One State or Two? Neither

The Issue is Zionism
by JONATHAN COOK
March 12, 2008
Counterpunch

If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s most intractable, much the same can be said of the parallel debate about whether its resolution can best be achieved by a single state embracing the two peoples living there or by a division of the land into two separate states, one for Jews and the other for Palestinans.

The philosopher Michael Neumann has dedicated two articles, in 2007 and earlier this week, for CounterPunch discrediting the one-state idea as impractical and therefore as worthless of consideration. In response, Kathy Christison has mounted a robust defence, neatly exposing the twists and turns of Neumann’s logic. I will not trouble to cover the same ground.

I want instead to address Neumann’s central argument: that it is at least possible to imagine a consensus emerging behind two states, whereas Israelis will never accept a single state. That argument, the rallying cry of most two-staters, paints the one-state crowd as inveterate dreamers and time-wasters.

The idea, Neumann writes, “that Israel would concede a single state is laughable. … There is no chance at all [Israelis] will accept a single state that gives the Palestinians anything remotely like their rights.”



According to Neumann, unlike the one-state solution, the means to realizing two states are within our grasp: the removal of the half a million Jewish settlers living in the occupied Palestinian territories. Then, he writes, “a two-state solution will, indeed, leave Palestinians with a sovereign state, because that’s what a two-state solution means. It doesn’t mean one state and another non-state, and no Palestinian proponent of a two-state solution will settle for less than sovereignty.”



There is something surprisingly naive about his arguing that, just because something is called a two-state solution, it will necessarily result in two sovereign states. What are the mimimum requirements for a state to qualify as sovereign, and who decides?



True, the various two-state solutions proposed by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert and George Bush, and supported by most of the international community, would fail according to Neumann’s criterion because they were not premised on the removal of all the settlers.



But an alternative two-state solution requiring Israel’s withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders might still not concede, for example, a Palestinian army -- equipped and trained by Iran? -- to guard the borders of the West Bank and Gaza. Would that count? And how likely does Neumann think it that Israel and the US would grant that kind of sovereignty to a Palestine state?



Correctly, Neumann repeatedly reminds us that those with power are the ones who dictate solutions. In which case we can be sure that when the time is right Israel and its sponsor, the United States, will impose their own version of the two-state solution and that it will be far from the genuine article Neumann advocates.



No matter. Let us leave aside that particular somersault of logic for the moment and return to the main argument: that the creation of two states is inherently more achievable and practical than the establishment of a single state.



Strangely, however, from all the available evidence, this is not how it looks to Israel’s current leaders.



Prime minister Ehud Olmert, for example, has expressed in several speeches the fear that, should the Palestinian population under Israeli rule -- both in the occupied territories and inside Israel proper -- reach the point where it outnumbers the Jewish population, as demographers expect in the next few years, Israel will be compared to apartheid South Africa. In his words, Israel is facing an imminent and powerful “struggle for one-man-one-vote” along the lines of the anti-apartheid movement.



According to Olmert, without evasive action, political logic is drifting inexorably towards the creation of one state in Israel and Palestine. This was his sentiment as he addressed delegates to the recent Herzliya conference:



“Once we were afraid of the possibility that the reality in Israel would force a bi-national state on us. In 1948, the obstinate policy of all the Arabs, the anti-Israel fanaticism and our strength and the leadership of David Ben-Gurion saved us from such a state. For 60 years, we fought with unparalleled courage in order to avoid living in a reality of bi-nationalism, and in order to ensure that Israel exists as a Jewish and democratic state with a solid Jewish majority. We must act to this end and understand that such a [bi-national] reality is being created, and in a very short while it will be beyond our control.”



Olmert’s energies are therefore consumed with finding an alternative political program that can be sold to the rest of the world. That is the reason he, and Sharon before him, began talking about a Palestinian state. Strangely, however, neither took up the offer of the ideal two-state solution -- the kind Neumann wants -- made in 2002. Then Saudi Arabia and the rest Arab world promised Israel peace in return for its withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. They repeated their offer last year. Israel has steadfastly ignored them.



Instead an alternative version of two states -- the bogus two-state solution -- has become the default position of Israeli politics. It requires only that Israel and the Palestinians appear to divide the land, while in truth the occupation continues and Jewish sovereignty over all of historic Palestine is not only maintained but rubber-stamped by the international community. In other words, the Gazafication of the West Bank.



When Olmert warns that without two states “Israel is finished”, he is thinking primarily about how to stop the emergence of a single state. So, if Neumann is to be believed, Olmert is a dreamer, because he fears that a one-state solution is not only achievable but dangerously close at hand. Sharon, it seems, suffered from the same delusion, given that demography was the main impulse for his disengaging from Gaza.



Or maybe both of them understood rather better than Neumann what is meant by a Jewish state, and what political conditions are incompatible with it.



In fact, the division of the land demanded by Neumann, however equitable, would be the very moment when the struggle for Israel to remain a Jewish state would enter its most critical and difficult phase. Which is precisely why Israel has blocked any meaningful division of the land so far and will continue to do so.



In the unimaginable event that the Israel were to divide the land, a Jewish state would not be able to live with the consequences of such a division for long. Eventually, the maintenance of an ethnic Israeli state would (and will) prove unsustainable: environmentally, demographically and ultimately physically. Division of the land simply “fast-forwards” the self-destructiveness inherent in a Jewish state.



Let us examine just a few of the consequences for the Jewish state of a genuine two-state solution.



First, Israel inside its recognized, shrunken borders would face an immediate and very serious water shortage. That is because, in returning the West Bank to the Palestinians, Israel would lose control of the large mountain aquifers that currently supply most of its water, not only to Israel proper but also to the Jewish settlers living illegally in the occupied territories. Israel would no longer be able to steal the water, but would be expected to negotiate for it on the open market.



Given the politics of water in the Middle East, that would be no simple matter. However impoverished the new sovereign Palestinian state was, it would lose all legitimacy in the eyes of its own population were it to sell more than a trickle of water to the Israelis.



We can understand why by examining the current water situation. At the moment Israel drains off almost all of the water provided by the rivers and aquifers inside Israel and in the occupied territories for use by its own population, allowing each Palestinian far less than the minimum amount he or she requires each day, according to the World Health Organization.



In a stark warning this month, Israel’s Water Authority reported that overdrilling has polluted with sea water most of the supply from the coastal aquifer, that is the main fresh water source inside Israel’s recognized borders.



Were Palestinians to be allowed a proper water ration from their own mountain aquifer, as well as to build a modern economy, there would not be enough left over to satisfy Israel’s first-world thirst. And that is before we consider the extra demand on water resources from all those Palestinians who choose to realize their right to return, not to their homes in Israel, but to the new sovereign Palestinian state.



In addition, for reasons that we will come to, the sovereign Jewish state would have every reason to continue its Judaization policies, trying to attact as many Jews from the rest of the world as possible, thereby further straining the region’s water resources.



The environmental unsustainability of both states seeking to absorb large populations would inevitably result in a regional water crisis. In addition, should Israeli Jews, sensing water shortages, start to leave in significant numbers, Israel would have an even more pressing reason to locate water, by fair means or foul.



It can be expected that in a short time Israel, with the fourth most powerful army in the world, would seek to manufacture reasons for war against its weaker neighbors, particularly the Palestinians but possibly also Lebanon, in a bid to steal their water.



Water shortages would, of course, be a problem facing a single state too. But, at least in one state there would be mechanisms in place to reduce such tensions, to manage population growth and economic development, and to divide water resources equitably.



Second, with the labour-intensive occupation at an end, much of the Jewish state’s huge citizen army would become surplus to defense requirements. In addition to the massive social and economic disruptions, the dismantling of the country’s military complex would fundamentally change Israel’s role in the region, damage its relationship with the only global superpower and sever its financial ties to Diaspora Jews.



Israel would no longer have the laboratories of the occupied territories for testing its military hardware, its battlefield strategies and its booming surveillance and crowd control industries. If Israel chose to fight the Palestinians, it would have to do so in a proper war, even if one between very unequal sides. Doubtless the Palestinians, like Hizbullah, would quickly find regional sponsors to arm and train their army or militias.



The experience and reputation Israel has acquired -- at least among the US military -- in running an occupation and devising new and supposedly sophisticated ways to control the “Arab mind” would rapidly be lost, and with it Israel’s usefulness to the US in managing its own long-term occupation of Iraq.



Also, Israel’s vital strategic alliance with the US in dividing the Arab world, over the issue of the occupation and by signing peace treaties with some states and living in a state of permanent war with others, would start to unravel.



With the waning of Israel’s special relationship with Washington and the influence of its lobby groups, as well as the loss of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, the Jewish Diaspora would begin to lose interest in Israel. Its money and power ebbing away, Israel might eventually slip into Middle Eastern anonymity, another Jordan. In such circumstances it would rapidly see a large exodus of privileged Ashkenazi Jews, many of whom hold second passports.



Third, the Jewish state would not be as Jewish as some might think: currently one in five Israelis is not Jewish but Palestinian. Although to realize Neumann’s two-state vision all the Jewish settlers would probably need to leave the occupied territories and return to Israel, what would be done with all those Palestinians with Israeli citizenship?



These Palestinians have been citizens of Israel for six decades and live legally on land that has belonged to their families for many generations. They are also growing in number at a rate faster than the Jewish population, the reason they are popularly referred to in Israel as a “demographic timebomb”.



Were these 1.3 million citizens to be removed from Israel by force under Neumann’s two-state arrangement, it would be a violation of international law by a democratic state on a scale unprecedented in the modern era, and an act of ethnic cleansing even larger than the 1948 war that established Israel. The question would be: why even bother advocating two states if it has to be achieved on such appalling terms?



Assuming instead that the new Jewish state is supposed to maintain, as Israel currently does, the pretence of being democratic, these citizens would be entitled to continue living on their land and exercising their rights. Inside a Jewish state that had offically ended its conflict with the Palestinians, demands would grow from Palestinian citizens for equal rights and an end to their second-class status.



Most importantly, they would insist on two rights that challenge the very basis of a Jewish state. They would expect the right, backed by international law, to be able to marry Palestinians from outside Israel and bring them to live with them. And they would want a Right of Return for their exiled relatives on a similar basis to the Law of Return for Jews.



