to what you were doing right from the beginning?
Yoko Ono: You were always very direct.
JL: Yes, well, the first thing we did was to proclaim our Liverpoolness to the world, and say 'It's all right to come from Liverpool and talk like this'. Before, anybody from Liverpool who made it, like Ted Ray, Tommy Handley, Arthur Askey, had to lose their accent to get on the BBC. They were only comedians but that's what came out of Liverpool before us. We refused to play that game. After The Beatles came on the scene everyone started putting on a Liverpudlian accent.
TA: In a way you were even thinking about politics when you seemed to be knocking revolution?
JL: Ah, sure, 'Revolution' . There were two versions of that song but the underground left only picked up on the one that said 'count me out'. The original version which ends up on the LP said 'count me in' too; I put in both because I wasn't sure. There was a third version that was just abstract, musique concrete, kind of loops and that, people screaming. I thought I was painting in sound a picture of revolution--but I made a mistake, you know. The mistake was that it was anti-revolution.
On the version released as a single I said 'when you talk about destruction you can count me out'. I didn't want to get killed. I didn't really know that much about the Maoists, but I just knew that they seemed to be so few and yet they painted themselves green and stood in front of the police waiting to get picked off. I just thought it was unsubtle, you know. I thought the original Communist revolutionaries coordinated themselves a bit better and didn't go around shouting about it. That was how I felt--I was really asking a question. As someone from the working class I was always interested in Russia and China and everything that related to the working class, even though I was playing the capitalist game.
At one time I was so much involved in the religious bullshit that I used to go around calling myself a Christian Communist, but as Janov says, religion is legalised madness. It was therapy that stripped away all that and made me feel my own pain.
RB: This analyst you went to, what's his name. ..
JL: Janov ...
RB: His ideas seem to have something in common with Laing in that he doesn't want to reconcile people to their misery, to adjust them to the world but rather to make them face up to its causes?
JL: Well, his thing is to feel the pain that's accumulated inside you ever since your childhood. I had to do it to really kill off all the religious myths. In the therapy you really feel every painful moment of your life--it's excruciating, you are forced to realise that your pain, the kind that makes you wake up afraid with your heart pounding, is really yours and not the result of somebody up in the sky. It's the result of your parents and your environment.
As I realised this it all started to fall into place. This therapy forced me to have done with all the God shit. All of us growing up have come to terms with too much pain. Although we repress it, it's still there. The worst pain is that of not being wanted, of realising your parents do not need you in the way you need them.
When I was a child I experienced moments of not wanting to see the ugliness, not wanting to see not being wanted. This lack of love went into my eyes and into my mind. Janov doesn't just talk to you about this but makes you feel it--once you've allowed yourself to feel again, you do most of the work yourself.
When you wake up and your heart is going like the clappers or your back feels strained, or you develop some other hang-up, you should let your mind go to the pain and the pain itself will regurgitate the memory which originally caused you to suppress it in your body. In this way the pain goes to the right channel instead of being repressed again, as it is if you take a pill or a bath, saying 'Well, I'll get over it'. Most people channel their pain into God or masturbation or some dream of making it.
The therapy is like a very slow acid trip which happens naturally in your body. It is hard to talk about, you know, because--you feel 'I am pain' and it sounds sort of arbitrary, but pain to me now has a different meaning because of having physically felt all these extraordinary repressions. It was like taking gloves off, and feeling your own skin for the first time.
It's a bit of a drag to say so, but I don't think you can understand this unless you've gone through it--though I try to put some of it over on the album. But for me at any rate it was all part of dissolving the God trip or father-figure trip. Facing up to reality instead of always looking for some kind of heaven.
RB: Do you see the family in general as the source of these repressions?
JL: Mine is an extreme case, you know. My father and mother split and I never saw my father until I was 20, nor did I see much more of my mother. But Yoko had her parents there and it was the same....
YO: Perhaps one feels more pain when parents are there. It's like when you're hungry, you know, it's worse to get a symbol of a cheeseburger than no cheeseburger at all. It doesn't do you any good, you know. I often wish my mother had died so that at least I could get some people's sympathy. But there she was, a perfectly beautiful mother.
JL: And Yoko's family were middle-class Japanese but it's all the same repression. Though I think middle-class people have the biggest trauma if they have nice imagey parents, all smiling and dolled up. They are the ones who have the biggest struggle to say, 'Goodbye mummy, goodbye daddy'.
TA: What relation to your music has all this got?
JL: Art is only a way of expressing pain. I mean the reason Yoko does such far out stuff is that it's a far out kind of pain she went through.
RB: A lot of Beatle songs used to be about childhood...
JL: Yeah, that would mostly be me...
RB: Though they were very good there was always a missing element...
JL: That would be reality, that would be the missing element. Because I was never really wanted. The only reason I am a star is because of my repression. Nothing else would have driven me through all that if I was 'normal'...
YO: ... and happy ...
JL: The only reason I went for that goal is that I wanted to say: 'Now, mummy-daddy, will you love me?'
TA: But then you had success beyond most people's wildest dreams...
JL: Oh, Jesus Christ, it was a complete oppression. I mean we had to go through humiliation upon humiliation with the middle classes and showbiz and Lord Mayors and all that. They were so condescending and stupid. Everybody trying to use us. It was a special humiliation for me because I could never keep my mouth shut and I'd always have to be drunk or pilled to counteract this pressure. It was really hell ...
YO: It was depriving him of any real experience, you know...
JL: It was very miserable. I mean apart from the first flush of making it--the thrill of the first number one record, the first trip to America. At first we had some sort of objective like being as big as Elvis--moving forward was the great thing, but actually attaining it was the big let-down. I found I was having continually to please the sort of people I'd always hated when I was a child. This began to bring me back to reality.
I began to realise that we are all oppressed which is why I would like to do something about it, though I'm not sure where my place is.
RB: Well, in any case, politics and culture are linked, aren't they? I mean, workers are repressed by culture not guns at the moment ...
JL: ... they're doped ...
RB: And the culture that's doping them is one the artist can make or break...
JL: That's what I'm trying to do on my albums and in these interviews. What I'm trying to do is to influence all the people I can influence. All those who are still under the dream and just put a big question mark in their mind. The acid dream is over, that is what I'm trying to tell them.
RB: Even in the past, you know, people would use Beatle songs and give them new words. 'Yellow submarine' , for instance, had a number of versions. One that strikers used to sing began 'We all live on bread and margarine' ; at LSE we had a version that began 'We all live in a Red LSE'.
JL: I like that. And I enjoyed it when football crowds in the early days would sing 'All together now'--that was another one. I was also pleased when the movement in America took up 'Give peace a chance' because I had written it with that in mind really. I hoped that instead of singing 'We shall overcome' from 1800 or something, they would have something contemporary. I felt an obligation even then to write a song that people would sing in the pub or on a demonstration. That is why I would like to compose songs for the revolution now ...
RB: We only have a few revolutionary songs and they were composed in the 19th century. Do you find anything in our musical traditions which could be used for revolutionary songs?
JL: When I started, rock and roll itself was the basic revolution to people of my age and situation. We needed something loud and clear to break through all the unfeeling and repression that had been coming down on us kids. We were a bit conscious to begin with of being imitation Americans. But we delved into the music and found that it was half white country and western and half black rhythm and blues. Most of the songs came from Europe and Africa and now they were coming back to us. Many of Dylan's best songs came from Scotland, Ireland or England. It was a sort of cultural exchange.
Though I must say the more interesting songs to me were the black ones because they were more simple. They sort of saidshake your arse, or your prick, which was an innovation really. And then there were the field songs mainly expressing the pain they were in. They couldn't express themselves intellectually so they had to say in a very few words what was happening to them. And then there was the city blues and a lot of that was about sex and fighting.
A lot of this was self-expression but only in the last few years have they expressed themselves completely with Black Power, like Edwin Starr making war records. Before that many black singers were still labouring under that problem of God; it was often 'God will save us'. But right through the blacks were singing directly and immediately about their pain and also about sex, which is why I like it.
RB: You say country and western music derived from European folk songs. Aren't these folk songs sometimes pretty dreadful stuff, all about losing and being defeated?
JL: As kids we were all opposed to folk songs because they were so middle-class. It was all college students with big scarfs and a pint of beer in their hands singing folk songs in what we call la-di-da voices-'I worked in a mine in New-cast-le' and all that shit. There were very few real folk singers you know, though I liked Dominic Behan a bit and there was some good stuff to be heard in Liverpool. Just occasionally you hear very old records on the radio or TV of real workers in Ireland or somewhere singing these songs and the power of them is fantastic.
But mostly folk music is people with fruity voices trying to keep alive something old and dead. It's all a bit boring, like ballet: a minority thing kept going by a minority group. Today's folk song is rock and roll. Although it happened to emanate from America, that's not really important in the end because we wrote our own music and that changed everything.
RB: Your album, Yoko, seems to fuse avant-garde modern music with rock. I'd like to put an idea to you I got from listening to it. You integrate everyday sounds, like that of a train, into a musical pattern. This seems to demand an aesthetic measure of everyday life, to insist that art should not be imprisoned in the museums and galleries, doesn't it?
YO: Exactly. I want to incite people to loosen their oppression by giving them something to work with, to build on. They shouldn't be frightened of creating themselves--that's why I make things very open, with things for people to do, like in my book [Grapefruit].
Because basically there are two types of people in the world: people who are confident because they know they have the ability to create, and then people who have been demoralised, who have no confidence in themselves because they have been told they have no creative ability, but must just take orders. The Establishment likes people who take no responsibility and cannot respect themselves.
RB: I suppose workers' control is about that...
JL: Haven't they tried out something like that in Yugoslavia; they are free of the Russians. I'd like to go there and see how it works.
TA: Well, they have; they did try to break with the Stalinist pattern. But instead of allowing uninhibited workers' control, they added a strong dose of political bureaucracy. It tended to smother the initiative of the workers and they also regulated the whole system by a market mechanism which bred new inequalities between one region and another.
JL: It seems that all revolutions end up with a personality cult--even the Chinese seem to need a father-figure. I expect this happens in Cuba too, with Che and Fidel. In Western-style Communism we would have to create an almost imaginary workers' image of themselves as the father-figure.
RB: That's a pretty cool idea--the Working Class becomes its own Hero. As long as it was not a new comforting illusion, as long as there was a real workers' power. If a capitalist or bureaucrat is running your life then you need to compensate with illusions.
YO: The people have got to trust in themselves.
TA: That's the vital point. The working class must be instilled with a feeling of confidence in itself. This can't be done just by propaganda--the workers must move, take over their own factories and tell the capitalists to bugger off. This is what began to happen in May 1968 in France...the workers began to feel their own strength.
JL: But the Communist Party wasn't up to that, was it?
RB: No, they weren't. With 10 million workers on strike they could have led one of those huge demonstrations that occurred in the centre of Paris into a massive occupation of all government buildings and installations, replacing de Gaulle with a new institution of popular power like the Commune or the original Soviets--that would have begun a real revolution but the French C.P. was scared of it. They preferred to deal at the top instead of encouraging the workers to take the initiative themselves...
JL: Great, but there's a problem about that here you know. All the revolutions have happened when a Fidel or Marx or Lenin or whatever, who were intellectuals, were able to get through to the workers. They got a good pocket of people together and the workers seemed to understand that they were in a repressed state. They haven't woken up yet here, they still believe that cars and tellies are the answer. You should get these left-wing students out to talk with the workers, you should get the school-kids involved with The Red Mole.
TA: You're quite right, we have been trying to do that and we should do more. This new Industrial Relations Bill the Government is trying to introduce is making more and more workers realise what is happening...
JL: I don't think that Bill can work. I don't think they can enforce it. I don't think the workers will co-operate with it. I thought the Wilson Government was a big let-down but this Heath lot are worse. The underground is being harrassed, the black militants can't even live in their own homes now, and they're selling more arms to the South Africans. Like Richard Neville said, there may be only an inch of difference between Wilson and Heath but it's in that inch that we live....
TA: I don't know about that; Labour brought in racialist immigration policies, supported the Vietnam war and were hoping to bring in new legislation against the unions.
RB: It may be true that we live in the Inch of difference between Labour and Conservative but so long as we do we'll be impotent and unable to change anything. If Heath is forcing us out of that inch maybe he's doing us a good turn without meaning to...
JL: Yes, I've thought about that, too. This putting us in a corner so we have to find out what is coming down on other people. I keep on reading the Morning Star [the Communist newspaper] to see if there's any hope, but it seems to be in the 19th century; it seems to be written for dropped-out, middle-aged liberals.
We should be trying to reach the young workers because that's when you're most idealistic and have least fear.
Somehow the revolutionaries must approach the workers because the workers won't approach them. But it's difficult to know where to start; we've all got a finger in the dam. The problem for me is that as I have become more real, I've grown away from most working-class people--you know what they like is Engelbert Humperdinck. It's the students who are buying us now, and that's the problem. Now The Beatles are four separate people, we don't have the impact we had when we were together...
RB: Now you're trying to swim against the stream of bourgeois society, which is much more difficult.
JL: Yes, they own all the newspapers and they control all distribution and promotion. When we came along there was only Decca, Philips and EMI who could really produce a record for you. You had to go through the whole bureaucracy to get into the recording studio. You were in such a humble position, you didn't have more than 12 hours to make a whole album, which is what we did in the early days.
Even now it's the same; if you're an unknown artist you're lucky to get an hour in a studio--it's a hierarchy and if you don't have hits, you don't get recorded again. And they control distribution. We tried to change that with Apple but in the end we were defeated. They still control everything. EMI killed our album Two Virgins because they didn't like it. With the last record they've censored the words of the songs printed on the record sleeve. Fucking ridiculous and hypocritical--they have to let me sing it but they don't dare let you read it. Insanity.
RB: Though you reach fewer people now, perhaps the effect can be more concentrated.
JL: Yes, I think that could be true. To begin with, working class people reacted against our openness about sex. They are frightened of nudity, they're repressed in that way as well as others. Perhaps they thought 'Paul is a good lad, he doesn't make trouble'.
Also when Yoko and I got married, we got terrible racialist letters--you know, warning me that she would slit my throat. Those mainly came from Army people living in Aldershot. Officers.
Now workers are more friendly to us, so perhaps it's changing. It seems to me that the students are now half-awake enough to try and wake up their brother workers. If you don't pass on your own awareness then it closes down again. That is why the basic need is for the students to get in with the workers and convince them that they are not talking gobbledegook. And of course it's difficult to know what the workers are really thinking because the capitalist press always only quotes mouthpieces like Vic Feather* anyway. [Ed. Note: Vic Feather 1908-76 was General Secretary of the TUC from 1969-73.]
So the only thing is to talk to them directly, especially the young workers. We've got to start with them because they know they're up against it. That's why I talk about school on the album. I'd like to incite people to break the framework, to be disobedient in school, to stick their tongues out, to keep insulting authority.
YO: We are very lucky really, because we can create our own reality, John and me, but we know the important thing is to communicate with other people.
JL: The more reality we face, the more we realise that unreality is the main programme of the day. The more real we become, the more abuse we take, so it does radicalise us in a way, like being put in a corner. But it would be better if there were more of us.
YO: We mustn't be traditional in the way we communicate with people--especially with the Establishment. We should surprise people by saying new things in an entirely new way. Communication of that sort can have a fantastic power so long as you don't do only what they expect you to do.
RB: Communication is vital for building a movement, but in the end it's powerless unless you also develop popular force.
YO: I get very sad when I think about Vietnam where there seems to be no choice but violence. This violence goes on for centuries perpetuating itself. In the present age when communication is so rapid, we should create a different tradition, traditions are created everyday. Five years now is like 100 years before. We are living in a society that has no history. There's no precedent for this kind of society so we can break the old patterns.
TA: No ruling class in the whole of history has given up power voluntarily and I don't see that changing.
YO: But violence isn't just a conceptual thing, you know. I saw a programme about this kid who had come back from Vietnam--he'd lost his body from the waist down. He was just a lump of meat, and he said, 'Well, I guess it was a good experience.'
JL: He didn't want to face the truth, he didn't want to think it had all been a waste...
YO: But think of the violence, it could happen to your kids ...
RB: But Yoko, people who struggle against oppression find themselves attacked by those who have a vested interest in nothing changing, those who want to protect their power and wealth. Look at the people in Bogside and Falls Road in Northern Ireland; they were mercilessly attacked by the special police because they began demonstrating for their rights. On one night in August 1969, seven people were shot and thousands driven from their homes. Didn't they have a right to defend themselves?
YO: That's why one should try to tackle these problems before a situation like that happens.
JL: Yes, but what do you do when it does happen, what do you do?
RB: Popular violence against their oppressors is always justified. It cannot be avoided.
YO: But in a way the new music showed things could be transformed by new channels of communication.
JL: Yes, but as I said, nothing really changed.
YO: Well, something changed and it was for the better. All I'm saying is that perhaps we can make a revolution without violence.
JL: But you can't take power without a struggle...
TA: That's the crucial thing.
JL: Because, when it comes to the nitty-gritty, they won't let the people have any power; they'll give all the rights to perform and to dance for them, but no real power...
YO: The thing is, even after the revolution, if people don't have any trust in themselves, they'll get new problems.
JL: After the revolution you have the problem of keeping things going, of sorting out all the different views. It's quite natural that revolutionaries should have different solutions, that they should split into different groups and then reform, that's the dialectic, isn't it--but at the same time they need to be united against the enemy, to solidify a new order. I don't know what the answer is; obviously Mao is aware of this problem and keeps the ball moving.
RB: The danger is that once a revolutionary state has been created, a new conservative bureaucracy tends to form around it. This danger tends to increase if the revolution is isolated by imperialism and there is material scarcity.
JL: Once the new power has taken over they have to establish a new status quo just to keep the factories and trains running.
RB: Yes, but a repressive bureaucracy doesn't necessarily run the factories or trains any better than the workers could under a system of revolutionary democracy.