Israel’s Jewishness would be at stake, even more so than it is today from its Palestinian minority. It can be assumed that Israel’s leaders would react with great ferocity to protect the state’s Jewishness. Eventually Israel’s democratic pretensions would have to be jettisoned and the full-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinian citizens implemented.



Still, do these arguments against the “practicality” of Neumann’s genuine two-state arrangement win the day for the one-state solution? Would Israel’s leaders not put up an equally vicious fight to protect their ethnic privileges by preventing, as they are doing now, the emergence of a single state?



Yes, they would and they will. But that misses my point. As long as Israel is an ethnic state, it will be forced to deepen the occupation and intensify its ethnic cleansing policies to prevent the emergence of genuine Palestinian political influence -- for the reasons I cite above and for many others I don’t. In truth, both a one-state and a genuine two-state arrangement are impossible given Israel’s determination to remain a Jewish state.



The obstacle to a solution, then, is not about dividing the land but about Zionism itself, the ideology of ethnic supremacism that is the current orthodoxy in Israel. As long as Israel is a Zionist state, its leaders will allow neither one state nor two real states.



The solution, therefore, reduces to the question of how to defeat Zionism. It just so happens that the best way this can be achieved is by confronting the illusions of the two-state dreamers and explaining why Israel is in permanent bad faith about seeking peace.



In other words, if we stopped distracting ourselves with the Holy Grail of the two-state solution, we might channel our energies into something more useful: discrediting Israel as a Jewish state, and the ideology of Zionism that upholds it. Eventually the respectable façade of Zionism might crumble.



Without Zionism, the obstacle to creating either one or two states will finally be removed. And if that is the case, then why not also campaign for the solution that will best bring justice to both Israelis and Palestinians?



Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His new book, “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net

Spitzer's Fighting Speech not Reported in the Media

Spitzer Comes Out Fighting: Speech Not Reported in the Media

by Dennis Morrisseau / March 12th, 2008

Ahem!

The Spitzer Press Conference

SPITZER’S ACTUAL WORDS [Not reported by the media]

[Responding to the first question]

Well … my wife whom I love has been hurt by this, and I am very sorry for that. Very. I never intended to hurt her …

[The Governor, struggling to gather himself for nearly a minute, then continued.]

… But now I have to ask why a man’s or a woman’s sexual peccadilloes have to be splashed all over the media in this country. As though private sexual relations between men and women are news.

You know … the religious NAZIs in this country …. the so-called religious leaders … and the completely corrupt media that are always going on about this sort of thing … maybe it’s time for people to grow up.

See, I’ve got news for you. All humans are sexually active. And most of of us do have sexual relations outside our main family relationships. That may uncomfortable to hear but its true.

So-called “religious leaders,” most of whom are certainly “getting a little” on the side — sometimes with men, sometimes with women (and a LOT of politicians too); even some media moguls know this. Everybody knows this. So why is it NEWS?

I’ll tell you why: Because SEX is used to blackmail and control people by all these so-called “leaders”. They control politics with it. They use SEX for power, the same way rapists do. And that, I grant you, is a slimeball thing to do.

First they lie to convince you that sex outside marriage is always bad. Then they lie again, pretending that they themselves and other so-called “good” people never do such things. Finally, they lie when they tell you all it’s NEWS … that a political figure sought and found a bit of sexual comfort, in privacy.

Humans seek and need a lot of sexual comfort in this screwed up world that these so-called leaders have foisted on us all — every one of you does and every damned one of you knows this.

So if you want to understand our so-called religious leadership in America today … and our so-called political and MEDIA leadership. There is a WORD you should keep in mind … more clearly even than these words: MONEY and BRIBE. The word you should keep in mind is BLACKMAIL.

An awful lot of politics is controlled by blackmail.

Think Bush. Think NSA spying. That’s how they’re running the country.

[Spitzer then abruptly left the briefing room.]

* Editor: The above is, of course, a satire.




Army 2LT Morrisseau actively opposed the Vietnam War in uniform in 1967-68, eventually getting arrested for a one-man, uniformed-stand in front of the LBJ Whitehouse on 3/10/68. A week later he was seized and ordered to Vietnam; he refused, and he was again arrested. Morrisseau and his small legal team defeated the resultant court-martial; he resigned his Commission and was released from further military duty Under Honorable Conditions. Read other articles by Dennis, or visit Dennis's website.


source

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, Chris Genovali, J9 ( FunDrive '08)

GR 04-44 CFUV 101.9 FM 104.3 Cable 'cfuv.uvic.ca'
Monday, March 10, 2008
FunDrive
5:00:00 8:00 Welcome to GR, etc. And welcome to FunDrive. Today marks Gorilla Radio's tenth FunDrive. Every one of those ten years, the station met its fundraising goals thanks to you. This year we've set our sights high, but we've got a few more days to go...we'll leave the usual format, etc... Janine Bandcroft is with me in the studio, and Chris Genovali of the Raincoast Conservation Society will be here to discuss the B.C. Liberal's budget and its rich diggings for B.C.'s oil and gas industry, and trade unionist and social activist, Roger Annis on the upcoming Parliamentary vote on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. And there'll be music and more for Gorilla Radio's 2008 FunDrive show today.
5:08:00 4:00 Music
5:12:00 16:00 Welcome back to GR, etc. FunDrive reit. The provincial government released its budget recently, and most notable was the country's first carbon tax. But less publicized than the rise in petrol prices, is the offset benefits offered B.C.'s oil and gas sector. Chris Genovali is a long-time environmental campaigner and founding member of both the Clayoquot Rainforest Coalition, and the Taiga Rescue Network. His past work with the Western Canada Wilderness Committee helped establish the Sooke Hills Wilderness Park and earned him Monday Magazine’s "Person who made a Difference Award." He’s a 2002 Vancouver Island Human Rights Award winner and currently serves as Executive Director for the Raincoast Conservation Society.
"Welcome back to the show, Chris; the Campbell budget has received praise from unusually green quarters; what's in this budget for environmentally-minded folk?" 5:28:00 2:00 Cart(s)
5:30:00 8:00 Janine Bandcroft
5:38:00 4:00 Music
5:42:00 1:00 Cart(s)
4:43:00 16:00 Discussion with Roger Annis
Welcome back to GR, etc. Later this week, Parliament will hold a vote on the Conservative's motion to extend again Canada's military involvement in Afghanistan through 2011. Roger Annis is a trade unionist and social activist and member of Vancouver's Stopwar.ca coalition.
"Welcome to the show, Roger. The Manley Report informs the upcoming government motion, what did Manley recommend?"
5:59:00 1:00 Ad Lib; upcoming; housekeeping, etc.
6:00:00 --:-- -0-


-0-


Monday, Aug. 5, 2002

5:00:00 2:00 Welcome to GR etc. Canada’s fishery management record is abysmal. Governed by politics, ravaged by cut backs, and rife with incompetence, the Department of Oceans and Fisheries is simply not doing the job Canadians expect. Now, the west coast salmon fishery is threatened. The Raincoast Conservation Society is a non-profit research and public education organization working to protect natural habitat and generate public awareness of the threats B.C.’s land and ocean species face. They’ve just released “Ghost Runs: the Future of wild salmon on the north and central British Columbia” an alarming report whose warnings cannot go unheeded. Chris Genovali is a long-time environmental campaigner and founding member of both the Clayoquot Rainforest Coalition, and the Taiga Rescue Network. His past work with the Western Canada Wilderness Committee helped establish the Sooke Hills Wilderness Park and earned him Monday Magazine’s “Person who made a Difference Award” in 1998. He’s a 2002 Vancouver Island Human Rights Award winner and currently serves as Executive Director for the Raincoast Conservation Society.

Welcome to GR, etc. Some of British Columbia’s highest profile Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGO’s) have spent thousands of hours in tripartite negotiations with the provincial government and major timber interests here in efforts to create protected zones within the Great Bear Rainforest. Last week, Premier Gordon Campbell refused to endorse the deal, effectively nullifying the initiative. But, that may not be as bad a development for environmentalists as it at first appears. Chris Genovali is Executive Director for the Raincoast Conservation Society, a long-time environmental campaigner, and founding member of both the Clayoquot Rainforest Coalition, and the Taiga Rescue Network. His past work with the Western Canada Wilderness Committee helped establish the Sooke Hills Wilderness Park and earned him Monday Magazine’s “Person who made a Difference Award” in 1998. A recent study by Raincoast is highly critical of the unendorsed deal for its failure to adequately protect species’ habitat in the Great Bear. Chris Genovali and taking the bear out of the Great Bear Rainforest in the first half.

Reviewing the Unrecognizable Nation

O! Canada '08: Reviewing the Unrecognizable Nation
by C. L. Cook

The Century has not so far been kind to those Canadians pining reminiscent for the days the country was a liberal democracy; run by relatively responsible actors on the world stage, the brokers of peace, guarantors of civility and fair governance in a dangerous, chaotic world.

To be fair to the successors of Brian Mulroney, the prime minister who hitched the nation's wagon to America's seemingly forever rising star through the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), destiny dealt them a crummy hand; but both the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin administrations went beyond the investment oriented FTA (later to morph, with the inclusion of Mexico, into the tripartite NAFTA agreement) "committing" Canada to both America's foreign policy objectives, and the military methods it employs to achieve them.

While more extreme than his predecessors, Stephen Harper's administration has merely accelerated the process begun by Mulroney, and furthered by the Liberal party, a process that has most dramatically manifested in the deaths of at least seventy-eight Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, and the killing and maiming and imprisoning of uncounted numbers of Afghanis.

Harper recently proposed legislation in Parliament to extend the country's entanglement in Afghanistan in the form of promises made to NATO to continue past the already extended exit schedule of February 2009 through to the end of 2011. He did this with the complicity of the federal Liberals, whose support his minority government had to have.

The fact the majority of Canadians opposed Canada's involvement in what was ostensibly America's revenge for the 9/11 attacks, (based on the untried assumption Osama bin Laden planned and orchestrated the storied operation from his cave hideout in Afghanistan) before the launch of 'Operation Enduring Freedom' carried no freight with Jean Chretien's administration, just as majority opposition to the country's continued involvement means nothing to the current Harper regime. Canadians will continue to follow U.S. diktats in Afghanistan, and both Canadians and Afghanis will continue to pay the price for Ottawa's acquiescence.

The surrender of sovereign foreign policy is not limited to Afghanistan: Canada under Harper was first to express support for Israel's embargo against the rightfully elected Hamas government in Palestine, and uttered nary a word of protest against Israel's brutal and illegal bombing campaign over Lebanon in 2006. This support came even as one of the last Canadian peacekeepers attached to the United Nations was deliberately murdered, (with three colleagues) by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) while at his U.N. observation post in southern Lebanon.

Harper too had nothing to say about a Canadian family of seven murdered by a missile as they attempted to flee the Lebanon blitzkrieg in their car. On that occassion, Harper's team thought it more pertinent to question why the Lebanese-Canadians were visiting what was about to become a warzone, rather than demanding the IDF cease its killing spree, at least until the thousands of Canadians known to be in harm's way had a chance to evacuate.

If the official Canadian silence on Israel's serial war crimes in Palestine, crimes that translate as a measured, systematic genocide, were not dutiful enough for America and her racist client/colony in the Middle East, Stephen Harper's Conservatives too take pride of place, being among America's first and most eager accomplices in its self-proclaimed War on Terror, an essentially open-ended declaration of war on any and all standing between America and her perceived "vital interests."

The Canada/U.S. cooperation under arms is an arrangement about to get cosier in Afghanistan, where Canada's demand for a thousand more soldiers is being answered in part by France, which is expected to send as many as 700 more soldiers to relieve American forces operating in the east, enabling then a redeployment of those American soldiers to enjoin the battle at the heart of the resistance to the foreign occupation in southern Afghanistan, beside Canadian Forces.

Harper has proven the perfect pupil for neo-con Washington so far, but a breaking story, predictably suffixed in the press, 'NAFTA-gate' highlights his first failure in his masters' eyes.

In the hours before the much vaunted Clinton-Obama primaries in Ohio and Texas earlier this week, a whisp of scandal wafted south of the forty-ninth. Apparently the war of words between the candidates, each claiming to audiences in delegate-rich, rust-belt Ohio to hate the NAFTA agreement more than the other, is nothing but a con.

Agents for both camps had tipped nervous Canadian officials, telling them the NAFTA rhetoric was just that, and reassuring the deal was in safe hands.

Curiously, it was only the second revelation of Democrat duplicity, that of 'front-runner' Obama, that hit the airwaves. Now, Harper is being pilloried in the U.S. media, dragging down with him the reputation of the Prime Minister's office, and as Toronto Star columnist, Chantal Hebert pointed out on tonight's C.B.C. television broadcast of 'The National,' the administration's loose lips could also sink Canada's foreign services.

Hebert wonders if the Obama-embarrassing revelations would raise doubts in the minds of others who might otherwise confide in Canadian agents, trusting their information would not lead the next evening newscast, either by political design or through incompetence. This she argues could make their efforts extremely difficult and disadvantage the country.

It would be ironic if Stephen Harper, accomplished Canadian boot-lick, found himself on the wrong side of history; caught wrong-footed as the new political reality of an Obama presidency dawns.

But perhaps Hillary would smile upon her unwitting servant, who already granted one great service in a tight race needing winning. A second President Clinton would also continue Canada's newly understood role at America's side, as enacted by Harper, no doubt extending "The Mission" in Afghanistan still further, and assimilating the rest of Canada's military, law enforcement, and political infrastructure.

It will doubtless make for an awkward moment for Stephen Harper, should President Barak Obama come to call. That is assuming Harper has a year left in his rule.

The Chuck Cadman affair is not going away. In that lurid case, Harper emissaries offer death bed conversion to the terminally ill independent MP Cadman in exchange for a vote in the House that could bring down the erstwhile Liberals of Paul Martin.

The operatives are said to have offered an insurance policy arrangement allegedly worth up to a million dollars for Cadman's widow, (herself now the official candidate for Harper's conservatives in her late husband's riding).

Though a recording of Stephen Harper admitting he knew beforehand of the plan to make the offer to Cadman, an offer the Liberals insist is a bribe, has aired nationwide. Harper does not admit to either authoring, or authorizing the plan. He does however admit to knowing about, and doing nothing to stop the plan - an illegal plan, if the Liberals are proved correct.

That makes Mr. Harper guilty of conspiracy to bribe a public official.

Considering the seriousness of the charge, and the dogged grip with which the opposition has taken up the allegation, (Liberal heavy, former hockey star, Ken Dryden going so far as repeating his charge against Harper for the cameras word for word outside House of Commons' slander protections) the Cadman affair could well bring on the election Harper has been spoiling for.

Should Harper and his Republican-like Tories survive the year, or be replaced by the equally servile Liberal party, Canada in 2009 will resemble nothing more than it does today: A rump-nation, pulled along by a shortening leash, made to devote its blood and treasure in the service of a tyrannical master; a nation made to savage the rights and freedoms at home it purportedly fights wars to instill abroad.

This is not the Canada I remember.

This is not the Canada any Canadian can remember.

Brain-Dead Press

A Brain-Dead Press

by Scott Horton
PUBLISHED March 7, 2008

Back in the sixties, when the citizens of Alabama wanted to get a fair report on the progress of the Civil Rights movement in their state, they had to turn to the national media, and especially the network news, to get it. The local print and broadcast media would either grossly distort what was going on, or, more likely, they would simply report nothing.

In a sense those days are back. There are a handful of independent papers in the state, but the three Advance newspapers published in the state’s major urban areas, operate to the historical tradition of their most shameful moment. The big offenders, as I have chronicled repeatedly, are the Birmingham News and the Mobile Press-Register. If a special prosecutor is appointed to examine the gross irregularities surrounding the Siegelman case—and calls for that step mount with each passing day—then the inexplicably cozy relationship between the two papers in Birmingham and Mobile and the politically directed prosecutors who pushed the case against Siegelman should be right near the top of the matters investigated. It reflects a press that masquerades as independent and objective while it takes up a partisan sword in a particularly vicious style, slashing away at the roots of civil society.

The third paper, the Huntsville Times is regularily held up as something more akin to a newspaper, standing on legs of its own. It’s certainly not as bad as the other two. But the best that can be said is that this paper is slumbering through one of the more important crises in the state’s history, with an attitude of self-satisfied and arrogant indifference. Just take a look at this editorial published yesterday morning. It’s an amazing demonstration of intellectual torpor.

The saga of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman continues. So does Siegelman’s incarceration in a federal prison. If nothing else, the lingering controversy over Siegelman’s trial, conviction and sentence has at least brought public interest to the kind of federal criminal procedures that rarely stir much passion.

On Tuesday, Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, asked for an investigation into the TV broadcast blackout that kept Huntsville viewers from watching most of a CBS “60 Minutes” report on Siegelman Feb. 24. The local CBS affiliate, WHNT-TV, Channel 19, says the problem was technical and had nothing to do with the content.

Skeptics smell a political motive, but if Channel 19 were trying to suppress the report, which seems unlikely, it brought more attention to it than would have occurred otherwise. WHNT broadcast the entire Siegelman segment later that night and again on its 6 p.m. newscast the next day and posted the video on its Web site. That’s a lot of Don.

The timing of the technical problem was unfortunate, but there is no evidence to support the claims by some viewers that the blackout was intentional.

The attitude of visceral contempt towards Siegelman that is typical of the Republican-leaning Alabama media is clear right from the outset. Whereas papers and broadcasters across the country focused on the blackout at WHNT and discussed it—led by the New York Times which made it the subject of two articles and an editorial—the Huntsville Times initially dealt with this national headline grabber on its home turf by reproducing the official statement issued by the station’s management, full stop. Now that’s what we call aggressive journalism! The editorial claims “there is no evidence to support the claims… that the blackout was intentional.” But the initial justification given by WHNT for the blackout was false, and was not corrected until they were caught in the misrepresentation. And the editorial writer does not find it even remotely curious that only one segment of the 60 Minutes program was blocked—the Siegelman segment? Now my, that’s quite a coincidence. It’s just the sort of coincidence that was commonplace back in the Civil Rights era. And my recollection is that back in those days, the Times had just the same take: it’s just a coincidence.

Indeed, the appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals should have been filed before now, but it wasn’t because the original court reporter died after the trial, and preparing the transcript, needed for the appeal, has taken longer than normal.

Same pattern here: whatever lame excuse offered up is accepted as plenty good for this editorial writer. Why take a second to examine the assertions? Might he, for instance, confer with a court reporting service about the average time it would take a professional court reporter to transcribe the record? He would have heard, as I did, “two to three weeks.” So why did this take over 14 months? Of course, it’s impolite to ask such questions. It’s also impolite to note who had responsibility for having the record completed on time. His name is Judge Mark Fuller.

Again, events have proven unfortunate for Siegelman, but no one has suggested the court reporter died on purpose to keep Siegelman behind bars.

Indeed, no one does suggest that the court reporter’s death was to “keep Siegelman behind bars.” What is not just suggested, but is completely clear, is that this is a pathetic excuse cited for just that purpose. The deceased court reporter is not responsible for the delay. The judge’s failure to have the record prepared is. The judge cynically concluded that mention of the misfortune that befell his court reporter would end all queries. And if the world consisted only of the terminally incurious sorts who write pieces like this one, it would.

Yes, it may have been unusual for a defendant of Siegelman’s stature to be refused bond during his appeal, but it is not entirely unheard of. On Monday, international media mogul Conrad Black began serving time in Florida after being convicted of fraud. Like Siegelman, Black will be in federal prison while his appeal is pending. Like Siegelman, he was also convicted of obstruction of justice, a charge which may have resulted in both men receiving similar treatment. But Black was at least given a few days before reporting to prison. Siegelman was whisked from the courtroom after surrendering his belt and shoes. Black is a member of Great Britain’s House of Lords and holds the title of Lord Black of Crossharbour. Maybe that made a difference.

So the editorial writer actually believes that a foreign aristocrat is entitled to different–superior–legal protection from a citizen who served in public office for over a decade and has deep connections to the community. Of course the legal standard is the opposite. A person without roots in the community, for instance, a foreign resident, is considered a flight-risk and is less likely to receive freedom pending appeal. Hard to believe this gets written, and even more amazing that a newspaper publishes it. Ahh, but this is written by one of the editors.