JL: Yes, but we all have bourgeois instincts within us, we all get tired and feel the need to relax a bit. How do you keep everything going and keep up revolutionary fervour after you've achieved what you set out to achieve? Of course Mao has kept them up to it in China, but what happens after Mao goes? Also he uses a personality cult. Perhaps that's necessary; like I said, everybody seems to need a father figure.
But I've been reading Khrushchev Remembers. I know he's a bit of a lad himself--but he seemed to think that making a religion out of an individual was bad; that doesn't seem to be part of the basic Communist idea. Still people are people, that's the difficulty.
If we took over Britain, then we'd have the job of cleaning up the bourgeoisie and keeping people in a revolutionary state of mind.
RB: ...In Britain unless we can create a new popular power-and here that would basically mean workers' power--really controlled by, and answerable to, the masses, then we couldn't make the revolution in the first place. Only a really deep-rooted workers' power could destroy the bourgeois state.
YO: That's why it will be different when the younger generation takes over.
JL: I think it wouldn't take much to get the youth here really going. You'd have to give them free rein to attack the local councils or to destroy the school authorities, like the students who break up the repression in the universities. It's already happening, though people have got to get together more.
And the women are very important too, we can't have a revolution that doesn't involve and liberate women. It's so subtle the way you're taught male superiority.
It took me quite a long time to realise that my maleness was cutting off certain areas for Yoko. She's a red hot liberationistand was quick to show me where I was going wrong, even though it seemed to me that I was just acting naturally. That's why I'm always interested to know how people who claim to be radical treat women.
RB: There's always been at least as much male chauvinism on the left as anywhere else--though the rise of women's liberation is helping to sort that out.
JL: It's ridiculous. How can you talk about power to the people unless you realise the people is both sexes.
YO: You can't love someone unless you are in an equal position with them. A lot of women have to cling to men out of fear or insecurity, and that's not love--basically that's why women hate men...
JL: ... and vice versa ...
YO: So if you have a slave around the house how can you expect to make a revolution outside it? The problem for women is that if we try to be free, then we naturally become lonely, because so many women are willing to become slaves, and men usually prefer that. So you always have to take the chance: 'Am I going to lose my man?' It's very sad.
JL: Of course, Yoko was well into liberation before I met her. She'd had to fight her way through a man's world--the art world is completely dominated by men--so she was full of revolutionary zeal when we met. There was never any question about it: we had to have a 50-50 relationship or there was no relationship, I was quick to learn. She did an article about women in Nova more than two years back in which she said, 'Woman is the nigger of the world' .
RB: Of course we all live in an imperialist country that is exploiting the Third World, and even our culture is involved in this. There was a time when Beatle music was plugged on Voice of America....
JL: The Russians put it out that we were capitalist robots, which we were I suppose...
RB: They were pretty stupid not to see it was something different.
YO: Let' s face it, Beatles was 20th-century folksong in the framework of capitalism; they couldn't do anything different if they wanted to communicate within that framework.
RB: I was working in Cuba when Sgt Pepper was released and that's when they first started playing rock music on the radio.
JL: Well hope they see that rock and roll is not the same as Coca-Cola. As we get beyond the dream this should be easier: that's why I'm putting out more heavy statements now and trying to shake off the teeny-bopper image.
I want to get through to the right people, and I want to make what I have to say very simple and direct.
RB: Your latest album sounds very simple to begin with, but the lyrics, tempo and melody build up into a complexity one only gradually becomes aware of. Like the track 'My mummy's dead' echoes the nursery song 'Three blind mice' and it's about a childhood trauma.
JL: The tune does; it was that sort of feeling, almost like a Haiku poem. I recently got into Haiku in Japan and I just think it's fantastic. Obviously, when you get rid of a whole section of illusion in your mind you're left with great precision.
Yoko was showing me some of these Haiku in the original. The difference between them and Long fellow is immense. Instead of a long flowery poem the Haiku would say 'Yellow flower in white bowl on wooden table' which gives you the whole picture, really....
TA: How do you think we can destroy the capitalist system here in Britain, John?
JL: I think only by making the workers aware of the really unhappy position they are in, breaking the dream they are surrounded by. They think they are in a wonderful, free-speaking country. They've got cars and tellies and they don't want to think there's anything more to life. They are prepared to let the bosses run them, to see their children fucked up in school. They're dreaming someone else's dream, it's not even their own. They should realise that the blacks and the Irish are being harassed and repressed and that they will be next.
As soon as they start being aware of all that, we can really begin to do something. The workers can start to take over. Like Marx said: 'To each according to his need'. I think that would work well here. But we'd also have to infiltrate the army too, because they are well trained to kill us all.
We've got to start all this from where we ourselves are oppressed. I think it's false, shallow, to be giving to others when your own need is great. The idea is not to comfort people, not to make them feel better but to make them feel worse, to constantly put before them the degradations and humiliations they go through to get what they call a living wage.
Tariq Ali is author of the recently released Street Fighting Years (new edition) and, with David Barsamian, Speaking of Empires & Resistance. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com
Robin Blackburn, a frequent contributor to CounterPunch, is the former editor of The New Left Review and author of the excellent history of the slave trade, The Making of New World Slavery and the new book from Verso Banking on Death: the Future of Pensions.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement
The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=17624&context=va
Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=17624&context=va
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Victory for Foreign Affairs over Chemtura
NAFTA chemical case goes Canada's way
Victory for Foreign Affairs over Chemtura may scare Dow off.
by Luke Eric Peterson
August 25, 2010
The lawyers at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade are not bragging about it—at least not to date—but they've just won an impressive victory in an $80 million-plus NAFTA lawsuit.
Earlier this month, a panel of three arbitrators dismissed claims filed by the US chemical company Chemtura under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/nafta-08-25-2010
Victory for Foreign Affairs over Chemtura may scare Dow off.
by Luke Eric Peterson
August 25, 2010
The lawyers at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade are not bragging about it—at least not to date—but they've just won an impressive victory in an $80 million-plus NAFTA lawsuit.
Earlier this month, a panel of three arbitrators dismissed claims filed by the US chemical company Chemtura under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
http://www.embassymag.ca/page/view/nafta-08-25-2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
Myths and Realities about 490 Tamil Refugees on MV Sun Sea
Myths and Realities about 490 Tamil Refugees on MV Sun Sea
Download and distribute this widely as a printable factsheet in PDF:
http://noii-van.resist.ca/?p=2167
==> Myth 1: They are illegals who are jumping the queue.
There is no 'queue' for refugee claimants. Refugees are forced from their
homes in emergency situations due to human rights abuses committed during
wars, military occupations, or persecution against a minority group. We
cannot expect refugees to wait for Canada to select them from overseas. We
must understand that they undertake long and dangerous journeys to protect
their lives and the lives of their families. According to the 1951 UN
Convention on Refugees, to which Canada is a party, there are no penalties
on refugees who arrive without pre-authorization and irregularly.
==> Myth 2: They are terrorists.
There is no evidence to substantiate this. Rohan Gunaratna, the
government's primary source, has already been discredited by lawyers as
well as an Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator for being uncredible.
Last October, when the 76 Tamil asylum-seekers came on Ocean Lady they
were similarly labeled as terrorists and security threats. However by Jan
2010, they were all released from detention when Canadian Border Services
Agency admitted they had no evidence of a terrorist connection.
Furthermore, officials are just relying on stereotypes of Tamils as all
being associated with the Tamil Tigers to create unnecessary racist
hysteria and mistrust of asylum-seekers. National security laws in the
post-911 climate have directly targeted and marginalized immigrants,
refugees, and racialized people. These laws and policies are less about
protecting society than creating a culture of fear. Many of these policies
- such as Security Certificates - have been struck down in the Courts
after years of human rights and anti racist campaigning. The rhetoric of
the War on Terror serves as a convenient distraction from the reality that
people's daily lives are increasingly unsafe and insecure due to global
neoliberal economics and war-mongering that leads to mass displacement,
poverty, and human rights atrocities.
==> Myth 3: The situation is getting better in Sri Lanka.
According to a 2010 Amnesty International report, in the past 12 months
the Sri Lankan government has continued to jail critics and clamped down
on dissent. Some 80,000 Tamils remain in refugee camps, while 400,000
displaced Tamils survive in communities where homes and infrastructure
were destroyed. The government continues to extend a state of emergency,
restricting many basic human rights, and thousands of arbitrary detentions
are justified under the guise of detainees being suspected Tamil Tigers.
This past month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed a panel to
investigate war crimes and genocidal acts committed by the Sri Lankan
government against Tamils.
==> Myth 4: They are a burden on tax payers.
The biggest resource expenditure has been the government's choice to spend
thousands of dollars in an unnecessary security operation, including
resources spent on incarcerating women and children. Only a tiny fraction
has been spent on the health and well-being of the migrants, whose lives
are worth more than dollars. Furthermore, scapegoating migrants for being
a financial burden lets the government off the hook. All residents
continue to receive inadequate access to necessary social services because
of misplaced government priorities - choosing to bail out banks and sink
billions into the police and military - not because of the lack of
resources to provide a social safety net for all in need.
==> Myth 5: Canada has a generous refugee system; we cannot keep accepting
people.
Despite border panics, only a small minority of asylum seekers make claims
in the Western world. There are about 20 million refugees worldwide and
most migrate into neighboring countries of Africa, Middle East, and South
Asia. Canada accepts fewer than 20,000 refugees per year, which is less
than 0.1% of the world's displaced population.
Furthermore, Canada's system is not generous. Deportations from Canada
have skyrocketed 50% over the last decade, with 13,000 deportations in the
past year. With the Conservatives, the number of approved asylum claims
has dropped by 56%. Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney's recent refugee
reforms create two tiers of refugees, establishing a hierarchy based on
nationality. There are countless structural flaws in the system, designed
to make it near impossible to claim asylum. Immigration and Refugee Board
members are political appointees; certain avenues such as the Pre Removal
Risk Assessment have acceptance rates of 3-5% while others such as the
Humanitarian and Compassionate claim do not have to be processed prior to
deportation. In addition, the refugee system has been termed a "lottery
system" because acceptance rates can vary from 0-80% depending on the
judge. The Safe Third Country Agreement between the US and Canada creates
a "Fortress Canada" by disallowing up to 40% of asylum seekers.
==> Myth 6: It is not our problem.
The Canadian government has recently been forced to apologize for racist
and exclusionary historical measures including the Chinese Exclusion Act
and Komagatamaru incident. These apologies and the rhetoric of
multiculturalism is hollow when current policies and practices perpetuate
racism and exclusion. The recent backlash that repeats the tired-old
refrain about 'illegals' and 'criminals' has meant that right-wing
neo-nazis such as Paul Fromm and the Aryan Guard have resurfaced publicly
and are being given a platform to spew their hate about sending the boat
back. Is this really the side that we are on?
Immigration and refugee issues are not simply about Canadian benevolence
or charity. We need to rethink what function and whose interests the state
border actually serves. The current trends of global migration reveal the
ways in which patters of Western domination and corporate globalization
have enriched some countries by creating economic and political insecurity
that forces people indigenous to their lands to migrate. The Canadian
government continues to maintain economic and diplomatic ties with the
government of Sri Lanka, instead of supporting those who have survived the
brutality of that government, which makes us complicit in their
displacement. Also, we must always remember that Canada is a settler
country, built on the theft of Indigenous lands and the forced
assimilation of Indigenous communities. On what basis is a colonial
government denying colonized people their right to livelihood? Finally, we
must challenge the idea that some are more worthy than others to a life of
dignity; instead we should reaffirm the universal value that people have
the freedom to move in order to seek safety and to flourish.
LET THE TAMIL REFUGEES STAY!
NO HUMAN IS ILLEGAL, THE SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL!
~ Visit us at www.nooneisllegal.org or email noii-van@resist.ca ~
Download and distribute this widely as a printable factsheet in PDF:
http://noii-van.resist.ca/?p=2167
==> Myth 1: They are illegals who are jumping the queue.
There is no 'queue' for refugee claimants. Refugees are forced from their
homes in emergency situations due to human rights abuses committed during
wars, military occupations, or persecution against a minority group. We
cannot expect refugees to wait for Canada to select them from overseas. We
must understand that they undertake long and dangerous journeys to protect
their lives and the lives of their families. According to the 1951 UN
Convention on Refugees, to which Canada is a party, there are no penalties
on refugees who arrive without pre-authorization and irregularly.
==> Myth 2: They are terrorists.
There is no evidence to substantiate this. Rohan Gunaratna, the
government's primary source, has already been discredited by lawyers as
well as an Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator for being uncredible.
Last October, when the 76 Tamil asylum-seekers came on Ocean Lady they
were similarly labeled as terrorists and security threats. However by Jan
2010, they were all released from detention when Canadian Border Services
Agency admitted they had no evidence of a terrorist connection.
Furthermore, officials are just relying on stereotypes of Tamils as all
being associated with the Tamil Tigers to create unnecessary racist
hysteria and mistrust of asylum-seekers. National security laws in the
post-911 climate have directly targeted and marginalized immigrants,
refugees, and racialized people. These laws and policies are less about
protecting society than creating a culture of fear. Many of these policies
- such as Security Certificates - have been struck down in the Courts
after years of human rights and anti racist campaigning. The rhetoric of
the War on Terror serves as a convenient distraction from the reality that
people's daily lives are increasingly unsafe and insecure due to global
neoliberal economics and war-mongering that leads to mass displacement,
poverty, and human rights atrocities.
==> Myth 3: The situation is getting better in Sri Lanka.
According to a 2010 Amnesty International report, in the past 12 months
the Sri Lankan government has continued to jail critics and clamped down
on dissent. Some 80,000 Tamils remain in refugee camps, while 400,000
displaced Tamils survive in communities where homes and infrastructure
were destroyed. The government continues to extend a state of emergency,
restricting many basic human rights, and thousands of arbitrary detentions
are justified under the guise of detainees being suspected Tamil Tigers.
This past month, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed a panel to
investigate war crimes and genocidal acts committed by the Sri Lankan
government against Tamils.
==> Myth 4: They are a burden on tax payers.
The biggest resource expenditure has been the government's choice to spend
thousands of dollars in an unnecessary security operation, including
resources spent on incarcerating women and children. Only a tiny fraction
has been spent on the health and well-being of the migrants, whose lives
are worth more than dollars. Furthermore, scapegoating migrants for being
a financial burden lets the government off the hook. All residents
continue to receive inadequate access to necessary social services because
of misplaced government priorities - choosing to bail out banks and sink
billions into the police and military - not because of the lack of
resources to provide a social safety net for all in need.
==> Myth 5: Canada has a generous refugee system; we cannot keep accepting
people.
Despite border panics, only a small minority of asylum seekers make claims
in the Western world. There are about 20 million refugees worldwide and
most migrate into neighboring countries of Africa, Middle East, and South
Asia. Canada accepts fewer than 20,000 refugees per year, which is less
than 0.1% of the world's displaced population.
Furthermore, Canada's system is not generous. Deportations from Canada
have skyrocketed 50% over the last decade, with 13,000 deportations in the
past year. With the Conservatives, the number of approved asylum claims
has dropped by 56%. Minister of Immigration Jason Kenney's recent refugee
reforms create two tiers of refugees, establishing a hierarchy based on
nationality. There are countless structural flaws in the system, designed
to make it near impossible to claim asylum. Immigration and Refugee Board
members are political appointees; certain avenues such as the Pre Removal
Risk Assessment have acceptance rates of 3-5% while others such as the
Humanitarian and Compassionate claim do not have to be processed prior to
deportation. In addition, the refugee system has been termed a "lottery
system" because acceptance rates can vary from 0-80% depending on the
judge. The Safe Third Country Agreement between the US and Canada creates
a "Fortress Canada" by disallowing up to 40% of asylum seekers.
==> Myth 6: It is not our problem.
The Canadian government has recently been forced to apologize for racist
and exclusionary historical measures including the Chinese Exclusion Act
and Komagatamaru incident. These apologies and the rhetoric of
multiculturalism is hollow when current policies and practices perpetuate
racism and exclusion. The recent backlash that repeats the tired-old
refrain about 'illegals' and 'criminals' has meant that right-wing
neo-nazis such as Paul Fromm and the Aryan Guard have resurfaced publicly
and are being given a platform to spew their hate about sending the boat
back. Is this really the side that we are on?
Immigration and refugee issues are not simply about Canadian benevolence
or charity. We need to rethink what function and whose interests the state
border actually serves. The current trends of global migration reveal the
ways in which patters of Western domination and corporate globalization
have enriched some countries by creating economic and political insecurity
that forces people indigenous to their lands to migrate. The Canadian
government continues to maintain economic and diplomatic ties with the
government of Sri Lanka, instead of supporting those who have survived the
brutality of that government, which makes us complicit in their
displacement. Also, we must always remember that Canada is a settler
country, built on the theft of Indigenous lands and the forced
assimilation of Indigenous communities. On what basis is a colonial
government denying colonized people their right to livelihood? Finally, we
must challenge the idea that some are more worthy than others to a life of
dignity; instead we should reaffirm the universal value that people have
the freedom to move in order to seek safety and to flourish.
LET THE TAMIL REFUGEES STAY!
NO HUMAN IS ILLEGAL, THE SYSTEM IS ILLEGAL!