As for Siegelman, it’s hard to avoid two observations. One is that federal prosecutors pursued the case with an unusual degree of fervor. But this also seems true: Don Siegelman did what he was accused of doing, the illegality of which may remain in question but the ethical standards of which leave a lot to be desired.

So here’s the crux of it. The writer also couldn’t be bothered to actually watch 60 Minutes, or even read a summary of what it reported. He’s completely satisfied with his own thoroughly misinformed prejudices (that’s what editorial writers are paid for, isn’t it?) But that won’t stop him from writing about what he hasn’t seen.

Had he watched the segment, he would have seen that the 60 Minutes investigators, and 52 former state attorneys general, found that there was no credible evidence that Siegelman “did what he was accused of doing.” Or more particularly, the evidence offered was false, and was or should have been known to the prosecutors to be false. The editorial writer also has never taken note of the decision issued by a federal judge in Birmingham, who reviewed sworn allegations respecting the misconduct of the Siegelman prosecutors and found them “extremely troubling,” and said that they raised a “prima facie case of impermissible conduct” by the prosecution. That actually had to do with precisely the same false evidence that was the focus of the 60 Minutes segment. Of course, that’s just another coincidence. Aren’t they multiplying? But then of course, I forget, this is an Advance newspaper, and none of the Advance newspapers ever reported on that published opinion. They treated it the way they treated demonstrations in the mid-sixties: they just didn’t happen.

Moreover, the prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence which would have rendered the testimony of their principal witness unbelievable. All of this does indeed raise very profound questions about ethical standards—of the prosecutors, and the lapdog press.

Americans deserve less partisanship in their federal court system and Justice Department, and Alabamians deserve more upright conduct from their elected officials.

And even more urgently, Alabamians need genuine newspapers. None of the three Alabama markets served by Advance has one.

Behind Kosovo's Independence

The Real Story Behind Kosovo's Independence

By Jeremy Scahill

25/02/08 "AlterNet" -- - News Flash: The Bush administration acknowledges there is a such thing as international law.

But, predictably, it is not being invoked to address the US prison camps at Guantanamo, the wide use of torture, the invasion and occupation of sovereign countries, the extraordinary rendition program. No, it is being thrown out forcefully as a condemnation of the Serbian government in the wake of Thursday's attack by protesters on the US embassy in Belgrade following the Bush administration's swift recognition of the declaration of independence by the southern Serbian province of Kosovo. Some 1,000 protesters broke away from a largely non-violent mass demonstration in downtown Belgrade and targeted the embassy. Some protesters actually made it into the compound, setting a fire and tearing down the American flag.

"I'm outraged by the mob attack against the U.S. embassy in Belgrade," fumed Zalmay Khalilzad,the US Ambassador to the United Nations. "The embassy is sovereign US territory. The government of Serbia has a responsibility under international law to protect diplomatic facilities, particularly embassies." His comments were echoed by a virtual who's who of the Bill Clinton administration. People like Jamie Rubin, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's deputy, one of the main architects of US policy toward Serbia. "It is sovereign territory of the United States under international law," Rubin declared. "For Serbia to allow these protesters to break windows, break into the American Embassy, is a pretty dramatic sign." Hillary Clinton, whose husband orchestrated and ran the 78-day NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999, said, "I would be moving very aggressively to hold the Serbian government responsible with their security forces to protect our embassy. Under international law they should be doing that."

There are two major issues here. One is the situation in Kosovo itself (which we'll get to in a moment), but the other is the attack on the US embassy. Yes, the Serbian government had an obligation to prevent the embassy from being torched and ransacked. If there was complicity by the Serbian police or authorities in allowing it to be attacked, that is a serious issue. But the US has little moral authority not just in invoking international law (which it only does when it benefits Washington's agenda) but in invoking international law when speaking about attacks on embassies in Belgrade.

Perhaps the greatest crime against any embassy in the history of Yugoslavia was committed not by evil Serb protesters, but by the United States military.

On May 7, 1999, at the height of the 78 day US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, killing three Chinese citizens, two of them journalists, and wounding 20 others. The Clinton administration later said that the bombing was the result of faulty maps provided by the CIA (Sound familiar?). Beijing rejected that explanation and alleged it was deliberate. Eventually, under strong pressure from China, the US apologized and paid $28 million in compensation to the victims' families. If the US was serious about international law and the protection of embassies, those responsible for that bombing would have been tried at the Hague along with other alleged war criminals. But "war criminal" is a designation for the losers of US-fueled wars, not bombers sent by Washington to drop humanitarian munitions on "sovereign territory."

Beyond the obvious hypocrisy of the US condemnations of Serbia and the sudden admission that international law exists, the Kosovo story is an important one in the context of the current election campaign in the United States. Perhaps more than any other international conflict, Yugoslavia was the defining foreign policy of President Bill Clinton's time in power. Under his rule, the nation of Yugoslavia was destroyed, dismantled and chopped into ethnically pure para-states. President Bush's immediate recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation was the icing on the cake of destruction of Yugoslavia and one which was enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton. "I've supported the independence of Kosovo because I think it is imperative that in the heart of Europe we continue to promote independence and democracy," Clinton said at the recent Democratic debate in Austin, Texas.

A few days before the attack on the US embassy in Belgrade, Clinton released a Molotov cocktail statement praising the declaration of independence. In it, she referred to Kosovo by the Albanian "Kosova" and said independence "will allow the people of Kosova to finally live in their own democratic state. It will allow Kosova and Serbia to finally put a difficult chapter in their history behind them and to move forward." She added, "I want to underscore the need to avoid any violence or provocations in the days and weeks ahead." As seasoned observers of Serbian politics know, there were few things the US could have done to add fuel to the rage in Serbia over the declaration of independence -- "provocations" if you will -- than to have a political leader named Clinton issue a statement praising independence and using the Albanian name for Kosovo.

On the campaign trail, the Clinton camp has held up Kosovo as a successful model for how to conduct US foreign policy and Clinton criticized Bush for taking "so long for us to reach this historic juncture."

Perhaps a little of that history is in order. If Kosovo is her idea of solid US foreign policy, it speaks volumes to what kind of president she would be. The reality is that there are striking similarities between the Clinton approach to Kosovo and the Bush approach to Iraq.

On March 24, 1999, President Bill Clinton began an 11-week bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. Like Bush with Iraq, Clinton had no UN mandate (he used NATO) and his so-called "diplomacy" to avert the possibility of bombing leading up to the attacks was insincere and a set-up from the jump. Just like Bush with Iraq.

A month before the bombing began, the Clinton administration issued an ultimatum to President Slobodan Milosevic, which he had to either accept unconditionally or face bombing. Known as the Rambouillet accord, it was a document that no sovereign country would have accepted. It contained a provision that would have guaranteed US and NATO forces "free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout" all of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. It also sought to immunize those occupation forces "from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in [Yugoslavia]," as well as grant the occupiers "the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment." Additionally, Milosevic was told he would have to "grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for the Operation, as determined by NATO." Similar to Bush's Iraq plan years later, Rambouillet mandated that the economy of Kosovo "shall function in accordance with free market principles."

What Milosevic was actually asked to sign is never discussed. That it would have effectively meant the end of the sovereignty of the nation was a non-story. The dominant narrative for the past nine years, repeated this week by William Cohen, Clinton's defense secretary at the time of the bombing, is this: "We tried to achieve a peaceful resolution of what was taking place in Kosovo. And Slobodan Milosevic refused." Refused peace? More like he unwisely refused one of Don Corleone's famous offers. Washington knew he would reject it, but had to give the appearance of diplomacy for international "legitimacy."

So the humanitarian bombs rained down on Serbia. Among the missions: the bombing of the studios of Radio Television Serbia where an airstrike killed 16 media workers; the cluster bombing of a Nis marketplace, shredding human beings into meat; the deliberate targeting of a civilian passenger train; the use of depleted uranium munitions; and the targeting of petrochemical plants, causing toxic chemical waste to pour into the Danube River. Also, the bombing of Albanian refugees, ostensibly the people being protected by the U.S.

Similar to Bush's allegations about Iraqi WMDs in the lead up to the US invasion, in 1999 Clinton administration officials also delivered stunning allegations about the level of brutality present in Kosovo as part of the propaganda campaign. "We've now seen about 100,000 military-aged men missing ....They may have been murdered," Cohen said five weeks into the bombing. He said that up to 4,600 Kosovo men had been executed, adding, "I suspect it's far higher than that." Those numbers were flat out false. Eventually the estimates were scaled back dramatically, as Justin Raimondo pointed out recently in his column on Antiwar.com, from 100,000 to 50,000 to 10,000 and "at that point the War Party stopped talking numbers altogether and just celebrated the glorious victory of 'humanitarian intervention.'" As it turned out "there was no 'genocide' -- the International Tribunal itself reported that just over 2,000 bodies were recovered from postwar Kosovo, including Serbs, Roma, and Kosovars, all victims of the vicious civil war in which we intervened on the side of the latter. The whole fantastic story of another 'holocaust' in the middle of Europe was a fraud," according to Raimondo.

Following the NATO invasion of Kosovo in June of 1999, the US and its allies stood by as the Albanian mafia and gangs of criminals and paramilitaries spread out across the province and systematically cleansed Kosovo of hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Romas and other ethnic minorities. They burned down houses, businesses and churches and implemented a shocking campaign to forcibly expel non-Albanians from the province. Meanwhile, the US worked closely with the Kosovo Liberation Army and backed the rise of war criminals to the highest levels of power in Kosovo. Today, Kosovo has become a hub for human trafficking, organized crime and narcosmuggling. In short, it is a mafia state. Is this the "democracy" Hillary Clinton speaks of "promoting" in "the heart" of Europe?

It didn't take long for the US to begin construction of a massive US military base, Camp Bondsteel, which conveniently is located in an area of tremendous geopolitical interest to Washington. (Among its most bizarre facilities, Bondsteel now offers classes at the Laura Bush education center, as well as massages from Thai women and all the multinational junk food you could (n)ever wish for). In November 2005, Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, described Bondsteel as a "smaller version of Guantanamo." Oh, and Bondsteel was constructed by former Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Herein lies an interesting point. The Serbian government is largely oriented toward Europe, not the US. The country's prime minister, Vojislav Kostunica, is a conservative isolationist who is not enthusiastic about a US military base on Serbian soil any more than Cuba is about Gitmo. He charged that, in recognizing Kosovo, Washington was "ready to unscrupulously and violently jeopardize international order for the sake of its own military interests." To the would-be independent Kosovo government, however, Bondsteel is no problem.

Russia and a few other nations are fighting the recognition of Kosovo as an independent nation, but that is unlikely to succeed. Still, this action will undoubtedly reverberate for years to come. "We have in Serbia a situation in which the U.S. has forced an action --the proclamation of independence by the Kosovo Albanians -- that is in clear violation of the most fundamental principles of international law after World War II," argues Robert Hayden, Director of the Center for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Pittsburgh. "Borders cannot be changed by force and without consent -- that principle was actually the main stated reason for the 1991 U.S. attack on Iraq."

And this brings us full circle. International law matters only when it is convenient for the US. So too are the cries for "humanitarian interventions." And despite the extremism of the Bush administration, this is hardly a uniquely Republican phenomenon. In a just world, there would be a humanitarian intervention against the US occupation of Iraq -- with its indiscriminate killings of civilians, torture chambers and widespread human rights violations. There certainly would have been such an intervention during the bipartisan slaughter, through bombs and sanctions, of Iraq's people over the past 18 years. But that's what you get when the cops and judges and prosecutors are the criminals. US policy has always operated on a worthy victim, unworthy victim system that is almost never primarily about saving the victims. Humanitarianism is the publicly offered justification for the action, seldom, if ever, the primary motivation. With Iraq, Bush wheeled out the humanitarian justification for the occupation--Saddam's brutality -- only after the WMD lies were thoroughly debunked. In Yugoslavia, Clinton used it right out of the gates. In both cases, it rang insincere.

If you are a victim who happens to share a common geography with US interests, international law is on your side as long as it is convenient. If not, well, tough. The UN is just a debate club anyway. Just ask the tens of thousands of Kurds who were slaughtered by Turkey with weapons sold to them by the Clinton administration during the 1990s. Or the Palestinians who live under the brutality of Israel's occupation. In some cases, the "victims" allegedly being protected by the US actually get bombed themselves, as was the case with President Clinton's "humanitarian" bombings of the north and south of Iraq once every three days in the late 1990s.

In the bigger picture, the Bush administration's quick recognition of an independent Kosovo has given us a powerful reminder of a fact that is too often overlooked these days: empire is bipartisan, as are the tactics and rhetoric and bombs used to defend and expand it.



Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

The General Does Not Debate

Hillier: The General Does Not Debate
by C. L. Cook
Canada's Numero Uno military man, shoot from the lip Rick Hillier mounted a pre-emptive attack on those parliamentarians with the temerity to voice doubt over the course the country has taken in Afghanistan.


In fact Hillier says those expressions are in essence aiding the "Taliban" and could be proving the impetus for the spate of suicide attacks mounted against Canadian soldiers over the last several weeks.




Hillier's logic is not exactly new; the Bush administration has used the same argument to silence debate on its disastrous Iraq project for years. The success of the American model for silencing debate is tough to argue; though the U.S. is the biggest and deadliest operator in Afghanistan yet, the collusion between the Bush administration, opposition democrats, and the corporate media has rendered the "other occupation" politically invisible, a never mentioned non-event.

And so Hillier would apparently have it in Canada too. Speaking in Ottawa today at a meeting of defence industry advocates known collectively as the Conference of Defence Associations, General Hillier offered M.P.'s his marching orders, saying;

* "We are, in the eyes of the Taliban, in a window of extreme vulnerability. The longer we go without that clarity, with the issue in doubt, the more the Taliban will target us as a perceived weak link."


If the general is to be understood, he's saying the practice of democratic debate is a hindrance to "The Mission," and Afghani fighters, witnessing what was ostensibly on offer to them in the form of a fully functioning democracy, will take comfort in our "confusion" and be emboldened to mount more attacks against Canadians.

Ergo: debate=weakness, weakness=vulnerability, vulnerability=attacks.

So, to forestall further attacks we need only cease debate and send the Parliament home for the duration. Presumably, we can leave the running of the nation's foreign policy in the capable hands of General Rick and his Southern Alliance buddies. That'll show those Taliban what's what.

And lest any legislator miss the meaning behind his not so nuanced message, Hillier stresses the motion to extend for two years Canada's war fighting role in and around Kandahar, heart of the resistance, is really an up or down vote on "supporting the troops." Hillier went on to suggest the upcoming vote is more than liberal or conservative politics, but a matter of patriotism.

New Democrat Party defence critic, Dawn Black attacked Hillier, charging his statements came close to "contempt of Parliament," saying;

* "I think that Gen. Hillier's comments today are really out of line for a Canadian military officer. It appears to be an attempt to inject some fear and some intimidation into the democratic debate here in Canada."

Adding;

* "He infers that maybe some of this recent horrible violence and suicide attacks are related to debate or discussion that has happened here in Canada . . . good grief."


This week past in Canada, the party in government and its titular opponents in the House agreed to agree: Canada's soldiers, and billions more from the treasury need be devoted to a further two year upping of "commitment" to Afghanistan, pledging to extend military action, this time until mid-2011, and promising full withdrawal from Kandahar by December of that year. The cozy arrangement comes just days ahead of scheduled "debate" on a government motion of support for the extension in Parliament.

It's a debate overdue and demanded as much by the clear majority of Canadians who never supported what both the current government and opposition has dubbed 'The Mission,' as by erstwhile "mission" supporters who fail to see the benefit to either Afghanis or Canadians following the country's six year experience so far in Afghanistan.

In fact, most Canadians see the situation in-country as a worsening one, but the "cooperation" between the two major parties has limited the scope of the debate, making it largely a sham exercise.

Majority public opinion, ignored now by the Tory government as it was by their predecessor Liberals when prime minister Jean Chretien first opened the door to Canada's military role in far off Afghanistan back in 2001, was touted as a Tory soft spot that could prove a trigger for a non-confidence vote in the House against the minority Conservatives; with both parties now determined to the same course, there is little chance Canadians will see an election fought over the on-going occupation and its attendant costs to taxpayers.

It is left now to the NDP and Bloc Quebecois, both calling for Canada's immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, to be the voice for disengangement within Parliament, while a growing constituency of Canadians harbouring anti-war sentiment search for a political home for their aspirations outside either the governing Conservative party, or the "opposition" Liberals.


Addendum

Amir Attaran, Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy at the University of Ottawa, in the Feb. 21, 2008 issue of the Globe and Mail takes a look at the faithful attendees to General Hillier's pronouncements from the Conference of Defence Associations. - lex


* "Take the Conference of Defence Associations, a think tank that got $500,000 from DND last year. That money comes not with strings, but with an entire leash. A current DND policy reads that to receive money, CDA must "support activities that give evidence of contributing to Canada's national policies." Apparently, if CDA's activities were neutral and unbiased, or even-handedly supported and questioned government policy, DND would refuse to pay!


* "Attendees at CDA's annual conference, which begins today, will hear speeches by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and MP Laurie Hawn, a retired lieutenant-colonel. Curiously for an organization that calls itself "non-partisan," no opposition politicians will speak. Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier will lecture, as will NATO's military head, General Ray Henault. The agenda includes a session titled "Contemporary Security Concerns" -- a discussion on Russia and Iran."

You can find Attaran's complete article below.

The Canadian Forces' Contracted Propagandists

When think tanks produce propaganda
AMIR ATTARAN, February 21, 2008, Globe and Mail

At the very least, credible public intellectuals should disclose the source of their funding The war in Afghanistan is one of ideas and ideologies. Ideologies, in that the Pashtun extremist worldview is far rom our own. Ideas, in that our society is likely to prevail only if it makes wiser and cleverer decisions than theirs. That is why, when one adds up Canada's advantages in this war, there is none greater than our values of inquiry and debate.

But recently, a new threat has emerged. The Department of National Defence is intruding on academic financing, spending millions of dollars sponsoring think tanks and scholars to offer up agreeable commentary. When these intellectuals comment, they are not always quick to disclose that the military funds them.

Take the Conference of Defence Associations, a think tank that got $500,000 from DND last year. That money comes not with strings, but with an entire leash. A current DND policy reads that to receive money, CDA must "support activities that give evidence of contributing to Canada's national policies."

Apparently, if CDA's activities were neutral and unbiased, or even-handedly supported and questioned government policy, DND would refuse to pay!

Attendees at CDA's annual conference, which begins today, will hear speeches by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and MP Laurie Hawn, a retired lieutenant-colonel. Curiously for an organization that calls itself "non-partisan," no opposition politicians will speak. Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier will lecture, as will NATO's military head, General Ray Henault. The agenda includes a session titled "Contemporary Security Concerns" -- a discussion on Russia and Iran.

Now consider: If the Prime Minister staged a government event and declared Russia and Iran "contemporary security concerns," some Canadians would be made uneasy by the signal that sends. But if the government finances CDA, which stages an "independent" event where the Prime Minister rubs shoulders with military officers, weapons company executives and intellectuals addressing those same security concerns, it might just pass without Canadians noticing.

CDA gets away with shilling because it is so discreet. Nowhere on its website does CDA disclose its half-million dollars of DND sponsorship. The Harper government knows what the money is for, because cabinet reviewed the funding agreement between DND and CDA, and it has been secret ever since.

Nonetheless, Maclean's got CDA's executive director, Colonel Alain Pellerin, to admit that the contract obliges it "to write a number of op-eds to the press" -- propaganda paid for by you and me. More disturbing still is the manner in which DND spends money to elicit friendly comment by Canadian scholars.

Most people would find it strange that DND sponsors the salaries, research, travel and tuition of dozens of professors, postdoctoral fellows and graduate students. But DND's Security and Defence Forum does exactly this. The list of Canadian universities getting over half a million dollars of SDF money is extensive: York University ($580,000), UQAM ($630,000), Wilfrid Laurier University ($630,000), Université Laval ($655,000), McGill ($680,000), UBC ($680,000), University of Manitoba ($680,000), UNB ($680,000), Carleton University ($780,000), Dalhousie University ($780,000), University of Calgary ($780,000) and Queen's University ($1,480,000).