~ Visit us at www.nooneisllegal.org or email noii-van@resist.ca ~
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Remembering the Wars: Sri Lanka 2009
http://voicesinexile.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/opinion-the-war-in-sri-lanka-and-the-left-in-toronto/
Opinion: The War in Sri Lanka and the Left in Toronto
May 18, 2009
by voicesinexile
By Noaman Ali and Fathima Cader
Protest-CP24
photo by freelancer RJ
The recent burst of mass mobilizations by sections of the Canadian-Tamil community in Toronto has brought to the fore several contradictions concerning the conflict in Sri Lanka and its presence in and connection to Canada. Mainstream media’s responses to the protests have been overwhelmingly racialist, exposing many of the limits of Canadian multiculturalism. In order for Canadian multiculturalism to accept any given group of people as a cultural community, it must define that group by differentiating it from a supposedly mainstream Canadian identity. This focalising Canadian identity—in effect a non-identity—is white and middle-class. Thus, when the Toronto Star publishes an editorial entitled “Protesters vs. the public” [1] it effectively notes that the protesters are not part of the public by pitting (Tamil) protesters against the (Canadian) public. Rather than focusing on the war, media outlets have focused on the inconvenience posed to commuters, thereby shifting attention away from deaths in Sri Lanka to traffic regulations in Canada. Consequently, responses to the protests have largely demonstrated pernicious xenophobia. For instance, in the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington argues that not using excessive force (e.g., water cannons) against Tamil protesters who block streets is tantamount to “reverse racism” against white Canadians. [2]
But if the coverage of the protests has made certain contradictions about the performance of cultural politics in public spaces in Canada apparent, other contradictions about the negotiation of those politics within cultural communities have also been rendered largely invisible. The impetus comes, once again, from a multiculturalism that defines ethnic, immigrant identities against a supposedly mainstream, local one. The act of defining a cultural community necessarily ignores the cultural, economic, and political differences that exist within that community. When these differences are ignored, political representation to mainstream political actors (i.e. those in the government, political parties, and state apparatuses) is mediated by non-elected, self-appointed community “leaders” who may not, and often do not, capture all cultural and political differences. In fact, the very articulation of those differences is precluded: a-cultural white English-speaking Canadians may lean left or right as individuals, or as voting blocs based on class and region, but the articulation of such political differences is absent in the representations of the politics of minority communities. The responses of politicians, activists, journalists, police and vocal sections of the public to the rallies protesting the war provide key examples of this.
The responses of politicians and police officials who addressed themselves to “the Tamil community” falsely suggest that all the protesters were Tamil and that all of Toronto’s Tamils supported the protests. The paternalism of Mayor David Miller’s deciding to tell “the Tamil community” what it “needs to hear from us” [3] (whoever “us” is) feeds into the blatant racism expressed by other elements of the public. Thus, for instance, in The Globe & Mail Christie Blatchford uses the demonstrations to question not just protest tactics, but also the immigration policies that, according to her, have led to the presence of a worryingly large number of Tamils in Toronto. [4]
Parallel to Miller’s homogenization, though coming from the opposite direction, veteran dissident leftist Judy Rebick notes on her blog that, “in a brilliant action, the Tamil community [...] climbed the on ramp on to the Gardiner Expressway [...] and sat down blockading traffic for several hours.” [5] While the action, as an object lesson in activist tactics, was brilliant, one can say with certainty that “the Tamil community” neither climbed onto nor sat down on the Gardiner. Rather, a more correct terminology would be what Rebick subsequently calls “a group of Tamil activists.” The tenor of her blog post, however, confirms that she views the Tamil community in homogenous terms. She goes so far as to end her post with the note that “we are all Tamils,” a statement that is problematic on two grounds. First, working in solidarity with others requires acknowledging the lived differences that separate us so that we might use those differences for the purposes of justice, rather than discounting them out of an unhelpfully over-forced empathy. Second, that kind of statement presupposes that there is only one kind of Tamil identity, which everyone else can access. Yet if Tamilness is an identity constructed solely on the basis of one’s presence at or support for the protests, not even all Tamils can be called such.
If Toronto’s Tamil population is being flattened into one homogenized entity by politicians and many leftist activists, that process is certainly not being opposed by some sections of Toronto’s Tamil community. The Canadian Tamil Congress, one of Toronto’s more prominent Tamil political groups, notes that it is “the unified voice of Canada’s 300,000 Tamils.” [6] Its FAQ page shows that it ascribes to all Sri Lankan Tamils the desire for a separate homeland (Tamil Eelam). [7] The history and current reality of a diversity of non-communal and Tamil organizations and individuals within and without Sri Lanka, with varying goals and political objectives—and varying definitions of self-determination for Tamil people—is elided by this construction of Tamil identity. It is impossible for the CTC to be the unified voice of Tamils when Tamils don’t have a unified voice. In other words, to return to Rebick’s rallying cry, we are not all Tamil, if only because there is no one Tamil identity we can be.
At many of the protests, the LTTE-designed national flag of Tamil Eelam (which shares the Tiger emblem) has been a prominent fixture, LTTE soldiers have been venerated as freedom fighters, the prospect of Eelam has been seen as a necessary solution to the war, and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran has been venerated as a national leader. While this set of views may be influential and even hegemonic within Toronto’s Tamil diaspora, it is not universal. Just as the actions of many of the Tamil demonstrators are not and cannot be the actions of “the Tamil community,” so too are the opinions expressed at these demonstrations not those of “the Tamil community.” In fact, those are not even necessarily the views of all of the protesters present at the rallies, but dissenting, non-LTTE views are not being heard.
To signal toward complexity and difference within Tamil communities is not to deny the Sinhala ethnic chauvinism of the government of Sri Lanka; its use of undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush dissent; or its use of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Sri Lankan Tamils. Nor is it to deny that militant Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka has largely been a response to the systematized and legislated discrimination of the Sri Lankan state. The LTTE is, in fact, a legitimate national resistance movement and was—until recently— the de facto governing entity in several parts of Sri Lanka. However, in its progress towards and current operation of that position, it too has often represented an ideology of ethno-religious chauvinism; has used undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush resistant views and movements–including against dissident Tamils; and has used mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Muslims. The point here is not that the LTTE is just as bad as the government of Sri Lanka—which many Sri Lankans, Tamils and otherwise, think it is—but that a critical left view cannot support the LTTE, except tactically in opposition to the oppression of the Sri Lankan state. Nor can it support the LTTE’s ideology or practice. Thus, the assumption should not be made that support for Tamils in opposition to Sri Lankan state oppression is consonant with support for the LTTE.
It is important that critical leftists in Canada take concrete steps, working with members of the Tamil population and the Sri Lankan population more broadly, to bring to an end the oppression being perpetrated by the Sri Lankan state, but without steamrolling the complexities of the conflict and those affected by it. We must stand for an end to Sri Lankan state aggression, but also for an end to the LTTE’s aggression toward dissident and minority groups. Toward these ends, some concrete steps we should seek to take include:
1. Demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire.
Critical leftists must stand up for the thousands being massacred in Sri Lanka. To this end, we should engage with supporters of the LTTE and others in demanding an immediate, permanent, and confirmable bilateral ceasefire. Protests calling on the Canadian government to take an active role in bringing about such a ceasefire are important and should be supported, though not uncritically.
2. Oppose the complacency and racism of the Canadian state, media and vocal sections of the general public; and oppose police violence.
The Canadian government continues to turn a blind eye to the conflict, tacitly supporting the Sri Lankan state’s actions. Politicians at all levels have spoken to “the Tamil community” in condescending ways. The media has focused more on the plight of commuters inconvenienced by the rallies than on the thousands of dying civilians. Many Canadian citizens have expressed their xenophobia calling upon Tamils to “go back home”.
Meanwhile, at the rallies, protestors have on several occasions been literally caged into tight areas and police officers have often used excessive force on them. Protestors have been arrested merely for speaking out,8 and, at times, have been brutalized with no provocation.9,10
Police violence and the complacence and racism of Canadian foreign politics, the media and vocal sections of the general public must be opposed loudly and forcefully.
3. Push for a political solution.
This conflict has no military solution. Critical leftists must not stop at the call for a ceasefire, but also push for a comprehensive political settlement that involves more than just the Sinhala-dominant Sri Lankan state and the LTTE. There are many more legitimate representatives of Tamil (including Tamil-speaking Muslim) aspirations and political views than the LTTE, whom the LTTE has repressed. Support must be given to them. However, there can also be no political settlement without the involvement of the LTTE.
The Canadian government does not label organizations as terrorist on the basis of objective criteria, but politically opportunistic ones. Moreover, designating certain groups as terrorist does little to clarify conflict situations, but more often obscures issues. Canada’s banning the Tigers as terrorists suggests that the problem of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism is not one of discrimination and disenfranchisement, but of immeasurable violence and terrorism, and that therefore the solution to this conflict must inevitably and solely come through the military elimination of said terrorist group. Critical leftists, however, must remain firm that any long-term and viable solution to the Sri Lankan conflict cannot be military; it must involve a political settlement.
4. Work toward cross-ethnic solidarity.
Following from the support for repressed and marginalized voices, critical leftists must promote cross-ethnic solidarities in Sri Lanka and in the Sri Lankan diaspora. The fictions of ethnic homogeneity constructed by Sinhala nationalism and by Tamil nationalism must be punctured and repudiated. This does not mean an opposition to the principle of self-determination. Yet however the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka choose to define self-determination, a lasting peace has to be based on the recognition of the vast complexity, intermingling, and transcendence of ethnic boundaries that constantly occurs in Sri Lanka – both in Sinhalese-dominated and in Tamil-dominated areas. Non-communal political formations must be supported.
To that end, critical leftists in Canada should work towards facilitating the kinds of cross-ethnic solidarity movements and conversations that have been mostly foreclosed by the terroristic strategies employed in Sri Lanka by the armed forces and by the LTTE. While acknowledging and addressing the limitations of Canadian multicultural policies here, we need to capitalise on our distance from the conflict, and the relative peace afforded by that distance (however racialised and restricted it is), to facilitate dialogue.
5. Oppose the Sri Lankan state; criticize the LTTE.
Successive Sinhala ethnic chauvinist governments have precipitated the crisis in Sri Lanka. They continue to do so with impunity. Critical leftists must be absolute in their opposition to the ethnic chauvinism and practical depredations of the parties controlling the Sri Lankan state. The Sri Lankan state has been one of the most significant obstacles toward the achievement of a lasting peace.
At the same time, the LTTE has used civilians as human shields and has engaged in forced conscription. It must be therefore also be criticized and its particular human rights violations not excused or glossed over.
6. Oppose the role of international imperialism in the conflict.
The ideology of twenty-first century imperialism is manifest worldwide. In particular, in South Asia, the discourses of “wars on terror” in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are smokescreens for governments and imperial actors like NATO and the United States to obscure real, legitimate and popular grievances by focusing instead on military campaigns. This is precisely the strategy currently being used by the state in Sri Lanka against its local Tamil grievances. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan state receives military aid from, among others, Pakistan and Israel—lackeys of American empire. China, too, in increasing its international political reach, has steadily provided arms and funding to Sri Lanka for several years. India has also played a major role through its intervention or absence of intervention, in line with its hegemonic designs in South Asia.
The international dimensions of the conflict are too complex to be examined in detail here. However, we should engage in further study of the international dimension of the conflict as well, for in resisting the violence of the Sri Lankan state, as critical leftists, we are also taking a stance against certain operations of international imperialism. We must recognize, however, that ultimately the problem is one of Sinhala ethnic chauvinism and the lack of meaningful political representation of national minorities in Sri Lanka.
In conclusion, it is important to note that these six items should be regarded as points of departure for critical leftists. By no means is this a conclusive programme on how activists in Canada, whatever their ethnicity or personal connection to the war, should approach the conflict. That sort of conversation is much more difficult, and must be had in conjunction with all the members of Canada’s Sri Lankan diaspora, including its Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim communities.
—-
Noaman Ali is a teaching assistant at York University and a member of CUPE 3903. Fathima Cader is a Colombo-born Tamil Muslim who spent five weeks in April and May 2009 in Sri Lanka. She is a law student at the University of British Columbia.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
* Toronto Mayor Miller Issues Statement About Tamil Protest
* Prabhakaran’s pride
* SOUTH ASIAN PEOPLE’S FORUM: Special Session on Sri Lanka
* Canada Stops Ship Carrying 490 People
Opinion: The War in Sri Lanka and the Left in Toronto
May 18, 2009
by voicesinexile
By Noaman Ali and Fathima Cader
Protest-CP24
photo by freelancer RJ
The recent burst of mass mobilizations by sections of the Canadian-Tamil community in Toronto has brought to the fore several contradictions concerning the conflict in Sri Lanka and its presence in and connection to Canada. Mainstream media’s responses to the protests have been overwhelmingly racialist, exposing many of the limits of Canadian multiculturalism. In order for Canadian multiculturalism to accept any given group of people as a cultural community, it must define that group by differentiating it from a supposedly mainstream Canadian identity. This focalising Canadian identity—in effect a non-identity—is white and middle-class. Thus, when the Toronto Star publishes an editorial entitled “Protesters vs. the public” [1] it effectively notes that the protesters are not part of the public by pitting (Tamil) protesters against the (Canadian) public. Rather than focusing on the war, media outlets have focused on the inconvenience posed to commuters, thereby shifting attention away from deaths in Sri Lanka to traffic regulations in Canada. Consequently, responses to the protests have largely demonstrated pernicious xenophobia. For instance, in the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington argues that not using excessive force (e.g., water cannons) against Tamil protesters who block streets is tantamount to “reverse racism” against white Canadians. [2]
But if the coverage of the protests has made certain contradictions about the performance of cultural politics in public spaces in Canada apparent, other contradictions about the negotiation of those politics within cultural communities have also been rendered largely invisible. The impetus comes, once again, from a multiculturalism that defines ethnic, immigrant identities against a supposedly mainstream, local one. The act of defining a cultural community necessarily ignores the cultural, economic, and political differences that exist within that community. When these differences are ignored, political representation to mainstream political actors (i.e. those in the government, political parties, and state apparatuses) is mediated by non-elected, self-appointed community “leaders” who may not, and often do not, capture all cultural and political differences. In fact, the very articulation of those differences is precluded: a-cultural white English-speaking Canadians may lean left or right as individuals, or as voting blocs based on class and region, but the articulation of such political differences is absent in the representations of the politics of minority communities. The responses of politicians, activists, journalists, police and vocal sections of the public to the rallies protesting the war provide key examples of this.
The responses of politicians and police officials who addressed themselves to “the Tamil community” falsely suggest that all the protesters were Tamil and that all of Toronto’s Tamils supported the protests. The paternalism of Mayor David Miller’s deciding to tell “the Tamil community” what it “needs to hear from us” [3] (whoever “us” is) feeds into the blatant racism expressed by other elements of the public. Thus, for instance, in The Globe & Mail Christie Blatchford uses the demonstrations to question not just protest tactics, but also the immigration policies that, according to her, have led to the presence of a worryingly large number of Tamils in Toronto. [4]
Parallel to Miller’s homogenization, though coming from the opposite direction, veteran dissident leftist Judy Rebick notes on her blog that, “in a brilliant action, the Tamil community [...] climbed the on ramp on to the Gardiner Expressway [...] and sat down blockading traffic for several hours.” [5] While the action, as an object lesson in activist tactics, was brilliant, one can say with certainty that “the Tamil community” neither climbed onto nor sat down on the Gardiner. Rather, a more correct terminology would be what Rebick subsequently calls “a group of Tamil activists.” The tenor of her blog post, however, confirms that she views the Tamil community in homogenous terms. She goes so far as to end her post with the note that “we are all Tamils,” a statement that is problematic on two grounds. First, working in solidarity with others requires acknowledging the lived differences that separate us so that we might use those differences for the purposes of justice, rather than discounting them out of an unhelpfully over-forced empathy. Second, that kind of statement presupposes that there is only one kind of Tamil identity, which everyone else can access. Yet if Tamilness is an identity constructed solely on the basis of one’s presence at or support for the protests, not even all Tamils can be called such.
If Toronto’s Tamil population is being flattened into one homogenized entity by politicians and many leftist activists, that process is certainly not being opposed by some sections of Toronto’s Tamil community. The Canadian Tamil Congress, one of Toronto’s more prominent Tamil political groups, notes that it is “the unified voice of Canada’s 300,000 Tamils.” [6] Its FAQ page shows that it ascribes to all Sri Lankan Tamils the desire for a separate homeland (Tamil Eelam). [7] The history and current reality of a diversity of non-communal and Tamil organizations and individuals within and without Sri Lanka, with varying goals and political objectives—and varying definitions of self-determination for Tamil people—is elided by this construction of Tamil identity. It is impossible for the CTC to be the unified voice of Tamils when Tamils don’t have a unified voice. In other words, to return to Rebick’s rallying cry, we are not all Tamil, if only because there is no one Tamil identity we can be.
At many of the protests, the LTTE-designed national flag of Tamil Eelam (which shares the Tiger emblem) has been a prominent fixture, LTTE soldiers have been venerated as freedom fighters, the prospect of Eelam has been seen as a necessary solution to the war, and LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran has been venerated as a national leader. While this set of views may be influential and even hegemonic within Toronto’s Tamil diaspora, it is not universal. Just as the actions of many of the Tamil demonstrators are not and cannot be the actions of “the Tamil community,” so too are the opinions expressed at these demonstrations not those of “the Tamil community.” In fact, those are not even necessarily the views of all of the protesters present at the rallies, but dissenting, non-LTTE views are not being heard.
To signal toward complexity and difference within Tamil communities is not to deny the Sinhala ethnic chauvinism of the government of Sri Lanka; its use of undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush dissent; or its use of mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Sri Lankan Tamils. Nor is it to deny that militant Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka has largely been a response to the systematized and legislated discrimination of the Sri Lankan state. The LTTE is, in fact, a legitimate national resistance movement and was—until recently— the de facto governing entity in several parts of Sri Lanka. However, in its progress towards and current operation of that position, it too has often represented an ideology of ethno-religious chauvinism; has used undemocratic and authoritarian practices to crush resistant views and movements–including against dissident Tamils; and has used mass murder, ethnic cleansing and internal colonization against Muslims. The point here is not that the LTTE is just as bad as the government of Sri Lanka—which many Sri Lankans, Tamils and otherwise, think it is—but that a critical left view cannot support the LTTE, except tactically in opposition to the oppression of the Sri Lankan state. Nor can it support the LTTE’s ideology or practice. Thus, the assumption should not be made that support for Tamils in opposition to Sri Lankan state oppression is consonant with support for the LTTE.
It is important that critical leftists in Canada take concrete steps, working with members of the Tamil population and the Sri Lankan population more broadly, to bring to an end the oppression being perpetrated by the Sri Lankan state, but without steamrolling the complexities of the conflict and those affected by it. We must stand for an end to Sri Lankan state aggression, but also for an end to the LTTE’s aggression toward dissident and minority groups. Toward these ends, some concrete steps we should seek to take include:
1. Demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire.
Critical leftists must stand up for the thousands being massacred in Sri Lanka. To this end, we should engage with supporters of the LTTE and others in demanding an immediate, permanent, and confirmable bilateral ceasefire. Protests calling on the Canadian government to take an active role in bringing about such a ceasefire are important and should be supported, though not uncritically.
2. Oppose the complacency and racism of the Canadian state, media and vocal sections of the general public; and oppose police violence.
The Canadian government continues to turn a blind eye to the conflict, tacitly supporting the Sri Lankan state’s actions. Politicians at all levels have spoken to “the Tamil community” in condescending ways. The media has focused more on the plight of commuters inconvenienced by the rallies than on the thousands of dying civilians. Many Canadian citizens have expressed their xenophobia calling upon Tamils to “go back home”.
Meanwhile, at the rallies, protestors have on several occasions been literally caged into tight areas and police officers have often used excessive force on them. Protestors have been arrested merely for speaking out,8 and, at times, have been brutalized with no provocation.9,10
Police violence and the complacence and racism of Canadian foreign politics, the media and vocal sections of the general public must be opposed loudly and forcefully.
3. Push for a political solution.
This conflict has no military solution. Critical leftists must not stop at the call for a ceasefire, but also push for a comprehensive political settlement that involves more than just the Sinhala-dominant Sri Lankan state and the LTTE. There are many more legitimate representatives of Tamil (including Tamil-speaking Muslim) aspirations and political views than the LTTE, whom the LTTE has repressed. Support must be given to them. However, there can also be no political settlement without the involvement of the LTTE.
The Canadian government does not label organizations as terrorist on the basis of objective criteria, but politically opportunistic ones. Moreover, designating certain groups as terrorist does little to clarify conflict situations, but more often obscures issues. Canada’s banning the Tigers as terrorists suggests that the problem of Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism is not one of discrimination and disenfranchisement, but of immeasurable violence and terrorism, and that therefore the solution to this conflict must inevitably and solely come through the military elimination of said terrorist group. Critical leftists, however, must remain firm that any long-term and viable solution to the Sri Lankan conflict cannot be military; it must involve a political settlement.
4. Work toward cross-ethnic solidarity.
Following from the support for repressed and marginalized voices, critical leftists must promote cross-ethnic solidarities in Sri Lanka and in the Sri Lankan diaspora. The fictions of ethnic homogeneity constructed by Sinhala nationalism and by Tamil nationalism must be punctured and repudiated. This does not mean an opposition to the principle of self-determination. Yet however the majority of Tamils in Sri Lanka choose to define self-determination, a lasting peace has to be based on the recognition of the vast complexity, intermingling, and transcendence of ethnic boundaries that constantly occurs in Sri Lanka – both in Sinhalese-dominated and in Tamil-dominated areas. Non-communal political formations must be supported.
To that end, critical leftists in Canada should work towards facilitating the kinds of cross-ethnic solidarity movements and conversations that have been mostly foreclosed by the terroristic strategies employed in Sri Lanka by the armed forces and by the LTTE. While acknowledging and addressing the limitations of Canadian multicultural policies here, we need to capitalise on our distance from the conflict, and the relative peace afforded by that distance (however racialised and restricted it is), to facilitate dialogue.
5. Oppose the Sri Lankan state; criticize the LTTE.
Successive Sinhala ethnic chauvinist governments have precipitated the crisis in Sri Lanka. They continue to do so with impunity. Critical leftists must be absolute in their opposition to the ethnic chauvinism and practical depredations of the parties controlling the Sri Lankan state. The Sri Lankan state has been one of the most significant obstacles toward the achievement of a lasting peace.
At the same time, the LTTE has used civilians as human shields and has engaged in forced conscription. It must be therefore also be criticized and its particular human rights violations not excused or glossed over.
6. Oppose the role of international imperialism in the conflict.
The ideology of twenty-first century imperialism is manifest worldwide. In particular, in South Asia, the discourses of “wars on terror” in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are smokescreens for governments and imperial actors like NATO and the United States to obscure real, legitimate and popular grievances by focusing instead on military campaigns. This is precisely the strategy currently being used by the state in Sri Lanka against its local Tamil grievances. Furthermore, the Sri Lankan state receives military aid from, among others, Pakistan and Israel—lackeys of American empire. China, too, in increasing its international political reach, has steadily provided arms and funding to Sri Lanka for several years. India has also played a major role through its intervention or absence of intervention, in line with its hegemonic designs in South Asia.
The international dimensions of the conflict are too complex to be examined in detail here. However, we should engage in further study of the international dimension of the conflict as well, for in resisting the violence of the Sri Lankan state, as critical leftists, we are also taking a stance against certain operations of international imperialism. We must recognize, however, that ultimately the problem is one of Sinhala ethnic chauvinism and the lack of meaningful political representation of national minorities in Sri Lanka.
In conclusion, it is important to note that these six items should be regarded as points of departure for critical leftists. By no means is this a conclusive programme on how activists in Canada, whatever their ethnicity or personal connection to the war, should approach the conflict. That sort of conversation is much more difficult, and must be had in conjunction with all the members of Canada’s Sri Lankan diaspora, including its Sinhalese, Tamil, and Muslim communities.
—-
Noaman Ali is a teaching assistant at York University and a member of CUPE 3903. Fathima Cader is a Colombo-born Tamil Muslim who spent five weeks in April and May 2009 in Sri Lanka. She is a law student at the University of British Columbia.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
* Toronto Mayor Miller Issues Statement About Tamil Protest
* Prabhakaran’s pride
* SOUTH ASIAN PEOPLE’S FORUM: Special Session on Sri Lanka
* Canada Stops Ship Carrying 490 People
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Janine Bandcroft Goes Under the Volcano
Janine Bandcroft Goes to Under the Volcano
Aug. 8, 2010
http://previous.ncra.ca/exchange/dspProgramDetail.cfm?programID=101877
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/08/20108975319492772.html
Aug. 8, 2010
http://previous.ncra.ca/exchange/dspProgramDetail.cfm?programID=101877
http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2010/08/20108975319492772.html
How a Tree Can Start a War
Robert Fisk: UN: Israel was on its own side before border clash
Thursday, 5 August 2010
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-un-israel-was-on-its-own-side-before-border-clash-2043556.html
So was the tree inside Israel? The UN implies that the shrubbery that ultimately cost the lives of five men on Tuesday was on the Israeli side of the "Blue Line".
"Unifil established... that the trees being cut by the Israeli army are located south of the Blue Line on the Israeli side," said a Unifil military spokesman.
The tree was certainly north of Israel's own "technical fence". But the Lebanese have their doubts about some parts of the "Blue Line" – which is why Israel's attempt to cut down what appears to be a spruce tree started a gun battle on Tuesday on Lebanon's southern border which killed three Lebanese soldiers, a 55-year-old Lebanese journalist and an Israeli lieutenant-colonel. Along with the fact that Israel had apparently not co-ordinated its gardening expedition with the Lebanese via the UN.
Thursday, 5 August 2010
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-un-israel-was-on-its-own-side-before-border-clash-2043556.html
So was the tree inside Israel? The UN implies that the shrubbery that ultimately cost the lives of five men on Tuesday was on the Israeli side of the "Blue Line".
"Unifil established... that the trees being cut by the Israeli army are located south of the Blue Line on the Israeli side," said a Unifil military spokesman.
The tree was certainly north of Israel's own "technical fence". But the Lebanese have their doubts about some parts of the "Blue Line" – which is why Israel's attempt to cut down what appears to be a spruce tree started a gun battle on Tuesday on Lebanon's southern border which killed three Lebanese soldiers, a 55-year-old Lebanese journalist and an Israeli lieutenant-colonel. Along with the fact that Israel had apparently not co-ordinated its gardening expedition with the Lebanese via the UN.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Canada's Fading Democratic Committment
A less proud country
Apathetic Canadians have allowed their government to trample freedoms -- but opposition is mounting
By Lawrence Scanlan,
[Ottawa] Citizen Special July 28, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/less+proud+country/3330366/story.html#ixzz0uzHn95oZ
There's been a sea change, a darkening of the political climate in this country. The first instinct is to discount such javascript:void(0)troubling thoughts. So perhaps the view of someone born elsewhere, but long on our shores, is more to be trusted. Ursula Franklin, the celebrated physicist, pacifist, author and Companion of the Order of Canada, recently spoke to CBC Radio's The Current. She had survived a Nazi death camp and come to Canada hoping for better. Now 88, Franklin is "profoundly worried about the absence and erosion of democracy in Canada." Democracy, I heard her say on the radio, is a slow and messy process. When Franklin sees cabinet ministers holding press conferences to discuss legislation not yet debated in the House of Commons, she sees that process being skirted. And when she hears the prime minister saying he does not "trust" the Opposition, she sees contempt for democracy itself. "Who wants to live in a country," Franklin asked, "where those who don't think like you are deemed untrustworthy?"
A German reporter here to cover the G20 summit likened Toronto's walls to the Berlin Wall and Checkpoint Charlie. I was just in Berlin and the checkpoint these days comprises a few sandbags and two "soldiers" in Second World War American uniforms posing for tourists' cameras. Walls fall in one place, rise up in another. But surely not here?
Apathetic Canadians have allowed their government to trample freedoms -- but opposition is mounting
By Lawrence Scanlan,
[Ottawa] Citizen Special July 28, 2010
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/less+proud+country/3330366/story.html#ixzz0uzHn95oZ
There's been a sea change, a darkening of the political climate in this country. The first instinct is to discount such javascript:void(0)troubling thoughts. So perhaps the view of someone born elsewhere, but long on our shores, is more to be trusted. Ursula Franklin, the celebrated physicist, pacifist, author and Companion of the Order of Canada, recently spoke to CBC Radio's The Current. She had survived a Nazi death camp and come to Canada hoping for better. Now 88, Franklin is "profoundly worried about the absence and erosion of democracy in Canada." Democracy, I heard her say on the radio, is a slow and messy process. When Franklin sees cabinet ministers holding press conferences to discuss legislation not yet debated in the House of Commons, she sees that process being skirted. And when she hears the prime minister saying he does not "trust" the Opposition, she sees contempt for democracy itself. "Who wants to live in a country," Franklin asked, "where those who don't think like you are deemed untrustworthy?"
A German reporter here to cover the G20 summit likened Toronto's walls to the Berlin Wall and Checkpoint Charlie. I was just in Berlin and the checkpoint these days comprises a few sandbags and two "soldiers" in Second World War American uniforms posing for tourists' cameras. Walls fall in one place, rise up in another. But surely not here?
Saturday, July 24, 2010
UN Report on Mavi Marmara Massacre Due
Israel Braces Itself for
a UN Fact Finding Mission
by Gilad Atzmon
source
Israel faces another disastrous report as an 'Independent and impartial' fact-finding team appointed by the UN Human Rights Council will look into Israel's 'violations of international law' during her commando raid on the Gaza-bound Turkish ship.
Seemingly the UN Human Rights Council wasn’t overwhelmingly impressed by Israel's own ‘truth finding’ missions. I guess that this is understandable. The Israelis should accept the UN concerns. It is very uncommon to let the murderer or the rapist investigate himself.
The UN team is expected to travel to Israel, Turkey and Gaza in August to interview witnesses and gather information before reporting back to the Council in September.
I guess that in order to complete its job satisfyingly, the UN mission should consider taking advice from some Old Testament experts who can elaborate on the cultural and spiritual heritage that led to the current state of Israeli barbarism. As I've mentioned many times before, Zionism , is an attempt to revive the ancient Israelite nation. Hence it shouldn’t take us by surprise to discover that this has created a contemporary Israeli who follows the most sinister possible interpretation of the Judaic text.
Moreover, The UN mission would also benefit by recruiting some leading psychologists who can turn on a floodlight on the issues to do with Israeli collective lethal aggression. We all know the dry facts to do with the Israeli murder in the high seas. Yet, we are still perplexed that a so-called ‘democratic government’ made a decision to unleash its deadliest naval unit against civilians delivering humanitarian aid in international waters. If the UN wants to prevent future Israeli crimes, we better grasp, once and for all, what kind of needs the massacre was there to satisfy. We better understand once and for all why it is that Israeli politicians believe that providing their followers with fresh blood is translated into electoral power?
It is not yet clear whether Israel, which has a long history of rejecting UN probes, would cooperate and allow the team to visit. However, we have to bear in mind that Israel's political manoeuvring capacity in the international arena has shrunk considerably since her genocidal attacks on Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-9.
The Israeli reaction wasn’t late in coming. Officials in Jerusalem told the Israeli Ynet that the Human Right Council's decision to look into the May 31st raid on the Gaza-bound Turkish ship is “pointless”, “obsessed” and “weird”*.
It is unfortunately typical for Israelis to believe that the Goyim are ‘obsessed’ and ‘weird’. I guess that the only possible interpretation of such a statement is that Israelis believe that killing peace activists better become an international norm. Indeed, it has already become a norm in Israel.
Knesset Member Otniel Schneller (Kadima), went even further arguing that “instead of focusing on the flotilla raid, the international community should investigate the continued captivity of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in Gaza, which he says constitutes a violation of international law.
I myself wonder what law it violates exactly. Gilad Shalit was a soldier in uniform serving as a post guard in a concentration-camp in an occupied territory. Abducting Shalit was a fully legitimate act of resistance. Furthermore, the Hamas struggle to keep Shalit alive should be realised as an act of compassion and kindness. However, I wonder whether KM Schneller would also insist that an hypothetical case in which Jewish camp inmates abducted a Nazi officer from a bunker at the outskirts of Auschwitz would also constitute a “violation of international law"? I guess we all know the answer.
As it happens, the Jewish State is now in a siege. This siege is mental, spiritual, intellectual, physical and political. Israel can only blame itself.
* For obvious reasons, the word ‘weird’ appeared only in the Hebrew edition.
a UN Fact Finding Mission
by Gilad Atzmon
source
Israel faces another disastrous report as an 'Independent and impartial' fact-finding team appointed by the UN Human Rights Council will look into Israel's 'violations of international law' during her commando raid on the Gaza-bound Turkish ship.
Seemingly the UN Human Rights Council wasn’t overwhelmingly impressed by Israel's own ‘truth finding’ missions. I guess that this is understandable. The Israelis should accept the UN concerns. It is very uncommon to let the murderer or the rapist investigate himself.
The UN team is expected to travel to Israel, Turkey and Gaza in August to interview witnesses and gather information before reporting back to the Council in September.
I guess that in order to complete its job satisfyingly, the UN mission should consider taking advice from some Old Testament experts who can elaborate on the cultural and spiritual heritage that led to the current state of Israeli barbarism. As I've mentioned many times before, Zionism , is an attempt to revive the ancient Israelite nation. Hence it shouldn’t take us by surprise to discover that this has created a contemporary Israeli who follows the most sinister possible interpretation of the Judaic text.
Moreover, The UN mission would also benefit by recruiting some leading psychologists who can turn on a floodlight on the issues to do with Israeli collective lethal aggression. We all know the dry facts to do with the Israeli murder in the high seas. Yet, we are still perplexed that a so-called ‘democratic government’ made a decision to unleash its deadliest naval unit against civilians delivering humanitarian aid in international waters. If the UN wants to prevent future Israeli crimes, we better grasp, once and for all, what kind of needs the massacre was there to satisfy. We better understand once and for all why it is that Israeli politicians believe that providing their followers with fresh blood is translated into electoral power?
It is not yet clear whether Israel, which has a long history of rejecting UN probes, would cooperate and allow the team to visit. However, we have to bear in mind that Israel's political manoeuvring capacity in the international arena has shrunk considerably since her genocidal attacks on Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2008-9.
The Israeli reaction wasn’t late in coming. Officials in Jerusalem told the Israeli Ynet that the Human Right Council's decision to look into the May 31st raid on the Gaza-bound Turkish ship is “pointless”, “obsessed” and “weird”*.
It is unfortunately typical for Israelis to believe that the Goyim are ‘obsessed’ and ‘weird’. I guess that the only possible interpretation of such a statement is that Israelis believe that killing peace activists better become an international norm. Indeed, it has already become a norm in Israel.
Knesset Member Otniel Schneller (Kadima), went even further arguing that “instead of focusing on the flotilla raid, the international community should investigate the continued captivity of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit in Gaza, which he says constitutes a violation of international law.
I myself wonder what law it violates exactly. Gilad Shalit was a soldier in uniform serving as a post guard in a concentration-camp in an occupied territory. Abducting Shalit was a fully legitimate act of resistance. Furthermore, the Hamas struggle to keep Shalit alive should be realised as an act of compassion and kindness. However, I wonder whether KM Schneller would also insist that an hypothetical case in which Jewish camp inmates abducted a Nazi officer from a bunker at the outskirts of Auschwitz would also constitute a “violation of international law"? I guess we all know the answer.
As it happens, the Jewish State is now in a siege. This siege is mental, spiritual, intellectual, physical and political. Israel can only blame itself.
* For obvious reasons, the word ‘weird’ appeared only in the Hebrew edition.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Dire Straits - Original Brothers in Arms vid
 Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms : vidéo sur auFeminin.com  |
http://www.aufeminin.com/video/see_265812/dire-straits-brothers-in-arms.html
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Monday, July 05, 2010
Take away the banks' licence to print money
Take away the banks' licence to print money
By Paul Hellyer, Citizen Special July 5, 2010
source
I am one Torontonian who was bitterly disappointed by Canada's attempt to lead the world through the G20 group of leaders. Apart from putting our city through a kind of hell for three days, the "victory," if there was one, was not for the people of the world. It was a confirmation of the supremacy of Wall Street and of the fact that Mammon rules the world.