What's the money for? It's not for the technical work that militaries obviously require -- building better airplanes, for example. Instead, it sponsors policy scholars, who create the ideas, news and views that shape Canadians' perception of the military and the war. And the evidence suggests that the military and government have politicized some SDF grants.

The same bureaucrat who administers SDF grants to scholars also manages DND's liaison with cabinet and Parliament. When DND needs a kind word in Parliament or the media -- presto! -- an SDF-sponsored scholar often appears, without disclosing his or her financial link.

There is one Canadian professor who received an $825,000 SDF grant. For that money, DND expects the professor to "conduct outreach activities with the Canadian public ... and Parliament about security and defence issues." And reach out he does -- eloquently, but not always disclosing that he is funded by DND. He made no disclosure when he testified to Parliament that the government's Afghanistan policy "is the right mission for Canada and the right mission for the Afghan people." He also made no disclosure in a published op-ed where he praised former Conservative defence minister Gordon O'Connor as "an outstanding success," and assailed "years of Liberal [party] neglect of ... defence policy
and the Canadian Forces."

I don't ever want this professor to stop saying and writing what he believes. But I do want Canadians who encounter his interventions to know how he has been funded.

That is why, at the very least, credible public intellectuals owe disclosure to their public. But the government, too, should know better. Rather than have DND dole out cash to public intellectuals -- and risk tainting their scholarship and their conferences -- it should give the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council that money, to award grants on an arm's-length basis. This is how other public intellectuals in Canada get funded.

Parliament, the Auditor-General and journalists need a watching brief on this file. As the war in Afghanistan becomes bigger and longer, it will prove dangerous to let DND sponsor intellectuals. Canada needs fresh ideas - not groupthink - to win.

Amir Attaran, Canada Research Chair in Law, Population Health and Global Development Policy at the University of Ottawa is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and not by DND.


Spinwatch
http://www.spinwatch.org

Fallacy of Terrorism

Role of Canadian Intelligence Agencies to Terrorize Citizens

by Mahboob A. Khawaja, Ph.D.

12/16/07 "ICH" -- - -Do cruelty, falsehood and wickedness have known faces and shapes? Only if you have experienced it, you will know it. If so, would you not strive to seek the protection of law and ultimate goal of justice? The quest for justice itself presupposes injustice. In Western democracies, manufactured “suspicion” and individual opinions, not the facts of life, are fast becoming the criterion measurement of legal provisions to prosecute innocent citizens as alleged terrorist across North America and Europe. Guatanama Bay could well be identified as the “Abu Ghraib” of America. The American led “ war of choice”: perpetual war creating perpetual fear contributing to perpetual profits, the mutual alliance of the governments and mass media networks to carve up images of Muslims and Islam as the focused creed of alleged terrorism. Eric Margolis (“ The big lie about ‘Islamic Fascism’”: Aug 28, 2006), a distinguished Canadian journalist quotes the observation of Sir Peter Ustinov: “terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich.”

Canadian Maher Arar was the first victim. He was guilty of traveling thru JFK shortly after the 9/11 attacks, but Canadian intelligence agencies identified him as a fundamentalist and security risk. He was suspected to have been involved in something that later on Canadian establishments could not prove except they arranged third party torture and victimize him for long time. The political dictum of “suspicion” was used to imprison Maher Arar in Syria. How conveniently suspicion was transformed into accepted norm to arrest, imprison and torture Muslims throughout the Western world. “Suspicion” became the threshold for police actions, not the societal laws to use force to demonstrate the opinions and preconceived notions of the few minority elite against the citizens.. History was re-enacted not learnt from, when people of Japanese origin were interned in Canada and the US during the 2nd WW. It was suspicion implied as law of the land – a political, moral and legal injustice to the citizens of Canada and America who had no role to play in the making of the WW2. Half century later, both Canada and the US offered apology to those either in graveyards or their succeeding generations kept the harsh memory of sufferings alive. After the Maher Arar tragedy, it was Dr. Khawaja and his family, the next targeted victims of the “War on Terror.” According to the Globe and Mail (July 18, 2005), President Bush had instructed Paul Martin to “fix Khawaja.” On March 29, 2004, Canadian Intelligence armed brigade attacked the Khawaja family residence in Orleans and at gunpoint arrested his wife and school children were called out of the classroom under the guise of “bomb making” but found no evidence to support the accusation. The newspaper Citizens and CBC were instrumental to falsify the information base and articulated fear mongering fictitious episode to misinform the public. While this stunt was staged near the capital, the agency formally requested Saudi Arabia to detain Dr. Khawaja who was teaching in a university. What were the charges against as per the documentary evidence? He is father of accused Momin Khawaja, who since March 2004 is a political prisoner of conscience at a Canadian detention center without a trial on charges of “terrorism” involvement in the UK case of March 2004. The then Security Minister Ms. Anne McClellan denied ever requesting a foreign government to arrest the scholar. The real world events and documentary evidence provide a different picture that the Canadian Government was lying to safeguard its illegal action against its own citizen. Does a political Minister ever lie? Do agents of intelligence services ever lie? The honorable Judge presiding over the Maher Arar investigation clearly pointed out the history of misinformation and lies involving the official intelligence organizations. Consequently, the Chief of the one of the intelligence agency was asked to resign.

To poison the mindset of soft-hearted Canadian public thru the media screen, young Momin was chained to show the public that he is abnormal and dangerous to public interest, not that he has done anything wrong or illegal. Four years later, his case has not gone to trial because the government has no tangible evidence to prove the accusation in a public court. The prosecution uses dogmas, not facts that a secret trial should be conducted to protect the interest of the state. In a democratic valued society as Canada is, how ridiculous it seems that if the prosecution is sure of its claim, why not have an open public trial? Why to look for escape from the real world? After all, what is so secret about political terrorism? Does it mean that informed public will no longer trust in the official version and realize that it was a political trial, not a criminal case to start with? Consequently, the masses will point finger at the continuing failure of the intelligence services to use “suspicion”, and not the law of the land to prosecute its own citizens. Now the prosecution insists on a secret trial of Momin Khawaja whereas public opinions are questioning the official dictum. For Four years, Momin has been imprisoned for unproven allegations under the law of suspicion to have participated in some conspiracy to bomb making theory. The defense lawyer Mr. Greenspon argues to have access to secret files on terror suspect and clarifies that “MOMIN KHAWAJA IS AT RISK OF BEING WRONGLY CONVICTED…and “THAT HE COULD BE WRONGFULLY IMPRISONED FOR LIFE IF THE GOVERNMENT INSISTS ON WITHHOLDING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IT ADMITS IS RELEVANT TO HIS DEFENCE AGAINST TERRORISM CHARGES.” Contrary to this, the prosecution claims that an open trial would harm the national security and relations with foreign governments. To defy logic and facts, the prosecution contends two distinct orders of TRUTH. Truth is One, not many, that it is a political trial as it is being identified by the Canadian Justice Department to be mindful of “security policy” and relations with foreign governments – as the reasoning to hold the secret trial. In democratic governance, the official opinion is flawed, secret trials are a negation of liberty, human rights, freedom and justice – justice delayed is justice denied. Momin and his family are continued to be punished, not because they are guilty of any crimes except on suspicion; they are being treated as guilty of crimes without committing any crimes. In several communication, Dr. Khawaja asked the Federal Minster, why he and his family are being systematically victimized? The Minister would only reply with “no comments.” Amnesty International asked the Canadian Government the same question but got abstract reply. Would the new Progressive Conservative Canadian Government review its policy and take initiative to apologize from the innocent victims of its inherited policy on terrorism? Would it free Momin Khawaja after four years of harsh ordeal at a detention center? Would the current Minister of Security with first-hand knowledge of the issues initiate action and facilitate measures to deliver justice and compensate the Khawaja family for the state sponsored terrorism against its own citizens? After all President Bush is leaving the White House soon and perhaps Canada needs to see its own policy interest and national priorities rather than blindly follow the American adventures to undo the world peace and harmony. Eric Margolis sheds more light on the media created images fostered by the governmental policy sponsorship: “ In the Western world, hatred of Muslims has become a key ideological hallmark of rightwing parties. We see this overtly in the United States, France, Italy, Holland …and most lately Canada.”

End cannot be assumed based on the notion of “suspicion”, and dogmas cannot replace truth to explain the facts of human life. When facts live in denial, dogmas construct dark illusions to assert the political agenda for encroachment of human rights, dignity and real freedom. The Canadian intelligence apparatus enjoys history of flawed record to victimize people under the “war on terror.” Given the obvious public mistrust, they seem to be overwhelmingly occupied in building castles over moving sand. British author and producer Adam Curtis (“Power of Nightmares re-awakened” BBC), made attempts to re-awaken the human conscience that the myth of international terrorism is a misleading political phenomenon to embark on American ambitions of global hegemony. Michael Meacher, MP and former UK Minister of Environment of Blair’s Cabinet points out to the same agenda (“This War on Terrorism is Bogus:”): “It seems that the so called “war on terrorism” is being used largely as bogus cover for achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives.” On the part of targeted victims of this war of choice is similar to those cases of the 2nd WW internment of people of Japanese, German and Italian origins in North America. The search for justice itself implies the pr-existence of injustice. Justice and societal harmony cannot be preached in the name of illegal detentions and systematic torture of the citizens. Targeted victims look to human conscience to stop the continued political cruelty, violations of human rights and travesty of justice. Those whose lives have been destroyed by the false official claims of terrorism, do ask the living and THINKING People of the globe, could there be two distinct orders of truth? Is there any legal stipulations in Canada to prosecute state sponsored terrorism and wickedness?





Dr. Mahboob A. Khawaja, the author is a political scientist with interests in strategic studies and comparative cultures and civilizations affairs of Muslims and the West, and author of several publications including: Muslims and the West: Quest for Change and Conflict Resolution and “Pakistan: Enigma of Change.”

The New Walls to Fall

Bringing Down The New Berlin walls

In his latest article for the New Statesman, John Pilger describes how the Palestinian breakout of Gaza offers inspiration for people struggling to bring down the new Berlin Walls all over the world.

By John Pilger

15/02/08 "ICH" -- -- The recent breakout of the people of Gaza provided a heroic spectacle unlike any other since the Warsaw ghetto uprising and the smashing down of the Berlin Wall. Whereas on the occupied West Bank, Ariel Sharon's master plan of walling in the population and stealing their land and resources has all but succeeded, requiring only a Palestinian Vichy to sign it off, the people of Gaza have defied their tormentors, however briefly, and it is a guarantee they will do so again. There is profound symbolism in their achievement, touching lives and hopes all over the world.

"[Sharon's] fate for us," wrote Karma Nabulsi, a Palestinian, "was a Hobbesian vision of an anarchic society: truncated, violent, powerless, destroyed, cowed, ruled by disparate militias, gangs, religious ideologues and extremists, broken up into ethnic and religious tribalism, and co-opted [by] collaborationists. Look to the Iraq of today – that is what he had in store for us and he nearly achieved it."

Israel's and America's experiments in mass suffering nearly achieved it. There was First Rains, the code name for a terror of sonic booms that came every night and sent Gazan children mad. There was Summer Rains, which showered bombs and missiles on civilians, then extrajudicial executions, and finally a land invasion. Ehud Barak, the current Israeli defence minister, has tried every kind of blockade: the denial of electricity for water and sewage pumps, incubators and dialysis machines and the denial of fuel and food to a population of mostly malnourished children. This has been accompanied by the droning, insincere, incessant voices of western broadcasters and politicians, one merging with the other, platitude upon platitude, tribunes of the "international community" whose response is not to help, but to excuse an indisputably illegal occupation as "disputed" and damn a democratically elected Palestinian Authority as "Hamas militants" who "refuse to recognise Israel's right to exist" when it is Israel that demonstrably refuses to recognise the Palestinians' right to exist.

"What is being hidden from the [Israeli] public," wrote Uri Avnery, a founder of Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace movement, on 26 January, "is that the launching of the Qassams [rockets from Gaza] could be stopped tomorrow. Several months ago, Hamas proposed a ceasefire. It repeated the offer this week . . . Why doesn't our government jump at this proposal? Simple: to make such a deal, we must speak to Hamas . . . It is more important to boycott Hamas than to put an end to the suffering of Sderot. All the media co-operate with this pretence." Hamas long ago offered Israel a ten-year ceasefire and has since recognised the "reality" of the Jewish state. This is almost never reported in the west.

The inspiration of the Palestinian breakout from Gaza was dramatically demonstrated by the star Egyptian midfielder Mohamed Aboutreika. Helping his national side to a 3-0 victory over Sudan in the African Nations Cup, he raised his shirt to reveal a T-shirt with the words "Sympathise with Gaza" in English and Arabic. The crowd stood and cheered, and hundreds of thousands of people around the world expressed their support for him and for Gaza. An Egyptian journalist who joined a delegation of sports writers to Fifa to protest against Aboutreika's yellow card said: "It is actions like his that bring many walls down, walls of silence, walls in our minds."

In the murdochracies, where most of the world is viewed as useful or expendable, we have little sense of this. The news selection is unremittingly distracting and disabling. The cynicism of an identical group of opportunists laying claim to the White House is given respectability as each of them competes to support the Bush regime's despotic war-making. John McCain, almost certainly the Republican nominee for president, wants a "hundred-year war". That the leading Democratic candidates are a woman and a black man is of supreme irrelevance; the fanatical Condoleezza Rice is both female and black. Look into the murky world behind Hillary Clinton and you find the likes of Monsanto, a company that produced Agent Orange, the war chemical that continues to destroy Vietnam. One of Barack Obama's chief whisperers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, architect of Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan, which spawned jihadism, al-Qaeda and 9/11.

This malign circus has been silent on Palestine and Gaza and almost anything that matters, including the following announcement, perhaps the most important of the century: "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction." Inviting incredulity, these words may require more than one reading. They come from a statement written by five of the west's top military leaders, an American, a Briton, a German, a Frenchman and a Dutchman, who help run the club known as Nato. They are saying the west should nuke countries that have weapons of mass destruction – with the exclusion, that is, of the west's nuclear arsenal. Nuking will be necessary because "the west's values and way of life are under threat".

Where is this threat coming from? "Over there," say the generals.

Where? In "the brutal world".

On 21 January, on the eve of the Nato announcement, Gordon Brown also out-Orwelled Orwell. He said that "the race for more and bigger stockpiles of nuclear destruction [sic]" is over. The reason he gave was that "the international community" (basically, the west) was facing "serious challenges". One of these challenges is Iran, which has no nuclear weapons and no programme to build them, according to America's National Intelligence Estimates. This is in striking contrast to Brown's Britain, which, in defiance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has commissioned an entirely new Trident nuclear arsenal at a cost believed to be as much as £25bn. What Brown was doing was threatening Iran on behalf of the Bush regime, which wants to attack Iran before the end of the presidential year.

Jonathan Schell, author of the seminal Fate of the Earth, provides compelling evidence in his recently published The Seventh Decade: the New Shape of Nuclear Danger that nuclear war has now moved to the centre of western foreign policy even though the enemy is invented. In response, Russia has begun to restore its vast nuclear arsenal. Robert McNamara, the US defence secretary during the Cuban crisis, describes this as "Apocalypse Soon". Thus, the wall dismantled by young Germans in 1989 and sold to tourists is being built in the minds of a new generation.

For the Bush and Blair regimes, the invasion of Iraq and the campaigns against Hamas, Iran and Syria are vital in fabricating this new "nuclear threat". The effect of the Iraq invasion, says a study cited by Noam Chomsky, is a "sevenfold increase in the yearly rate of fatal jihadist attacks".

Behold Nato's instant "brutal world".

Of course, the highest and oldest wall is that which separates "us" from "them". This is described today as a great divide of religions or "a clash of civilisations", which are false concepts, propagated in western scholarship and journalism to provide what Edward Said called "the other" – an identifiable target for fear and hatred that justifies invasion and economic plunder. In fact, the foundations for this wall were laid more than 500 years ago when the privileges of "discovery and conquest" were granted to Christopher Columbus in a world that the then all-powerful pope considered his property, to be disposed of according to his will.

Nothing has changed. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and now Nato are invested with the same privileges of conquest on behalf of the new papacy in Washington. The goal is what Bill Clinton called the "integration of countries into the global free-market community", the terms of which, noted the New York Times, "require the United States to get involved in the plumbing and wiring of other nations' internal affairs more deeply than ever before".

This modern system of dominance requires sophisticated propaganda that presents its aims as benign, even "promoting democracy in Iraq", according to BBC executives responsible for responding to sceptical members of the public. That "we" in the west have the unfettered right to exploit the economies and resources of the poor world while maintaining tariff walls and state subsidies is taught as serious scholarship in the economics departments of leading universities. This is neoliberalism – socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. "Rather than acknowledging," wrote Chalmers Johnson, "that free trade, privatisation and the rest of their policies are ahistorical, self-serving economic nonsense, apologists for neoliberalism have also revived an old 19th-century and neo-Nazi explanation for developmental failure – namely, culture."

What is rarely discussed is that liberalism as an open-ended, violent ideology is destroying liberalism as a reality. Hatred of Muslims is widely advertised by those claiming the respectability of what they call "the left". At the same time, opponents of the new papacy are routinely smeared, as seen in the recent fake charges of narcoterrorism against Hugo Chávez. Having insinuated their way into public debate, the smears deflect authentic critiques of Chávez's Venezuela and prepare the ground for an assault on it.

This is the role that journalism has played in the invasion of Iraq and the great injustice in Palestine. It also represents a wall, on which Aldous Huxley, describing his totalitarian utopia in Brave New World, might have written: "Opposition is apostasy. Fatalism is ideal. Silence is preferred." If the people of Gaza can disobey all three, why can't we?

Welcome to Bare Mountain! Action Updates and a View of the Destruction !

Media advisory
Press conference
10 am Thursday, February 14
Spencer Road and the TransCanada Highway, Langford
Interview opportunities: Tree sitters, Eric Pelkey of the Sencoten Alliance, Zoe Blunt.
Plus action updates and a view of the destruction

Interchange overkill destroys more than forests

Dozens of police with high-powered rifles raided the tree sit camp before dawn yesterday in a disturbing show of force aimed at a handful of peaceful protestors who were all asleep. The massive attack by police had more than 50 RCMP officers -- many with assault rifles drawn and pointed at the campers -- surrounding the camp before dawn. In the end, only three people were taken into custody by police.

This level of aggressive overreaction characterizes the whole Bear Mountain project, from the resort to the interchange. Bulldozing public participation along with rare ecosystems and heritage sites is a hallmark of this process, and it destroys more than forests. Observers have noted the loan for the interchange project is not yet approved by the province, but the city is already clearing the land, no doubt to remove any possibility of a negotiated settlement.

The area is sealed off by police tape and RCMP patrols. Earth-moving equipment was trucked in and the destruction has begun. From Leigh Road, we could see trees on the ridge above falling to a feller buncher - a giant tree-cutting machine.

We also saw welding and rock-drilling equipment being moved in behind police lines. It's possible that one of Langford's first acts of destruction was to weld shut the entrance of the Langford Lake Cave.

First Nations people whose families traditionally used the caves have been turned away from the site and threatened with arrest for "trespassing" in the area, which is still marked on city maps as Leigh Park.

But the developers have not yet won. These acts have outraged the community, and more people are coming out to protest today and in the days to come. The first rally kicks off this afternoon at 5 pm at Spencer Road and the TransCanada Highway in Langford. Witnesses and eco-defenders will be maintaining a presence on the site all day.

Zoe Blunt
(250) 885-8219

ZoeBlunt@gmail.com

-0-

Petition Organizers Question Langford Moving Ahead With Project Despite Concerns Of Thousands Of Langford Residents About Political Process

February 13, 2008
Langford

Langford has demonstrated a lack of respect towards its citizens and the democratic process.