What was missing at the G20 was any meaningful discussion of why the banking industry was able to get the world into such a mess and how to keep it from reoccurring. Especially when, as U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs recently told a London audience, "Wall Street has had the most profitable year in its history. It made profits of $55 billion," thanks to bailouts and low interest rates. "Bankers are brazenly smirking as they pocket large amounts of our money," he said. And the most the G20 could agree on was to give them a green light to keep on doing it.
The world monetary and banking system that left tens of millions unemployed in Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere, and eroded the retirement wealth of a whole generation, is a disaster and must be fixed for the benefit of all. You would think G20 leaders would get the message after 25 recessions and depressions since 1890. Apparently not; we are doomed to struggle with more of the same.
The real source of the problem is a privately owned money-manufacturing monopoly that creates virtually all the new money as debt, of which there is so much that the real economy is about to drown in it. But there is a quick and simple fix with a Canadian precedent to support it.
Most people believe the bankers' myth that the money they lend to you today is money that someone else deposited yesterday. The odds of that being true are infinitesimal. They have to create the "money" they lend to you.
This is the way it works. Suppose you decide to borrow $35,000 to buy a new car. You visit your banker, who will ask for collateral; then you will be asked to sign a note for the principal amount with an agreed rate of interest. Once the note is signed, your banker will tap the bank's computer and, presto, a $35,000 credit will appear in your account. The important point is that only seconds earlier that "money" did not exist. It was created out of thin air -- so to speak.
The problem with bank-created money (BCM) is that it is all created as debt on which interest has to be paid. But no one creates any money with which to pay the interest, so collectively we have to borrow more and go deeper and deeper in debt. The system is like a balloon being pumped full of debt. The balloon keeps getting larger until the debt load is too big, and then it's like a balloon with a pin stuck in it. A recession or depression wipes out a lot of debt so the whole process can start over again.
In 1938, there were no job openings in Canada -- none. Then war broke out in 1939. Soon everyone was working. Some people joined the armed forces, others built factories or made munitions. So, you might ask, where did they get the money necessary to do all this? The Bank of Canada just printed it.
The system worked this way. The Bank of Canada (BoC) printed money to buy government of Canada bonds. The government paid the BoC interest on the bonds, but the bank paid it back as dividends. So the net cost to taxpayers was close to zero.
The cash that the government got from the sale of its bonds was spent into circulation and wound up in the private banks, where it became what the economists called high-powered money. That became the monetary base (cash reserves) for private banks to expand their lending capacity and make loans for building factories, etc.
In effect, the money-creation function was shared between the government of Canada, through the Bank of Canada, and the private banks. This was the system that got us out of the Great Depression, helped finance the Second World War, helped finance post-war infrastructure and assisted in laying the foundation for our
social security network. It was the system that gave us the best 25 years of the 20th century!
It continued, in effect, until 1974 when the BoC, in concert with other central banks, adopted the ideas of Milton Friedman and his colleagues at the University of Chicago. This led to the current so-called capital adequacy system that is basically uncontrollable because all of the yardsticks are subjective. It has got to go.
The first requirement is to re-instate the cash reserve system as an objective regulator of the rate of money creation without the wild fluctuations in interest rates that have had such horrific consequences in the real world.
Next, bank leverage has to be reduced from 20-to-one to a level that the banks themselves would consider prudent if they were making a loan to industry. A ratio of three-to-one appears to be most appropriate. That leaves them with more than enough money-creation power to meet their legitimate objectives while denying the reckless latitude to finance leveraged buyouts, hedge funds, the purchase of stocks on margin, and the casino-like activities that have become addictive.
Third, and profoundly significant, the proportion of government-created money (GCM) should increase to 34 per cent of the total, while the banks are reduced to 66 per cent from about 95 per cent. If the GCM is created as debt-free money, it will be possible to reverse debt-to-GDP ratios in every country. Of course, the 33-per-cent cash reserve should be phased in over a period of years to give the banks time to adjust to the new reality. Still, benefits of the transition would be immediate.
Canadian banks had considerably more than $2 trillion in assets at the end of last year. Requiring them to increase the cash in their vaults by three per cent would allow the federal government to print enough money to eliminate its budgetary deficit for last year. One or two additional percentage points would provide cash to allow the federal government to assist the hard-pressed provinces and still have enough cash to provide additional stimulus to help create jobs for people affected by the banking crisis.
Whenever government-created money is suggested, the knee-jerk reaction of orthodox economists is that it would be inflationary. That is not correct. It is the quantity of money put into circulation that influences prices, not who prints it. GCM would be entirely neutral if BCM was reduced accordingly.
The infusion of substantial sums of debt-free money would end the tsunami of debt that has put the world financial system in peril and paralysed governments from taking the essential steps to solve the problems of the real world, as opposed to the demands of the money-changers.
Was it too much to ask of the leaders of the G20 that they put the interests of their electors and of future generations ahead of the interests of an elite few?
Former defence minister Paul Hellyer is the author of a new book titled Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Survival Plan for the Human Species.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Take+away+banks+licence+print+money/3236169/story.html#ixzz0sqPZ7BM7
By Paul Hellyer, Citizen Special July 5, 2010
source
I am one Torontonian who was bitterly disappointed by Canada's attempt to lead the world through the G20 group of leaders. Apart from putting our city through a kind of hell for three days, the "victory," if there was one, was not for the people of the world. It was a confirmation of the supremacy of Wall Street and of the fact that Mammon rules the world.
What was missing at the G20 was any meaningful discussion of why the banking industry was able to get the world into such a mess and how to keep it from reoccurring. Especially when, as U.S. economist Jeffrey Sachs recently told a London audience, "Wall Street has had the most profitable year in its history. It made profits of $55 billion," thanks to bailouts and low interest rates. "Bankers are brazenly smirking as they pocket large amounts of our money," he said. And the most the G20 could agree on was to give them a green light to keep on doing it.
The world monetary and banking system that left tens of millions unemployed in Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere, and eroded the retirement wealth of a whole generation, is a disaster and must be fixed for the benefit of all. You would think G20 leaders would get the message after 25 recessions and depressions since 1890. Apparently not; we are doomed to struggle with more of the same.
The real source of the problem is a privately owned money-manufacturing monopoly that creates virtually all the new money as debt, of which there is so much that the real economy is about to drown in it. But there is a quick and simple fix with a Canadian precedent to support it.
Most people believe the bankers' myth that the money they lend to you today is money that someone else deposited yesterday. The odds of that being true are infinitesimal. They have to create the "money" they lend to you.
This is the way it works. Suppose you decide to borrow $35,000 to buy a new car. You visit your banker, who will ask for collateral; then you will be asked to sign a note for the principal amount with an agreed rate of interest. Once the note is signed, your banker will tap the bank's computer and, presto, a $35,000 credit will appear in your account. The important point is that only seconds earlier that "money" did not exist. It was created out of thin air -- so to speak.
The problem with bank-created money (BCM) is that it is all created as debt on which interest has to be paid. But no one creates any money with which to pay the interest, so collectively we have to borrow more and go deeper and deeper in debt. The system is like a balloon being pumped full of debt. The balloon keeps getting larger until the debt load is too big, and then it's like a balloon with a pin stuck in it. A recession or depression wipes out a lot of debt so the whole process can start over again.
In 1938, there were no job openings in Canada -- none. Then war broke out in 1939. Soon everyone was working. Some people joined the armed forces, others built factories or made munitions. So, you might ask, where did they get the money necessary to do all this? The Bank of Canada just printed it.
The system worked this way. The Bank of Canada (BoC) printed money to buy government of Canada bonds. The government paid the BoC interest on the bonds, but the bank paid it back as dividends. So the net cost to taxpayers was close to zero.
The cash that the government got from the sale of its bonds was spent into circulation and wound up in the private banks, where it became what the economists called high-powered money. That became the monetary base (cash reserves) for private banks to expand their lending capacity and make loans for building factories, etc.
In effect, the money-creation function was shared between the government of Canada, through the Bank of Canada, and the private banks. This was the system that got us out of the Great Depression, helped finance the Second World War, helped finance post-war infrastructure and assisted in laying the foundation for our
social security network. It was the system that gave us the best 25 years of the 20th century!
It continued, in effect, until 1974 when the BoC, in concert with other central banks, adopted the ideas of Milton Friedman and his colleagues at the University of Chicago. This led to the current so-called capital adequacy system that is basically uncontrollable because all of the yardsticks are subjective. It has got to go.
The first requirement is to re-instate the cash reserve system as an objective regulator of the rate of money creation without the wild fluctuations in interest rates that have had such horrific consequences in the real world.
Next, bank leverage has to be reduced from 20-to-one to a level that the banks themselves would consider prudent if they were making a loan to industry. A ratio of three-to-one appears to be most appropriate. That leaves them with more than enough money-creation power to meet their legitimate objectives while denying the reckless latitude to finance leveraged buyouts, hedge funds, the purchase of stocks on margin, and the casino-like activities that have become addictive.
Third, and profoundly significant, the proportion of government-created money (GCM) should increase to 34 per cent of the total, while the banks are reduced to 66 per cent from about 95 per cent. If the GCM is created as debt-free money, it will be possible to reverse debt-to-GDP ratios in every country. Of course, the 33-per-cent cash reserve should be phased in over a period of years to give the banks time to adjust to the new reality. Still, benefits of the transition would be immediate.
Canadian banks had considerably more than $2 trillion in assets at the end of last year. Requiring them to increase the cash in their vaults by three per cent would allow the federal government to print enough money to eliminate its budgetary deficit for last year. One or two additional percentage points would provide cash to allow the federal government to assist the hard-pressed provinces and still have enough cash to provide additional stimulus to help create jobs for people affected by the banking crisis.
Whenever government-created money is suggested, the knee-jerk reaction of orthodox economists is that it would be inflationary. That is not correct. It is the quantity of money put into circulation that influences prices, not who prints it. GCM would be entirely neutral if BCM was reduced accordingly.
The infusion of substantial sums of debt-free money would end the tsunami of debt that has put the world financial system in peril and paralysed governments from taking the essential steps to solve the problems of the real world, as opposed to the demands of the money-changers.
Was it too much to ask of the leaders of the G20 that they put the interests of their electors and of future generations ahead of the interests of an elite few?
Former defence minister Paul Hellyer is the author of a new book titled Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Survival Plan for the Human Species.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Take+away+banks+licence+print+money/3236169/story.html#ixzz0sqPZ7BM7
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
G20: Phony Weapons Cache Displayed by Toronto Police
Toronto's top police officer misled the public by displaying fake weapons used in a medieval-themed role-playing game to help justify their actions during G20 protests, their owner said Wednesday.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/30/g20-weapons.html
Brian Barrett said everything in the backpack police confiscated from him "was safe enough for toddlers."
Barrett's "spell-balls," foam-covered batons and scale-mail vest were among items police Chief Bill Blair showed reporters on Tuesday.
"He turns around and states that they are specifically dangerous terrorist items that were solely intended to hurt police," Barrett said. "That's unacceptable to me."
Barrett, 25, of Whitby, Ont., was en route to a west-end park for a role-playing fantasy game called Amtgard when police stopped him at Union Station on Saturday.
Players ranging in age from early teens to late 40s regularly participate in the fantasy combat involving foam swords often referred to as live action role-playing or LARPing.
Police questioned Barrett for almost three hours, confiscated his gear, and released him.
He said he expected it would be returned as early as Monday.
But when he turned on his TV Tuesday, he saw the gear displayed along with hatchets, bats and tire irons that police had confiscated over the weekend.
His homemade shield, foam-covered baton, scale-mail vest, and roll of hockey tape sat next to bear spray, a modified BB-gun, and gas masks.
Barrett was enraged to see his property associated with violence and vandalism.
Could be used to set fire
Police did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday, but had previously insisted the items were potentially dangerous.
For example, they said, the "spell balls" could be used to set fire to a building.
Blair had already been forced to admit that a chainsaw and crossbow on display at the news conference had nothing to do with G20 protests.
The police chief was also forced to admit that a regulation granting police unprecedented search and arrest powers did not apply to the area outside the summit fence.
However, Blair said he deliberately chose to leave the public in the dark.
More than 900 people were detained for incidents related to G20 protests.
Civil libertarians and opposition politicians both federally and provincially are calling for an independent review of how police behaved amid accusations of widespread abuses.
They claim police illegally detained, searched and arrested people.
Barrett said he's baffled that Blair would try to mislead the public with his homemade props, especially while under such scrutiny
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/30/g20-weapons.html#ixzz0sO8IzwcR
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Cutting Through the Confusion About Israel/Palestine
Richard Forer – Cutting Through the Confusion About Israel/Palestine
June 25, 2010
By Richard Forer*
In the spring of 2009, I was a member of a group that put up a billboard criticizing Israel's lethal use of force during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. A year later, the group received a letter from a college student – referred to as "J" below – asking it to remove the billboard. The student said that he had researched the Gaza invasion and had concluded that both sides were equally responsible for its consequences. He felt that the billboard unfairly placed the blame for all of the destruction solely at the feet of Israel. I replied to the student with the following letter, some of which contains passages from my forthcoming book.
Hi J,
Thank you for your letter. First, I assume you are Jewish. Is that correct? Before I get into the specifics of your letter I want to talk about a few things you might find interesting. I do so because everyone involved in the Israel-Palestine issue has the potential to change the world from an arena of Us against Them into one of peace and respect. But that requires undeviating self-honesty, which leads to compassion, clarity and understanding. Most people do not take up the challenge of looking deeply within for fear of what they might find. They revert to the safety of their presumed identity and the beliefs and images that make up and reinforce their identity. Attachment to a limited or exclusive identity always carries with it the consciousness of Us against Them. The consciousness of Us against Them requires that there be unending conflict.
Perhaps you have it within yourself to look beyond what you currently see as all sides of the issue. I hope so because the lives of those who suffer on either side of the conflict depend upon people like you. Peace is only possible when we care for people on both sides equally. We do not have to like the other but we have to recognize that he is just as entitled to self-determination as us, that he has the same human needs for respect and dignity as do we. We also have to begin to understand and ask why the other acts as he does. Does his motivation arise in a vacuum or does it arise in relationship to our own behaviour. Have we played roles in inciting his behavior? Until we take responsibility for the parts we play in the drama of human suffering and as it relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict, peace has no chance; and the people we claim to care about will continue to suffer and die, now and into the bloody future, in Israel, in Palestine and throughout the world. They will die and suffer because our true goal is not their wellbeing; our true goal is to maintain our presumed identity; it is to confirm the beliefs and images that we incorrectly associate with our personal and collective identity.
As long as we believe in a world of Us against Them we will see a world of Us against Them. Our emotions, our attitudes toward others, the way we interpret events, what we notice and what we don't notice will mirror our world view, thereby confirming and reinforcing it. In short, individually and collectively, we create the world we live in. Thus, the great struggle all of us must take on, if we truly want peace and respect between peoples, is to transform our consciousness from Us against Them to one of tolerance and understanding.
To be honest your letter can only fully be answered with a comprehensive look at the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The book I have completed would be a good reply but that is beyond the scope of our discussion for now. Obviously you are very passionate and concerned about this situation. With that in mind I have included at the end of this letter a list of some well-researched books on the subject. Most of these writers have come to similar conclusions. Most of them are Jewish. Cypel and Hirst are famous journalists from France and England respectively. Cypel lived in Israel for 10 years and his father was a Zionist leader. Ben-Ami, a historian and former minister of foreign affairs and internal security, was Barak's chief negotiator at Camp David. [Ilan] Pappe, [Avi] Shlaim, [Tom] Segev and [Benny] Morris are all famous Israeli historians and among the group known as "new" or "revisionist" historians because of their access to the primary archives and their refutation of common Zionist myths. [Tanya] Reinhart and [Baruch] Kimmerling were two of the most renowned and courageous sociologist/historians in Israeli academia. [Mary Elizabeth] King is an expert on collective non-violent action who has worked with Martin Luther King (no relation) and Jimmy Carter. [Clayton] Swisher was a VIP security guard at the Camp David talks in 2000. He interviewed many of the participants. [Anna] Baltzer, an American, is one of the most compassionate people I have ever had the honour to meet. She is brilliant, fair and honest. She cares about Israelis as well as Palestinians.
And even though he is particularly controversial, Norman Finkelstein, despite his blunt critique of Israel's defenders, is included because of his genius and meticulous research. You can watch him on YouTube. I researched a great deal of the claims he makes by reviewing his sources. In every case he checks out perfectly. I saw no distortion, obfuscation or deceit. Additionally, one cannot ignore the sources he cites. Truthfully, if one wants to criticize Israel, deceit is unnecessary. The words and confessions of Israeli leaders are more than enough.
Again, before I respond to the points you make about Gaza, let me tell you a little about me. I was born a few months before Israel declared its statehood. Both of my parents were first generation Americans. My mother lost 17 relatives in the Holocaust. My father and his family never discussed anything about that horror. My younger brother is president of one of the largest Jewish congregations on the east coast. My identical twin brother is an ultra-Orthodox Jew who lived for a few years in Israel. Both of his daughters are married with children and live in Jerusalem. Some of their friends are militant Jews from Hebron and other messianic communities, who believe that the sixth commandment, which they translate as "Thou shalt not commit murder," cannot be violated by killing any Arab, since Arabs are inherently predisposed to want to murder Jews; and Arabs are not human anyway. One of my brother's sons recently served in the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]. I have a friend who lives in Ma'ale Adumim, in occupied territory outside of Jerusalem. She was a member of Kach (Meir Kahane's group) for 15 years. She now holds Palestinian-Israeli dialogue groups and prefers a one-state solution.
I was extremely "pro-Israel" my entire lifetime. I was utterly supportive of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. I joined AIPAC and donated to the Jewish Federation. Midway through the war in Lebanon, after arguments with close friends who were critical of Israel, I decided to actually engage myself in a real study of the Israel-Arab conflict. My purpose was to alleviate my suffering and to find more historical arguments to refute the claims my friends were making. Up to that point in time I had only read Joan Peters's highly influential book From Time Immemorial, a book that I learned has been universally debunked and called a "hoax", "phony", "worthless", "recycled Zionist propaganda", "previously modified and discredited Zionist propaganda", etc. by scholars from Israel, Europe, the US and the Jewish World Congress. I had used Peters's research to justify my claim that there never were a Palestinian people; that Israel had always treated the so-called Palestinians kindly and had always bent over backwards for peace.
During my research that began in the midst of the Second Lebanon War I chose to study Jewish scholars only, knowing that if I studied the subject from the perspective of any Arab or Muslim scholar I would suspect bias. My study became a full-time and daily practice to this very day. As mentioned above, many of the scholars I studied had access to the most primary of sources, among them the Israeli state, IDF, Ben-Gurion, Haganah, Palmach and Central Zionist archives. I read the arguments of many Israeli officials, including a number of heads of Shin Bet (Israel's internal security agency) and I read numerous respected international publications (none Arab), including the Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz and Yediot Ahronoth. I also studied the websites of the Israeli ministries of defence, internal security, foreign affairs and health as well as respected human rights organizations such as B'Tselem, HaMoked (Centre for the Defence of the individual), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, OCHA (the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), UNICEF, the International Red Cross, National Lawyers Guild, Goldstone report, etc., all of which (including the two Israeli NGOs) at one time I would have suspected of being anti-Semitic. I read from both sides of the divide, including Alan Dershowitz, Aaron David Miller, Dennis Ross, Shlomo Ben-Ami, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and more. If I wasn't sure who a source was I checked it out. I discarded anyone whose claims I could not verify through further research and I discarded anyone who appeared anti-Semitic and/or seemed to be promoting their own prejudices without, at the very least, solid proof from reputable sources. I also randomly checked the sources of virtually all of the articles, books and publications I examined to make sure the author was not taking quotes out of context, was not distorting the real message his source was conveying or was not simply lying. All of the actual historians checked out well; and the human rights organizations, independent of each other are of a very similar mind. I doubt there has ever been a more solidly documented conflict in world history than the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Other than Peters the one author who was clearly distorting history for his own purposes is Alan Dershowitz. Anybody can debunk The Case for Israel. At one time Dershowitz was someone I admired but his spiteful and slanderous participation in the Israel-Palestine issue has only inflamed Zionists and given them apparent justification for their unjustified verbal attacks against not only Palestinians but honest and courageous scholars as well as Jimmy Carter, who is committed to a fair peace between both sides and without whose help in brilliantly brokering the Camp David Accords Israel would not exist in its present form. Remember, Dershowitz is not a historian; he is an attorney and his book is written with the mind of an attorney. He ignores and distorts evidence that could convict his client; and he obfuscates where obfuscation clouds any issue that could also convict his client. Unlike historians who start out with a hypothesis and do research to confirm, modify or deny the hypothesis, and who allow the facts to determine their conclusions, Dershowitz decides on the conclusions and then researches (or not) accordingly. To cite only two examples out of many, on page 184 [of The Case for Israel] he quotes Raji Sourani:
Even Raji Sourani, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza and a strident critic of Israel, says that he remains "constantly amazed by the high standards of the legal system [sic]." [Dershowitz cites Greg Myre, "Trial of Palestinian leader focuses attention on Israeli courts," New York Times, 5 May 2003].
Here is the actual quote from the New York Times:
Despite his many frustrations with the Israeli courts, Mr Sourani says he remains "constantly amazed by the high standards of the legal system". "On many issues," he said, "when the courts are dealing with purely Israeli questions, like gay rights, I admire their rulings. But when it comes to the Palestinians, these same people seem to be totally schizophrenic." [emphases added]
On page 42 Dershowitz says the following without citing source material:
The developing clash between the Jews of Palestine, led by David Ben-Gurion, and the Muslims, led by the uncompromising Jew-hater, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was not over whether the Jews or Muslims would control all of Palestine… Instead, it was – realistically viewed – whether the remainder of Palestine was to be given exclusively to the Muslims of Palestine or whether it would be fairly divided between the Jews and the Muslims of Palestine, each of whom effectively controlled certain areas.
What is particularly egregious about this quote, which is nothing more than Dershowitz's own made-up version of history, is that his primary source, Benny Morris, shows that Ben-Gurion's intention was the opposite of what Dershowitz attempts to deceive his reader into believing. Dershowitz quotes Morris's Righteous Victims 59 times in the first 83 pages of his book. He quotes Morris a total of 87 times within the 244 pages of the book. Here is what Morris (who is a Zionist and believes that Palestinians are "psychopaths" and "serial killers") says in Righteous Victims, p.138:
[Weizmann and Ben-Gurion] saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine… [Ben-Gurion] wrote to his son, Amos: ‘[A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning… Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state … will serve as a very potent lever in our efforts to redeem the whole country.
The above passage by Ben-Gurion expresses a common intention that he and the majority of Zionists shared for more than a decade before 1948. Confirmation of this can be found in many books on the subject.
Even though I am going to disagree with you I appreciate the fact that you are doing your own research. One bit of advice that I think is important for everyone is: Do not believe a thing anyone tells you about this issue. Find out for yourself through the most objective research possible, as I did and be sure to do it out of a sense of integrity. Do not demean yourself by selectively researching the subject in order to prove to yourself that what you believe is accurate. Otherwise you will never discover your role in the suffering of others, nor will you discover how to alleviate that suffering. And you will never resolve your own anxiety and suffering. As a Jew you will always be left with the dilemma of victimization: Why does the world not understand my people and why is the world anti-Semitic juxtaposed against compelling evidence that is impossible for all but the willfully deaf and blind to ignore.
J, all that I am going to say here can be found in the many sources I list above or in sources available in my forthcoming book. I cannot divulge these readily available sources at this time because I want to protect the integrity of my book. I also want you to know that I have provided more than 20 Jewish supporters of Israel with evidence similar to what I provide in this letter. I have asked them to examine my evidence and to read one book to either confirm or deny the beliefs they take for granted. Not one has been willing to read a book. Not one was willing to challenge his beliefs. All claim concern for their Jewish brethren, yet none have compassion for the Palestinians. I try to impress upon them that as long as people continue to distort the history of the Israel-Palestine problem and character-assassinate the Palestinian people – as has been going on for over 60 years – peace will not be possible. Their response is to ignore me or accuse me of being anti-Israeli. Denying reality, perpetuating an illegal and brutal occupation, character-assassinating the people you need to make peace with is a road to more suffering, not just for the weak but also for the strong. Acknowledging the truth and working to restore integrity is indeed a road to peace. Who really cares about Israel and who really cares more about holding onto false and unexamined beliefs?
You start your letter with the statement that "we must look at both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side". I agree but you have not really looked at the Palestinian side. Take, for example, the letter you quote from Tom Adam of Sderot. Yes, he has had to deal with fear of rocket attacks but why? Without condoning these rocket attacks we have to ask: Why have Palestinian groups launched these rockets? Has Israel incited them? Is the launching of these primitive rockets the only way they know to let the world know that their parents, grandparents and children are being oppressed from birth to death? What about Palestinian children, whose lives are at the mercy of the Israeli military? Many of these kids have seen their fathers beaten by Israeli soldiers, their mothers humiliated and called "whores", have seen violence committed by Israeli soldiers or settlers on a regular basis, yearn for a glass of uncontaminated drinking water, are malnourished, maimed, deaf, blind, paraplegic, amputees, have endured Israeli sonic booms that cause all kinds of trauma, including bedwetting, nausea, miscarriages, nosebleeds, anxiety, muscle spasms, temporary loss of hearing, heart and breathing problems. These Palestinian children are the lucky ones because they are not dead, the victims of rockets, bullets, white phosphorus and Israel's common refusal to allow medical supplies into Gaza. Also, you should know that Israel fortified public buildings and constructed shelters to protect its Jewish population in the line of rocket attacks. You should also know that Israel did nothing to protect its Palestinian-Israeli citizens in their villages in the line of these same attacks.
You say the Billion Coalition "depicts Israel as the perpetrator and sole cause of the atrocities committed during Operation Cast Lead". I do not agree that the coalition depicts Israel as the "sole cause of the atrocities", the vast majority of which were in fact perpetrated by Israel. Rather they see Israel as the primary cause. Israel, as military and civil and illegal occupier, whose force is thousands of time more powerful than the Palestinians, is the party that has the power to make peace. What is particularly counter-productive is Israel's refusal to abide by international conventions and laws, which are designed to bring about a degree of civility between peoples.
Speaking of peace, I will mention only one example of Israel's continual sabotage or ignoring of peace proposals since 1948. That is the 2002 Roadmap for Peace that the Palestinians accepted in full. Israel "accepted" but with 14 prerequisites. Among them:
[C]essation of incitement against Israel, but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians." "The waiver of any right of return of refugees to Israel; No discussion of Israeli settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza or the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem; No reference to the key provisions of UN Resolution 242.
Any objective research leads to the inescapable conclusion that Israel has never wanted peace; what Israel has always wanted is more territory. Israel's greed has necessitated the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in order to grab their territory.
You may not be aware, for example, that Israel conspired with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in 1987 to create Hamas. Israel also armed Hamas. It wanted an alternative to the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]. The first Intifada began in 1987. It was primarily nonviolent on the part of Palestinians (not Israelis). Israel arrested or deported most of the nonviolent leaders while allowing Sheikh [Ahmad] Yassin, Hamas's spiritual leader, to distribute anti-Jewish hate literature calling for the violent overthrow of the Zionist government. It is far easier for Israel to portray the Palestinians as psychotic killers in order to divert the world's attention from its strategy of land theft and ethnic cleansing and thereby deceive the world into believing the Israeli army is merely defending itself than it is to justify land theft and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians when their resistance is nonviolent.
You need to do a lot more research if you want to discover, as close as possible, the truth. Your research looks like it comes from either public Israeli government sources, which are notoriously unreliable, or Israeli apologists who have a record of justifying virtually anything Israel does. You also need to more carefully review the Goldstone report. Israel committed terrible atrocities against civilians. Just because Hamas is also guilty of terror (to a significantly less extent than Israel) does not exonerate Israel of anything.
Israel has a National Information Directorate whose purpose is to coordinate the various sectors of the government apparatus into disseminating self-serving messages (propaganda) to the public. I do not trust the Israeli government to publicly admit to their crimes. To do so would hurt their image to Jewish supporters around the world who still believe in Israel's "purity of arms" and it would implicate its leaders in war crimes for which they could eventually be prosecuted. Israel has always lied about its actions. Its history of lies is astonishing. I prefer to rely on sources that have nothing to gain and everything to lose with their admissions of honesty. Benny Morris:
For decades Ben-Gurion, and successive administrations after his, lied to the Israeli public about the post-1948 peace overtures and about Arab interest in a deal. The Arab leaders (with the possible exception of [King] Abdullah [of Jordan]) were presented, one and all, as a recalcitrant collection of warmongers, hell-bent on Israel's destruction. The recent opening of the Israeli archives offers a far more complex picture.
Akiva Eldar:
Without lies, it would be impossible to talk about peace with the Palestinians for 36 years while at the same time seizing more and more Palestinian land. Without lies, it would be impossible to claim that there is no partner for the road map, while at the same time injecting more and more money into outposts that the road map calls for dismantling. Without lies, it would be impossible to promise "painful concessions" in exchange for peace, while at the same time terming people who concluded such an agreement "traitors".
Former Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence General Yehoshafat Harkabi:
We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism.
Moshe Dayan:
[The state of Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no – it must – invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge… And above all – let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.
You say that the "fundamental truth is that this is a two-way conflict". The Palestinians could end the conflict by lying down and allowing Jewish settlers, with the support of their government, to overrun them, allow them to take the remainder of their agricultural lands, their villages and their homes, and drive them out of the country into generations of poverty and homelessness. Is that a real peace? The fundamental truth is that Zionism, and the lies perpetrated by its founders, leaders and supporters from the days of Theodore Herzl on, has initiated and perpetuated this conflict. If someone attacks you, tries to steal everything you own, abuses and humiliates your children and then tells the world that you are a liar who never owned the land in the first place would you accept that?" I do not know any person or country in the world who would passively accept the theft of their land. In 1948 Jews owned about 6 per cent of the land of Palestine. They now control 78 per cent of the land outright, which both the PLO and Hamas have de facto accepted as irreversible. Additionally, Israel has illegally seized or controls about half of the West Bank. And Israel maintains land, sea and air control over the Gaza Strip. In short, the Palestinians subsist on about 10 per cent of their indigenous homeland.
Mostly Ashkenazi Jews fought the British and the Arabs for a Jewish national home. Their connection to the land called Palestine was far less than the connection Palestinians had and still have to that same land. Yet I know of no Jewish supporter of Israel who does not applaud the acts of the Haganah, Irgun and even Stern Gang for their roles in establishing Israel. I know of no Jewish supporter of Israel who resents the uprising of Polish Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto against their Nazi oppressors. In order to dissociate Palestinian resistance from Jewish resistance Israel supporters have to make up myths to portray the Palestinians as not a real people, as inherently anti-Semitic, as murderous and hateful, as not the real owners of the land, as a psychotic society, etc., etc. These myths are designed to deceive all of us. They deprive Jews and others of their natural intelligence and compassion. Palestinian resistance, while mostly nonviolent, is similar to the resistance of any occupied people throughout history.
Israel did kill almost 400 children in Operation Cast Lead. I am not saying that Israel's leaders said "let's go kill Palestinian children" but there is no question that Israel's leaders knew perfectly well that hundreds of Palestinian children and other civilians would die. Gaza is, after all, the third most densely populated place on earth, with 50 per cent of its inhabitants less than 16 years of age. Gaza has been a closed military area since 1967. Its citizens have nowhere to go to flee Israeli bombs and rockets. I suggest you look up Israel's Dahiya Doctrine (or strategy), which is designed to punish a civilian society for the actions of its leaders (a war crime). As General Gadi Eisenkot said after Lebanon:
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 are military bases. This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.
Israel's most eminent military strategist, Zeev Schiff, said: "the Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously… the army … has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets … [but] purposely attacked civilian targets." Former Chief of Staff Mordecai Gur, a moderate, admitted that Israel always targeted civilians (see [David] Hirst). Rafael Eitan, chief of staff during Israel's destruction of Lebanese society in the early 1980s, was an extreme hawk who served for years as Ariel Sharon's second-in-command. He was responsible for the murders of hundreds of Egyptian PoWs at the end of the Suez War. He proposed that for every incident of stone throwing Israel should build 10 settlements. He said "the only good Arab is a dead Arab". He was founder of the extreme right ultra-nationalist Tzomet party (Movement for Zionist Renewal). Later in life he admitted ordering his troops to brutalize prisoners and impose collective punishment upon Palestinians (both war crimes). He said: "I don't believe in peace, because if they had done to us what we did to them we'd never agree to make peace." Think of the implications of that statement. Yitzhak Rabin admitted that "ruling over another people has corrupted us".
Operation Cast Lead was not "a reaction due to the Islamic Resistance Movement". It was collective punishment designed to intimidate a people into rejecting Hamas; and it was a re-establishment of the deterrent force Israel relinquished to a certain extent in Lebanon. Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and former National Security Director, said: "If Israel's goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured such quiet for a generation."
Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet, acknowledged that Hamas is willing to accept a long-term ceasefire on the 1967 borders.
Amira Hass reported in Ha'aretz: "The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."
Jimmy Carter:
But one of the things that they [Hamas] committed to me that was very significant, and they announced it publicly, by the way, to al-Jazeera and others, was that they would accept any agreement that's negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians if it's submitted to a referendum in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians approve it. That means they would accept Israel's right to exist if that's in the agreement and so forth.
Roger Cohen of the New York Times:
Henry Siegman, the president of the US/Middle East Project, whose chairman is [Brent] Scowcroft … told me that he met recently with Khaled Meshal, the political director of Hamas in Damascus. Meshal told him, and put in writing, that although Hamas would not recognize Israel, it would remain in a Palestinian national unity government that reached a referendum-endorsed peace settlement with Israel.
Regarding Hamas's use of hospitals, the Goldstone report states: "The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities and that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes."
In 2006 Israel made a similar claim that Hezbollah embedded their forces within civilian areas in order to attract Israeli firepower. That claim was debunked by Human Rights Watch, which clarified that most of Hezbollah's rockets were "stored in bunkers and weapon storage facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys".
You are correct that "Eighty per cent of the weapons used were precision guided, and 99 per cent of all strikes hit their targets." Yes, these precision guided rockets destroyed or killed civilians, whole neighbourhoods, minarets where there was no room for any fighter to hide and launch rockets, and UN buildings. B'Tselem reported: "Whole families were killed; parents saw their children shot before their very eyes; relatives watched their loved ones bleed to death; and entire neighbourhoods were obliterated."
A United Nations General Assembly report quoted the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross): "The Israeli military ‘failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded.' Israel made no effort to allow civilians to escape the fighting."
The Goldstone report is particularly damning. Again, please read through it. Goldstone rejected the HRC's [UN Human Rights Council] request to investigate possible war crimes by Israel until they altered the wording to include Hamas as a possible perpetrator. The Israeli government acknowledged his "record of impartiality". His findings are in line with the numerous human rights groups I mentioned earlier in the letter. IDF soldiers have testified to deliberately killing civilians, just as they have testified to similar brutalities in Hebron. The evidence is overwhelming. If Goldstone had not been head of the Mission there is a high likelihood that the report would have been even more critical of Israel.
Goldstone, as any reasonable person knows, is not an anti-Semite. Eliyahu Yishai was deputy prime minister during Operation Cast Lead. At the beginning of the invasion he urged the IDF to "bomb thousands of houses, to destroy Gaza". Nine months later, as minister of the interior, Yishai slandered Goldstone as an "abominable anti-Semite" for heading a mission that concluded that the IDF did exactly what Yishai wanted them to do. Yishai is not a reasonable person.