On February 13, Langford officially began work on the Spencer Road Interchange by calling in a large police presence, reported to number over 50, along with Langford Bylaw Officers to forcibly remove the half a dozen tree-sitters and tear out trees at the end of Leigh Road. This despite the fact that over 2250 Langford citizens (more than 10% of eligible voters) signed a petition asking for a public referendum to approve the $25 million borrowing for the project, that the financing for the interchange has not been secured, and that the bylaws creating the agreement to build the Interchange have not yet been adopted by Langford City Council.

"Langford has not received approval from the province's Inspector of Municipalities to borrow the $25 million, and yet they talk and act like everything is all approved. It is not," says Cheryl McLachlan, who took part in the canvassing. "Additionally, after adopting the Spencer Road Interchange bylaw in late January, Council in early
February repealed it and introduced a new bylaw to replace it that they have not yet adopted. At this time, even Langford has not given final approval to the project."

Steven Hurdle, who organized the petition, questions the timing of today's events. Hurdle states: "The City has made no attempt to open a dialogue with the thousands of Langford residents who signed the petition, other than Deputy Mayor Denise Blackwell's suggestion that those citizens might not have understood what they were doing.

Langford Councillors brag about how many public meetings they've held about the project but, up until the poorly advertised December 27th, 2007 special meeting of the council, these were all about building the Spencer Road interchange and none were about borrowing $25 million dollars or the lack of a public approval process.

I believe the signatories knew exactly what they were doing and they deserve to be
respected for taking a stand; they signed not because they thought their taxes would immediately go up but because they are concerned and want a say in their community. Some of the signatories would vote in favour, but they want a chance to have their say in a referendum."

Petitioner Herman Surkis, noting the strong police presence in today's events, wondered "How much is this huge police action going to cost Langford taxpayers, and could those costs have been avoided with a more respectful and diplomatic process?"


For more information contact:
Steven Hurdle
Petition Organiser
steven.hurdle@gmail.com
250-884-0575

- 30 -

Beware of the Snakes in the Grass

by Paul de Rooij / February 12th, 2008

Sometimes it is necessary to warn others about individuals because of their questionable actions, habits or simple folly. It is particularly important to be aware of such persons when they seek to be active in solidarity organizations or claim to be one’s ally. Alas, this is the problem in the pro-justice groups in the UK where there are a few individuals who claim to be “jewish anti-zionists” — the echt anti-zionists. Add to that mix ultra-left-ism and suddenly one has a toxic brew and it is best to, at the very least, handle such individuals with care.

The case of Tony Greenstein

In January 2008, an activist group in Brighton, UK, sought to host an event with Gilad Atzmon, a world renowned Jazz saxophonist, thinker, and writer (a frequent contributor to Dissident Voice). A church hall was found as a venue for the talk, but the event was undermined when Tony Greenstein initiated a smear campaign. TonyG sent defamatory letters to the venue director and threatened that a group would picket the event; similar defamatory flyers were distributed in the area. Instead of attending the talk where TonyG could have debated Gilad, he chose to shut down the event by levelling vile accusations of anti-semitism, holocaust denial, etc. Now, we happen to live in what is putatively still a democracy, and one would expect people to behave accordingly, to act in a civil manner and to engage in an open discussion. What TonyG chose to do has all the hallmarks of totalitarian societies, where debate is barred, and where dissenters are vilified and threatened. The only missing stage prop would have been for TonyG to distribute his vile flyers wearing jackboots.

And what causes TonyG’s tantrums? Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen have written some essays in which they examine the origins of the “conflict” in Palestine by looking at our own society. Some see the “conflict” as a post-1967 issue where only the occupied West Bank and Gaza are matters of contention (Israel “proper” has already been conceded as a Jewish state), others take a broader post-1948 framework, but Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen look at the broader Jewish society. It is a fact that the most fascistic and violent settlers are those who emigrated from the United States. So, why is it that American zionists arriving in Israel are eager to dispossess and ethnically cleanse Palestinians? What is it in American society that explains this behaviour? Similarly, why are American Jews (or other diaspora Jews) so intent on promoting the Israeli colonial project? Why does the “Israel Lobby” receive such wide support and funding? Why do politicians throughout Europe form pro-Israel groups like Labour Friends of Israel, European Friends of Israel…? All of these questions are pertinent to the “conflict” and the continued grand larceny of Palestinian land. It would seem that examining our own society to determine where the Israel imperative comes from would be a worthwhile and welcome research exercise, and this is exactly what Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen have done. Paul Eisen’s contributions can be found here, and the article that seems to have upset TonyG most is “Jewish Power.” Similarly, Gilad Atzmon’s contributions can be found here, and TonyG seems most upset by “The Protocols of the Elders of London.”

If we read Gilad’s and Paul’s contributions, we will find a very productive discussion about “our” society. It is usually very easy to discuss and criticize others, but when it is closer to home it becomes more uncomfortable, and possibly the reason TonyG is upset. Another reason TonyG may dislike Gilad’s articles is that TonyG is a humourless person. Many of Gilad’s articles are suffused with humour, but such wit is usually taken as an insult by humourless and insecure people.

Tony’s tribe

TonyG is a member of “Jews against Zionism” (JAZ), a London-based groupuscle of former ultra-lefties who consider themselves to be the real anti-zionists. However, much of their evident activity seems to be directed against Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen who also happen to be anti-zionists! If JAZ actually spent the same effort railing against carnivore zionists as they expend against Gilad and Paul Eisen, then one could say that the groupuscle had some merit. However, most of their public effort is directed against Gilad.

The creation of a solidarity group with the Palestinians which is premised on the exclusion of all but a certain “in-group”, replicates the apartheid that we are supposedly fighting. In London there are several “Jews this/that groups” like “Jews against Zionism”, or “Jews for Justice”, etc. Instead of becoming part of a wider movement, they segregate themselves and recreate the tribal components that might actually be part of the problem. Many of the members of these groupuscles attend solidarity meetings and are easily detected because (1) they often preface their statements with “as a Jew I think…”; (2) they seek to “raise awareness” to issues dealing with “anti-semitism” or the holocaust; and (3) often raise objections about comments made about Israel, the Israel lobby, or media bias with statements such as “that is anti-semitic”, and thereby attempt to smother discussion.

While JAZ may be a worthwhile groupuscle if they actually confronted their own society, their activity becomes meaningless or detrimental if they merely segregate themselves, or if they primarily criticize others about their stance on zionism, anti-semitism, or the holocaust. While JAZ may be putatively in favour of a boycott of Israeli products or academia, they subvert the project by producing lists of recondite conditions which must be met to make a boycott acceptable. Such groups are also detrimental if their excessive zeal about anti-semitism results primarily in censoring discussion. By simply broadening the frame of reference of the Israeli colonial project to include analysis of the Jewish society, Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen earned themselves the vile “anti-semitic” label. Thus JAZ is accusing two Jews of being “anti-semitic”; this accusation is virtually the same as the “self-hating-Jew” accusation-of-last-resort flung by the usual zionist apologists. JAZ and TonyG are possibly indicating that Gilad and Paul are not part of their tribe but belong to some unacceptable “Other”.

Maybe Jews are too accustomed to requiring kosher labels in everything they consume. A visit to the supermarket shows that kosher products have a little label on the package. Maybe in societal discourse, magazines or intellectual life we are also starting to see the same phenomenon. Thus speakers at events will require their little stamp of approval before they are even allowed near the podium. This is already evident when Palestinians are invited to speak at events. Before they are accepted they will be asked what they think of the one-state vs. two-state solutions, and those who are critical of the one-state will not be invited, or even invited, but then dis-invited to really rub it in. Anyone having something positive to say about Hamas or Islamic groups will also suffer the same fate. And when anyone wants to discuss zionism, then the same censoring process seems to take place. JAZ and TonyG are there to hand out kosher labels to “anti-zionists”. Those who don’t pass their rigid qualification standards are then barred or vilified. Better yet, those who encompass Jewish society in their critique are branded with nasty labels, and the self-censoring crowd will not attend their events or read their articles. Maybe orthodoxy certificates have already become standard means to censor.

Against censorship and in favour of civil discourse

The attempts to bar or censor the Brighton event incensed me. Who is the little — and that is really the only adjective that comes to mind — squirt who has been vilifying Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen, sending out defamatory letters and picketing their events? I wrote a brief comment about TonyG’s efforts to bar Gilad Atzmon’s talk, and this elicited another TonyG-tantrum. Our email exchange quickly degenerated with TonyG’s brusque “don’t write to me again”. In the meantime he used sections of my direct email exchange with him to write a vile article castigating me for my defence of Gilad and PaulE — TonyG labelled me an apologist for holocaust deniers and anti-semites. Well thank you Tony, but I am not going to be too bothered by insults spewed by a pipsqueak who happens to have a criminal record; your desire to insult me also devalues the meaning of your favourite terms of abuse. First, I find it absurd and obscene that Gilad Atzmon and Paul Eisen are smeared with “anti-semite” labels, and I find it mildly amusing that my defence of their freedom of speech lands me with an “apologist for anti-semites”. Second, the holocaust has been milked for propaganda purposes as Norman Finkelstein’s masterful book The Holocaust Industry has demonstrated, and it is necessary to wrest the appropriation of the holocaust from zionist misuse. There is also a need to do away with the cult of exclusive remembrance — the genuflecting at Yad Vashem; the construction of hundreds of holocaust memorials, etc. There is a need to transform the lessons of the holocaust into a universal message where “never again” applies to all. Alas, taking this stance may cause TonyG to throw further tantrums.

It would seem that the Israeli genocidal project against the Palestinians should trigger vigorous action — implement boycotts, stop the preferential access Israelis have to Europe, etc. It is necessary to confront the collusion of European governments with the Israeli colonial project. Instead one finds contemptible groupuscles engaging in vilification campaigns and disruptive tactics at the time when clear action is needed. Maybe this is where TonyG really demonstrates his true colours — his actions distract Palestine solidarity organizations from the most important task on hand. And wouldn’t that be what zionist groups actually desire?

Tony Greenstein is a contemptible person who has wasted much time, degraded civil discourse, and insulted important pro-justice activists. Palestinian solidarity organizations should be aware that individuals may be disruptive due to their personal insecurity and emotional hang-ups, but they also may be deliberate agents provocateurs. Or as our African friends like to say, beware of the snakes in the grass.



Paul de Rooij can be reached at proox@hotmail.com. Read other articles by Paul.

source