Israel's internal investigations were designed to cover up their atrocities. Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi is not going to implicate himself or other Israeli officials in possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. Amnesty International responded to the IDF "internal investigation":
The information made public only refers to a handful of cases and lacks crucial details. It mostly repeats claims made by the army and the authorities many times since the early days of Operation "Cast Lead… It does not even attempt to explain the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths nor the massive destruction caused to civilian buildings in Gaza… [T]he army's claims appear to be more an attempt to shirk its responsibilities than a genuine process to establish the truth. Such an approach lacks credibility.
Regarding rocket and mortar fire, from 2000 through 2008 Palestinian groups launched 8,088 unsophisticated rockets and mortars against Israel. From 2001 through 2008 eighteen Israelis were killed as a result of these attacks. Contrast those figures with the 7,700 sophisticated rockets that Israel launched against Gaza in nine months, between September 2005 and June 2006. From 2005-2007, 1,290 Gazans, including 222 children, were killed as a result of these kinds of attacks. Who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?
Your statement that "Israel warned the Palestinian people that election of Hamas to the head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) would only cause more conflict" is a reflection of an authoritarian mentality that places one party in control over the lives of another. It is the same mentality that is at the root of this conflict. Hamas was elected in a fair election that the US pushed for. Who is Israel to decide for the Palestinians who their leaders should be? Hamas is not monolithic, is not particularly corrupt as is Fatah, and is not a collaborator with the Israeli government. That is why they were elected and that is why Israel wants them removed. Hamas makes the continued dispossession of the Palestinian people more difficult. What you call Israel's warning was actually a threat. Hamas has repeatedly stated its willingness to establish a long-term truce. Ephraim Halevy and American strategists said that Israel and the US have the ability to strengthen Hamas's moderate wing and engage them in a peace process. But, as Moshe Dayan states above, Israel is not interested in a peace process.
If you honestly are looking for the truth your study of Operation Cast Lead is simply not thorough or objective enough. With regard to the ceasefire, if you read the analysis of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Centre (IICC) you will learn that "The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire."
Israel never really adhered to the ceasefire. They only allowed the average number of trucks entering Gaza to increase from 70 per day to 90, not the 500 per day that crossed before Israel instituted its blockade. On 4 November 2008 IDF troops entered Gaza and killed six or seven Hamas soldiers because they were allegedly digging a tunnel for the purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Hamas said its members had been digging the tunnel for defensive purposes. On 5 November Israel sealed all crossing points into Gaza. Yossi Alpher, former Mossad official and former adviser to then Prime Minister Ehud Barak:
[The blockade is] collective punishment, humanitarian suffering. It has not caused Palestinians in Gaza to behave the way we want them to, so why do it… I think people really believed that, if you starved Gazans, they will get Hamas to stop the attacks. It's repeating a failed policy, mindlessly.
On 14 December a high-level Hamas delegation met with Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman who, as mediator, had helped negotiate the June to December ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Hamas offered to end all rocket attacks in return for Israel ending its raids into Gaza and re-opening the border crossings. Suleiman conveyed Hamas's proposal to Israeli authorities. On 19 December, Robert Pastor, a senior adviser at the Carter Centre, met with Khaled Mashaal, who made the same offer. The next day Pastor passed Mashaal's offer on to a "senior official" in the IDF, who told Pastor he would get back to him. He never did. As for the Egyptian offer, it is unclear whether Israel ignored the offer or rejected it outright. At an Israeli cabinet meeting on 21 December, Yuval Diskin, said: "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce." Diskin said that if Israel ended the blockade, Hamas would restore the ceasefire.
If you've gotten this far, I can tell you the billboard you object to was taken down by Lamar Advertising on 28 April 2009. It was designed to provoke reaction from a mostly apathetic public in the wake of a brutal invasion. Calls from AIPAC supporters influenced Lamar's decision. Rather than seeing themselves and Israel as victims, these AIPAC people would be far more effective if they took the time to actually look at the evidence. None whom I have met have any intelligent knowledge of the actual history. For them, the childhood myths they were raised with supersede years of honest and objective research. Their attitude is identical to fundamentalist Christians who believe non-Christians will go to hell for their failure to accept Jesus Christ into their lives. They claim to care about Israelis but their continued support of a brutal occupation only demeans an entire people and perpetuates conflict for both sides of the issue. It also paints Judaism, once known for its commitment to ethics and justice, as a religion and culture of hypocrisy and bigotry.
Please do not fall into the trap that so many who remain unconscious of their participation in the suffering of others have fallen into. Please do not allow bigotry to influence you as it has influenced them. I urge you to avoid losing your humanity. Commit yourself to the truth. It is the only path that will free you of your own suffering and free others less fortunate than you of the suffering imposed on them by others.
Sincerely, Rich Forer
Book list
Anna Baltzer, Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories
Anna Baltzer, DVD: Life in Occupied Palestine: Eyewitness Stories and Photos
available at www.AnnaintheMiddleEast.com. Excerpts on YouTube.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy
Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Sylvain Cypel, Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse
David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East
Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History
Baruch Kimmerling, Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians
Mary Elizabeth King, A Quiet Revolution: The First Palestinian Intifada and Nonviolent Resistance
Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999
Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Tanya Reinhart, The Road Map To Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003
Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948
Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: Israelis and the Holocaust
Tom Segev, 1949: The First Israelis
Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall
Clayton Swisher, The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story about the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process
* Richard Forer is a former member of AIPAC. His identical twin brother is a prominent member of an Ultra-Orthodox sect of Judaism. His younger brother is an attorney and President of one of the largest Reform synagogues on the East coast. Forer is a practitioner of the Meir Schneider Self-Healing Method, a unique system of healing developed by an Israeli. His book, Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion – A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict will be available in the Fall. He can be reached at rich_forer@yahoo.com.
June 25, 2010
By Richard Forer*
In the spring of 2009, I was a member of a group that put up a billboard criticizing Israel's lethal use of force during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. A year later, the group received a letter from a college student – referred to as "J" below – asking it to remove the billboard. The student said that he had researched the Gaza invasion and had concluded that both sides were equally responsible for its consequences. He felt that the billboard unfairly placed the blame for all of the destruction solely at the feet of Israel. I replied to the student with the following letter, some of which contains passages from my forthcoming book.
Hi J,
Thank you for your letter. First, I assume you are Jewish. Is that correct? Before I get into the specifics of your letter I want to talk about a few things you might find interesting. I do so because everyone involved in the Israel-Palestine issue has the potential to change the world from an arena of Us against Them into one of peace and respect. But that requires undeviating self-honesty, which leads to compassion, clarity and understanding. Most people do not take up the challenge of looking deeply within for fear of what they might find. They revert to the safety of their presumed identity and the beliefs and images that make up and reinforce their identity. Attachment to a limited or exclusive identity always carries with it the consciousness of Us against Them. The consciousness of Us against Them requires that there be unending conflict.
Perhaps you have it within yourself to look beyond what you currently see as all sides of the issue. I hope so because the lives of those who suffer on either side of the conflict depend upon people like you. Peace is only possible when we care for people on both sides equally. We do not have to like the other but we have to recognize that he is just as entitled to self-determination as us, that he has the same human needs for respect and dignity as do we. We also have to begin to understand and ask why the other acts as he does. Does his motivation arise in a vacuum or does it arise in relationship to our own behaviour. Have we played roles in inciting his behavior? Until we take responsibility for the parts we play in the drama of human suffering and as it relates to the Israel-Palestine conflict, peace has no chance; and the people we claim to care about will continue to suffer and die, now and into the bloody future, in Israel, in Palestine and throughout the world. They will die and suffer because our true goal is not their wellbeing; our true goal is to maintain our presumed identity; it is to confirm the beliefs and images that we incorrectly associate with our personal and collective identity.
As long as we believe in a world of Us against Them we will see a world of Us against Them. Our emotions, our attitudes toward others, the way we interpret events, what we notice and what we don't notice will mirror our world view, thereby confirming and reinforcing it. In short, individually and collectively, we create the world we live in. Thus, the great struggle all of us must take on, if we truly want peace and respect between peoples, is to transform our consciousness from Us against Them to one of tolerance and understanding.
To be honest your letter can only fully be answered with a comprehensive look at the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The book I have completed would be a good reply but that is beyond the scope of our discussion for now. Obviously you are very passionate and concerned about this situation. With that in mind I have included at the end of this letter a list of some well-researched books on the subject. Most of these writers have come to similar conclusions. Most of them are Jewish. Cypel and Hirst are famous journalists from France and England respectively. Cypel lived in Israel for 10 years and his father was a Zionist leader. Ben-Ami, a historian and former minister of foreign affairs and internal security, was Barak's chief negotiator at Camp David. [Ilan] Pappe, [Avi] Shlaim, [Tom] Segev and [Benny] Morris are all famous Israeli historians and among the group known as "new" or "revisionist" historians because of their access to the primary archives and their refutation of common Zionist myths. [Tanya] Reinhart and [Baruch] Kimmerling were two of the most renowned and courageous sociologist/historians in Israeli academia. [Mary Elizabeth] King is an expert on collective non-violent action who has worked with Martin Luther King (no relation) and Jimmy Carter. [Clayton] Swisher was a VIP security guard at the Camp David talks in 2000. He interviewed many of the participants. [Anna] Baltzer, an American, is one of the most compassionate people I have ever had the honour to meet. She is brilliant, fair and honest. She cares about Israelis as well as Palestinians.
And even though he is particularly controversial, Norman Finkelstein, despite his blunt critique of Israel's defenders, is included because of his genius and meticulous research. You can watch him on YouTube. I researched a great deal of the claims he makes by reviewing his sources. In every case he checks out perfectly. I saw no distortion, obfuscation or deceit. Additionally, one cannot ignore the sources he cites. Truthfully, if one wants to criticize Israel, deceit is unnecessary. The words and confessions of Israeli leaders are more than enough.
Again, before I respond to the points you make about Gaza, let me tell you a little about me. I was born a few months before Israel declared its statehood. Both of my parents were first generation Americans. My mother lost 17 relatives in the Holocaust. My father and his family never discussed anything about that horror. My younger brother is president of one of the largest Jewish congregations on the east coast. My identical twin brother is an ultra-Orthodox Jew who lived for a few years in Israel. Both of his daughters are married with children and live in Jerusalem. Some of their friends are militant Jews from Hebron and other messianic communities, who believe that the sixth commandment, which they translate as "Thou shalt not commit murder," cannot be violated by killing any Arab, since Arabs are inherently predisposed to want to murder Jews; and Arabs are not human anyway. One of my brother's sons recently served in the IDF [Israel Defence Forces]. I have a friend who lives in Ma'ale Adumim, in occupied territory outside of Jerusalem. She was a member of Kach (Meir Kahane's group) for 15 years. She now holds Palestinian-Israeli dialogue groups and prefers a one-state solution.
I was extremely "pro-Israel" my entire lifetime. I was utterly supportive of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in the summer of 2006. I joined AIPAC and donated to the Jewish Federation. Midway through the war in Lebanon, after arguments with close friends who were critical of Israel, I decided to actually engage myself in a real study of the Israel-Arab conflict. My purpose was to alleviate my suffering and to find more historical arguments to refute the claims my friends were making. Up to that point in time I had only read Joan Peters's highly influential book From Time Immemorial, a book that I learned has been universally debunked and called a "hoax", "phony", "worthless", "recycled Zionist propaganda", "previously modified and discredited Zionist propaganda", etc. by scholars from Israel, Europe, the US and the Jewish World Congress. I had used Peters's research to justify my claim that there never were a Palestinian people; that Israel had always treated the so-called Palestinians kindly and had always bent over backwards for peace.
During my research that began in the midst of the Second Lebanon War I chose to study Jewish scholars only, knowing that if I studied the subject from the perspective of any Arab or Muslim scholar I would suspect bias. My study became a full-time and daily practice to this very day. As mentioned above, many of the scholars I studied had access to the most primary of sources, among them the Israeli state, IDF, Ben-Gurion, Haganah, Palmach and Central Zionist archives. I read the arguments of many Israeli officials, including a number of heads of Shin Bet (Israel's internal security agency) and I read numerous respected international publications (none Arab), including the Jerusalem Post, Ha'aretz and Yediot Ahronoth. I also studied the websites of the Israeli ministries of defence, internal security, foreign affairs and health as well as respected human rights organizations such as B'Tselem, HaMoked (Centre for the Defence of the individual), Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, OCHA (the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), UNICEF, the International Red Cross, National Lawyers Guild, Goldstone report, etc., all of which (including the two Israeli NGOs) at one time I would have suspected of being anti-Semitic. I read from both sides of the divide, including Alan Dershowitz, Aaron David Miller, Dennis Ross, Shlomo Ben-Ami, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and more. If I wasn't sure who a source was I checked it out. I discarded anyone whose claims I could not verify through further research and I discarded anyone who appeared anti-Semitic and/or seemed to be promoting their own prejudices without, at the very least, solid proof from reputable sources. I also randomly checked the sources of virtually all of the articles, books and publications I examined to make sure the author was not taking quotes out of context, was not distorting the real message his source was conveying or was not simply lying. All of the actual historians checked out well; and the human rights organizations, independent of each other are of a very similar mind. I doubt there has ever been a more solidly documented conflict in world history than the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Other than Peters the one author who was clearly distorting history for his own purposes is Alan Dershowitz. Anybody can debunk The Case for Israel. At one time Dershowitz was someone I admired but his spiteful and slanderous participation in the Israel-Palestine issue has only inflamed Zionists and given them apparent justification for their unjustified verbal attacks against not only Palestinians but honest and courageous scholars as well as Jimmy Carter, who is committed to a fair peace between both sides and without whose help in brilliantly brokering the Camp David Accords Israel would not exist in its present form. Remember, Dershowitz is not a historian; he is an attorney and his book is written with the mind of an attorney. He ignores and distorts evidence that could convict his client; and he obfuscates where obfuscation clouds any issue that could also convict his client. Unlike historians who start out with a hypothesis and do research to confirm, modify or deny the hypothesis, and who allow the facts to determine their conclusions, Dershowitz decides on the conclusions and then researches (or not) accordingly. To cite only two examples out of many, on page 184 [of The Case for Israel] he quotes Raji Sourani:
Even Raji Sourani, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza and a strident critic of Israel, says that he remains "constantly amazed by the high standards of the legal system [sic]." [Dershowitz cites Greg Myre, "Trial of Palestinian leader focuses attention on Israeli courts," New York Times, 5 May 2003].
Here is the actual quote from the New York Times:
Despite his many frustrations with the Israeli courts, Mr Sourani says he remains "constantly amazed by the high standards of the legal system". "On many issues," he said, "when the courts are dealing with purely Israeli questions, like gay rights, I admire their rulings. But when it comes to the Palestinians, these same people seem to be totally schizophrenic." [emphases added]
On page 42 Dershowitz says the following without citing source material:
The developing clash between the Jews of Palestine, led by David Ben-Gurion, and the Muslims, led by the uncompromising Jew-hater, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was not over whether the Jews or Muslims would control all of Palestine… Instead, it was – realistically viewed – whether the remainder of Palestine was to be given exclusively to the Muslims of Palestine or whether it would be fairly divided between the Jews and the Muslims of Palestine, each of whom effectively controlled certain areas.
What is particularly egregious about this quote, which is nothing more than Dershowitz's own made-up version of history, is that his primary source, Benny Morris, shows that Ben-Gurion's intention was the opposite of what Dershowitz attempts to deceive his reader into believing. Dershowitz quotes Morris's Righteous Victims 59 times in the first 83 pages of his book. He quotes Morris a total of 87 times within the 244 pages of the book. Here is what Morris (who is a Zionist and believes that Palestinians are "psychopaths" and "serial killers") says in Righteous Victims, p.138:
[Weizmann and Ben-Gurion] saw partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole of Palestine… [Ben-Gurion] wrote to his son, Amos: ‘[A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning… Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety. Establishing a [small] state … will serve as a very potent lever in our efforts to redeem the whole country.
The above passage by Ben-Gurion expresses a common intention that he and the majority of Zionists shared for more than a decade before 1948. Confirmation of this can be found in many books on the subject.
Even though I am going to disagree with you I appreciate the fact that you are doing your own research. One bit of advice that I think is important for everyone is: Do not believe a thing anyone tells you about this issue. Find out for yourself through the most objective research possible, as I did and be sure to do it out of a sense of integrity. Do not demean yourself by selectively researching the subject in order to prove to yourself that what you believe is accurate. Otherwise you will never discover your role in the suffering of others, nor will you discover how to alleviate that suffering. And you will never resolve your own anxiety and suffering. As a Jew you will always be left with the dilemma of victimization: Why does the world not understand my people and why is the world anti-Semitic juxtaposed against compelling evidence that is impossible for all but the willfully deaf and blind to ignore.
J, all that I am going to say here can be found in the many sources I list above or in sources available in my forthcoming book. I cannot divulge these readily available sources at this time because I want to protect the integrity of my book. I also want you to know that I have provided more than 20 Jewish supporters of Israel with evidence similar to what I provide in this letter. I have asked them to examine my evidence and to read one book to either confirm or deny the beliefs they take for granted. Not one has been willing to read a book. Not one was willing to challenge his beliefs. All claim concern for their Jewish brethren, yet none have compassion for the Palestinians. I try to impress upon them that as long as people continue to distort the history of the Israel-Palestine problem and character-assassinate the Palestinian people – as has been going on for over 60 years – peace will not be possible. Their response is to ignore me or accuse me of being anti-Israeli. Denying reality, perpetuating an illegal and brutal occupation, character-assassinating the people you need to make peace with is a road to more suffering, not just for the weak but also for the strong. Acknowledging the truth and working to restore integrity is indeed a road to peace. Who really cares about Israel and who really cares more about holding onto false and unexamined beliefs?
You start your letter with the statement that "we must look at both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side". I agree but you have not really looked at the Palestinian side. Take, for example, the letter you quote from Tom Adam of Sderot. Yes, he has had to deal with fear of rocket attacks but why? Without condoning these rocket attacks we have to ask: Why have Palestinian groups launched these rockets? Has Israel incited them? Is the launching of these primitive rockets the only way they know to let the world know that their parents, grandparents and children are being oppressed from birth to death? What about Palestinian children, whose lives are at the mercy of the Israeli military? Many of these kids have seen their fathers beaten by Israeli soldiers, their mothers humiliated and called "whores", have seen violence committed by Israeli soldiers or settlers on a regular basis, yearn for a glass of uncontaminated drinking water, are malnourished, maimed, deaf, blind, paraplegic, amputees, have endured Israeli sonic booms that cause all kinds of trauma, including bedwetting, nausea, miscarriages, nosebleeds, anxiety, muscle spasms, temporary loss of hearing, heart and breathing problems. These Palestinian children are the lucky ones because they are not dead, the victims of rockets, bullets, white phosphorus and Israel's common refusal to allow medical supplies into Gaza. Also, you should know that Israel fortified public buildings and constructed shelters to protect its Jewish population in the line of rocket attacks. You should also know that Israel did nothing to protect its Palestinian-Israeli citizens in their villages in the line of these same attacks.
You say the Billion Coalition "depicts Israel as the perpetrator and sole cause of the atrocities committed during Operation Cast Lead". I do not agree that the coalition depicts Israel as the "sole cause of the atrocities", the vast majority of which were in fact perpetrated by Israel. Rather they see Israel as the primary cause. Israel, as military and civil and illegal occupier, whose force is thousands of time more powerful than the Palestinians, is the party that has the power to make peace. What is particularly counter-productive is Israel's refusal to abide by international conventions and laws, which are designed to bring about a degree of civility between peoples.
Speaking of peace, I will mention only one example of Israel's continual sabotage or ignoring of peace proposals since 1948. That is the 2002 Roadmap for Peace that the Palestinians accepted in full. Israel "accepted" but with 14 prerequisites. Among them:
[C]essation of incitement against Israel, but the Roadmap cannot state that Israel must cease violence and incitement against the Palestinians." "The waiver of any right of return of refugees to Israel; No discussion of Israeli settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza or the status of the Palestinian Authority and its institutions in Jerusalem; No reference to the key provisions of UN Resolution 242.
Any objective research leads to the inescapable conclusion that Israel has never wanted peace; what Israel has always wanted is more territory. Israel's greed has necessitated the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in order to grab their territory.
You may not be aware, for example, that Israel conspired with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in 1987 to create Hamas. Israel also armed Hamas. It wanted an alternative to the PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization]. The first Intifada began in 1987. It was primarily nonviolent on the part of Palestinians (not Israelis). Israel arrested or deported most of the nonviolent leaders while allowing Sheikh [Ahmad] Yassin, Hamas's spiritual leader, to distribute anti-Jewish hate literature calling for the violent overthrow of the Zionist government. It is far easier for Israel to portray the Palestinians as psychotic killers in order to divert the world's attention from its strategy of land theft and ethnic cleansing and thereby deceive the world into believing the Israeli army is merely defending itself than it is to justify land theft and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians when their resistance is nonviolent.
You need to do a lot more research if you want to discover, as close as possible, the truth. Your research looks like it comes from either public Israeli government sources, which are notoriously unreliable, or Israeli apologists who have a record of justifying virtually anything Israel does. You also need to more carefully review the Goldstone report. Israel committed terrible atrocities against civilians. Just because Hamas is also guilty of terror (to a significantly less extent than Israel) does not exonerate Israel of anything.
Israel has a National Information Directorate whose purpose is to coordinate the various sectors of the government apparatus into disseminating self-serving messages (propaganda) to the public. I do not trust the Israeli government to publicly admit to their crimes. To do so would hurt their image to Jewish supporters around the world who still believe in Israel's "purity of arms" and it would implicate its leaders in war crimes for which they could eventually be prosecuted. Israel has always lied about its actions. Its history of lies is astonishing. I prefer to rely on sources that have nothing to gain and everything to lose with their admissions of honesty. Benny Morris:
For decades Ben-Gurion, and successive administrations after his, lied to the Israeli public about the post-1948 peace overtures and about Arab interest in a deal. The Arab leaders (with the possible exception of [King] Abdullah [of Jordan]) were presented, one and all, as a recalcitrant collection of warmongers, hell-bent on Israel's destruction. The recent opening of the Israeli archives offers a far more complex picture.
Akiva Eldar:
Without lies, it would be impossible to talk about peace with the Palestinians for 36 years while at the same time seizing more and more Palestinian land. Without lies, it would be impossible to claim that there is no partner for the road map, while at the same time injecting more and more money into outposts that the road map calls for dismantling. Without lies, it would be impossible to promise "painful concessions" in exchange for peace, while at the same time terming people who concluded such an agreement "traitors".
Former Israeli Chief of Military Intelligence General Yehoshafat Harkabi:
We must define our position and lay down basic principles for a settlement. Our demands should be moderate and balanced, and appear to be reasonable. But in fact they must involve such conditions as to ensure that the enemy rejects them. Then we should manoeuvre and allow him to define his own position, and reject a settlement on the basis of a compromise position. We should then publish his demands as embodying unreasonable extremism.
Moshe Dayan:
[The state of Israel] must see the sword as the main, if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may, no – it must – invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation-and-revenge… And above all – let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries, so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space.
You say that the "fundamental truth is that this is a two-way conflict". The Palestinians could end the conflict by lying down and allowing Jewish settlers, with the support of their government, to overrun them, allow them to take the remainder of their agricultural lands, their villages and their homes, and drive them out of the country into generations of poverty and homelessness. Is that a real peace? The fundamental truth is that Zionism, and the lies perpetrated by its founders, leaders and supporters from the days of Theodore Herzl on, has initiated and perpetuated this conflict. If someone attacks you, tries to steal everything you own, abuses and humiliates your children and then tells the world that you are a liar who never owned the land in the first place would you accept that?" I do not know any person or country in the world who would passively accept the theft of their land. In 1948 Jews owned about 6 per cent of the land of Palestine. They now control 78 per cent of the land outright, which both the PLO and Hamas have de facto accepted as irreversible. Additionally, Israel has illegally seized or controls about half of the West Bank. And Israel maintains land, sea and air control over the Gaza Strip. In short, the Palestinians subsist on about 10 per cent of their indigenous homeland.
Mostly Ashkenazi Jews fought the British and the Arabs for a Jewish national home. Their connection to the land called Palestine was far less than the connection Palestinians had and still have to that same land. Yet I know of no Jewish supporter of Israel who does not applaud the acts of the Haganah, Irgun and even Stern Gang for their roles in establishing Israel. I know of no Jewish supporter of Israel who resents the uprising of Polish Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto against their Nazi oppressors. In order to dissociate Palestinian resistance from Jewish resistance Israel supporters have to make up myths to portray the Palestinians as not a real people, as inherently anti-Semitic, as murderous and hateful, as not the real owners of the land, as a psychotic society, etc., etc. These myths are designed to deceive all of us. They deprive Jews and others of their natural intelligence and compassion. Palestinian resistance, while mostly nonviolent, is similar to the resistance of any occupied people throughout history.
Israel did kill almost 400 children in Operation Cast Lead. I am not saying that Israel's leaders said "let's go kill Palestinian children" but there is no question that Israel's leaders knew perfectly well that hundreds of Palestinian children and other civilians would die. Gaza is, after all, the third most densely populated place on earth, with 50 per cent of its inhabitants less than 16 years of age. Gaza has been a closed military area since 1967. Its citizens have nowhere to go to flee Israeli bombs and rockets. I suggest you look up Israel's Dahiya Doctrine (or strategy), which is designed to punish a civilian society for the actions of its leaders (a war crime). As General Gadi Eisenkot said after Lebanon:
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 are military bases. This isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.
Israel's most eminent military strategist, Zeev Schiff, said: "the Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously… the army … has never distinguished civilian [from military] targets … [but] purposely attacked civilian targets." Former Chief of Staff Mordecai Gur, a moderate, admitted that Israel always targeted civilians (see [David] Hirst). Rafael Eitan, chief of staff during Israel's destruction of Lebanese society in the early 1980s, was an extreme hawk who served for years as Ariel Sharon's second-in-command. He was responsible for the murders of hundreds of Egyptian PoWs at the end of the Suez War. He proposed that for every incident of stone throwing Israel should build 10 settlements. He said "the only good Arab is a dead Arab". He was founder of the extreme right ultra-nationalist Tzomet party (Movement for Zionist Renewal). Later in life he admitted ordering his troops to brutalize prisoners and impose collective punishment upon Palestinians (both war crimes). He said: "I don't believe in peace, because if they had done to us what we did to them we'd never agree to make peace." Think of the implications of that statement. Yitzhak Rabin admitted that "ruling over another people has corrupted us".
Operation Cast Lead was not "a reaction due to the Islamic Resistance Movement". It was collective punishment designed to intimidate a people into rejecting Hamas; and it was a re-establishment of the deterrent force Israel relinquished to a certain extent in Lebanon. Ephraim Halevy, former head of Mossad and former National Security Director, said: "If Israel's goal were to remove the threat of rockets from the residents of southern Israel, opening the border crossings would have ensured such quiet for a generation."
Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet, acknowledged that Hamas is willing to accept a long-term ceasefire on the 1967 borders.
Amira Hass reported in Ha'aretz: "The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, said on Saturday his government was willing to accept a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders."
Jimmy Carter:
But one of the things that they [Hamas] committed to me that was very significant, and they announced it publicly, by the way, to al-Jazeera and others, was that they would accept any agreement that's negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians if it's submitted to a referendum in the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinians approve it. That means they would accept Israel's right to exist if that's in the agreement and so forth.
Roger Cohen of the New York Times:
Henry Siegman, the president of the US/Middle East Project, whose chairman is [Brent] Scowcroft … told me that he met recently with Khaled Meshal, the political director of Hamas in Damascus. Meshal told him, and put in writing, that although Hamas would not recognize Israel, it would remain in a Palestinian national unity government that reached a referendum-endorsed peace settlement with Israel.
Regarding Hamas's use of hospitals, the Goldstone report states: "The Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities and that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes."
In 2006 Israel made a similar claim that Hezbollah embedded their forces within civilian areas in order to attract Israeli firepower. That claim was debunked by Human Rights Watch, which clarified that most of Hezbollah's rockets were "stored in bunkers and weapon storage facilities located in uninhabited fields and valleys".
You are correct that "Eighty per cent of the weapons used were precision guided, and 99 per cent of all strikes hit their targets." Yes, these precision guided rockets destroyed or killed civilians, whole neighbourhoods, minarets where there was no room for any fighter to hide and launch rockets, and UN buildings. B'Tselem reported: "Whole families were killed; parents saw their children shot before their very eyes; relatives watched their loved ones bleed to death; and entire neighbourhoods were obliterated."
A United Nations General Assembly report quoted the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross): "The Israeli military ‘failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded.' Israel made no effort to allow civilians to escape the fighting."
The Goldstone report is particularly damning. Again, please read through it. Goldstone rejected the HRC's [UN Human Rights Council] request to investigate possible war crimes by Israel until they altered the wording to include Hamas as a possible perpetrator. The Israeli government acknowledged his "record of impartiality". His findings are in line with the numerous human rights groups I mentioned earlier in the letter. IDF soldiers have testified to deliberately killing civilians, just as they have testified to similar brutalities in Hebron. The evidence is overwhelming. If Goldstone had not been head of the Mission there is a high likelihood that the report would have been even more critical of Israel.
Goldstone, as any reasonable person knows, is not an anti-Semite. Eliyahu Yishai was deputy prime minister during Operation Cast Lead. At the beginning of the invasion he urged the IDF to "bomb thousands of houses, to destroy Gaza". Nine months later, as minister of the interior, Yishai slandered Goldstone as an "abominable anti-Semite" for heading a mission that concluded that the IDF did exactly what Yishai wanted them to do. Yishai is not a reasonable person.
Israel's internal investigations were designed to cover up their atrocities. Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi is not going to implicate himself or other Israeli officials in possible war crimes and crimes against humanity. Amnesty International responded to the IDF "internal investigation":
The information made public only refers to a handful of cases and lacks crucial details. It mostly repeats claims made by the army and the authorities many times since the early days of Operation "Cast Lead… It does not even attempt to explain the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths nor the massive destruction caused to civilian buildings in Gaza… [T]he army's claims appear to be more an attempt to shirk its responsibilities than a genuine process to establish the truth. Such an approach lacks credibility.
Regarding rocket and mortar fire, from 2000 through 2008 Palestinian groups launched 8,088 unsophisticated rockets and mortars against Israel. From 2001 through 2008 eighteen Israelis were killed as a result of these attacks. Contrast those figures with the 7,700 sophisticated rockets that Israel launched against Gaza in nine months, between September 2005 and June 2006. From 2005-2007, 1,290 Gazans, including 222 children, were killed as a result of these kinds of attacks. Who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?
Your statement that "Israel warned the Palestinian people that election of Hamas to the head of the Palestinian Authority (PA) would only cause more conflict" is a reflection of an authoritarian mentality that places one party in control over the lives of another. It is the same mentality that is at the root of this conflict. Hamas was elected in a fair election that the US pushed for. Who is Israel to decide for the Palestinians who their leaders should be? Hamas is not monolithic, is not particularly corrupt as is Fatah, and is not a collaborator with the Israeli government. That is why they were elected and that is why Israel wants them removed. Hamas makes the continued dispossession of the Palestinian people more difficult. What you call Israel's warning was actually a threat. Hamas has repeatedly stated its willingness to establish a long-term truce. Ephraim Halevy and American strategists said that Israel and the US have the ability to strengthen Hamas's moderate wing and engage them in a peace process. But, as Moshe Dayan states above, Israel is not interested in a peace process.
If you honestly are looking for the truth your study of Operation Cast Lead is simply not thorough or objective enough. With regard to the ceasefire, if you read the analysis of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Centre at the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Centre (IICC) you will learn that "The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations, in some instance in defiance of Hamas (especially by Fatah and Al-Qaeda supporters). Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire."
Israel never really adhered to the ceasefire. They only allowed the average number of trucks entering Gaza to increase from 70 per day to 90, not the 500 per day that crossed before Israel instituted its blockade. On 4 November 2008 IDF troops entered Gaza and killed six or seven Hamas soldiers because they were allegedly digging a tunnel for the purpose of kidnapping Israeli soldiers. Hamas said its members had been digging the tunnel for defensive purposes. On 5 November Israel sealed all crossing points into Gaza. Yossi Alpher, former Mossad official and former adviser to then Prime Minister Ehud Barak:
[The blockade is] collective punishment, humanitarian suffering. It has not caused Palestinians in Gaza to behave the way we want them to, so why do it… I think people really believed that, if you starved Gazans, they will get Hamas to stop the attacks. It's repeating a failed policy, mindlessly.
On 14 December a high-level Hamas delegation met with Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman who, as mediator, had helped negotiate the June to December ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Hamas offered to end all rocket attacks in return for Israel ending its raids into Gaza and re-opening the border crossings. Suleiman conveyed Hamas's proposal to Israeli authorities. On 19 December, Robert Pastor, a senior adviser at the Carter Centre, met with Khaled Mashaal, who made the same offer. The next day Pastor passed Mashaal's offer on to a "senior official" in the IDF, who told Pastor he would get back to him. He never did. As for the Egyptian offer, it is unclear whether Israel ignored the offer or rejected it outright. At an Israeli cabinet meeting on 21 December, Yuval Diskin, said: "Make no mistake, Hamas is interested in maintaining the truce." Diskin said that if Israel ended the blockade, Hamas would restore the ceasefire.
If you've gotten this far, I can tell you the billboard you object to was taken down by Lamar Advertising on 28 April 2009. It was designed to provoke reaction from a mostly apathetic public in the wake of a brutal invasion. Calls from AIPAC supporters influenced Lamar's decision. Rather than seeing themselves and Israel as victims, these AIPAC people would be far more effective if they took the time to actually look at the evidence. None whom I have met have any intelligent knowledge of the actual history. For them, the childhood myths they were raised with supersede years of honest and objective research. Their attitude is identical to fundamentalist Christians who believe non-Christians will go to hell for their failure to accept Jesus Christ into their lives. They claim to care about Israelis but their continued support of a brutal occupation only demeans an entire people and perpetuates conflict for both sides of the issue. It also paints Judaism, once known for its commitment to ethics and justice, as a religion and culture of hypocrisy and bigotry.
Please do not fall into the trap that so many who remain unconscious of their participation in the suffering of others have fallen into. Please do not allow bigotry to influence you as it has influenced them. I urge you to avoid losing your humanity. Commit yourself to the truth. It is the only path that will free you of your own suffering and free others less fortunate than you of the suffering imposed on them by others.
Sincerely, Rich Forer
Book list
Anna Baltzer, Witness in Palestine: A Jewish American Woman in the Occupied Territories
Anna Baltzer, DVD: Life in Occupied Palestine: Eyewitness Stories and Photos
available at www.AnnaintheMiddleEast.com. Excerpts on YouTube.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy
Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid
Sylvain Cypel, Walled: Israeli Society at an Impasse
David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East
Norman Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History
Baruch Kimmerling, Politicide: Ariel Sharon's War Against the Palestinians
Mary Elizabeth King, A Quiet Revolution: The First Palestinian Intifada and Nonviolent Resistance
Benny Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999
Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
Tanya Reinhart, The Road Map To Nowhere: Israel/Palestine Since 2003
Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to End the War of 1948
Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: Israelis and the Holocaust
Tom Segev, 1949: The First Israelis
Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall
Clayton Swisher, The Truth About Camp David: The Untold Story about the Collapse of the Middle East Peace Process
* Richard Forer is a former member of AIPAC. His identical twin brother is a prominent member of an Ultra-Orthodox sect of Judaism. His younger brother is an attorney and President of one of the largest Reform synagogues on the East coast. Forer is a practitioner of the Meir Schneider Self-Healing Method, a unique system of healing developed by an Israeli. His book, Breakthrough: Transforming Fear into Compassion – A New Perspective on the Israel-Palestine Conflict will be available in the Fall. He can be reached at rich_forer@yahoo.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)