Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah on the Netanyahu "Peace" Plan

Full credit to the authors, the Jordan Times, and EI:

Netanyahu's "brilliant" peace plan

By Hasan Abu Nimah and Ali Abunimah

The Electronic Intifada
17 June 2009

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10606.shtml

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proposed a peace plan so
ingenious it is a wonder that for six decades of bloodshed no one
thought of it. Some people might have missed the true brilliance of
his ideas presented in a speech at Bar Ilan University on 14 June,
so we are pleased to offer this analysis.

First, Netanyahu wants Palestinians to become committed Zionists.
They can prove this by declaring, "We recognize the right of the
Jewish people to a state of their own in this land." As he pointed
out, it is only the failure of Arabs in general and Palestinians in
particular to commit themselves to the Zionist dream that has caused
conflict, but once "they say those words to our people and to their
people, then a path will be opened to resolving all the problems
between our peoples." It is of course perfectly natural that
Netanyahu would be "yearning for that moment."

Mere heartfelt commitment to Zionism will not be enough, however.
For the Palestinians' conversion to have "practical meaning,"
Netanyahu explained, "there must also be a clear understanding that
the Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's
borders." In other words, Palestinians must agree to help Israel
complete the ethnic cleansing it began in 1947-48, by abandoning the
right of return. This is indeed logical because as Zionists,
Palestinians would share the Zionist ambition that Palestine be
emptied of Palestinians to the greatest extent possible.

Netanyahu is smart enough to recognize that even the
self-ethnic-cleansing of refugees may not be sufficient to secure
"peace": there will still remain millions of Palestinians living
inconveniently in their native land, or in the heart of what
Netanyahu insisted was the "historic homeland" of the Jews.

For these Palestinians, the peace plan involves what Netanyahu calls
"demilitarization," but what should be properly understood as
unconditional surrender followed by disarmament. Disarmament, though
necessary, cannot be immediate, however. Some recalcitrant
Palestinians may not wish to become Zionists. Therefore, the newly
pledged Zionist Palestinians would have to launch a civil war to
defeat those who foolishly insist on resisting Zionism. Or as
Netanyahu put it, the "Palestinian Authority will have to establish
the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas." (In fact, this civil
war has already been underway for several years as the American and
Israeli-backed Palestinian "security forces," led by US Lt. General
Keith Dayton, have escalated their attacks on Hamas).

Once anti-Zionist Palestinians are crushed, the remaining
Palestinians -- whose number equals that of Jews in historic
Palestine -- will be able to get on with life as good Zionists,
according to Netanyahu's vision. They will not mind being squeezed
into ever smaller ghettos and enclaves in order to allow for the
continued expansion of Jewish colonies, whose inhabitants Netanyahu
described as "an integral part of our people, a principled,
pioneering and Zionist public." And, in line with their heartfelt
Zionism, Palestinians will naturally agree that "Jerusalem must
remain the united capital of Israel."

These are only the Palestinian-Israeli aspects of the Netanyahu
plan. The regional elements include full, Arab endorsement of
Palestinian Zionism and normalization of ties with Israel and even
Arab Gulf money to pay for it all. Why not? If everyone becomes a
Zionist then all conflict disappears.

It would be nice if we could really dismiss Netanyahu's speech as a
joke. But it is an important indicator of a hard reality. Contrary
to some naive and optimistic hopes, Netanyahu does not represent
only an extremist fringe in Israel. Today, the Israeli Jewish public
presents (with a handful of exceptions) a united front in favor of a
racist, violent ultra-nationalism fueled by religious fanaticism.
Palestinians are viewed at best as inferiors to be tolerated until
circumstances arise in which they can be expelled, or caged and
starved like the 1.5 million inmates of the Gaza prison.

Israel is a society where virulent anti-Arab racism and Nakba denial
are the norm although none of the European and American leaders who
constantly lecture about Holocaust denial will dare to admonish
Netanyahu for his bald lies and omissions about Israel's ethnic
cleansing of the Palestinians.

Netanyahu's "vision" offered absolutely no advance on the 1976 Allon
Plan for annexation of most of the occupied West Bank, or Menachem
Begin's Camp David "autonomy" proposals. The goal remains the same:
to control maximum land with minimum Palestinians.

Netanyahu's speech should put to rest newly revived illusions -- fed
in particular by US President Barack Obama's Cairo speech -- that
such an Israel can be brought voluntarily to any sort of just
settlement. Some in this region who have placed all their hopes in
Obama -- as they did previously in Bush -- believe that US pressure
can bring Israel to heel. They point to Obama's strong statements
calling for a complete halt to Israeli settlement construction -- a
demand Netanyahu defied in his speech. It now remains to be seen
whether Obama will follow his tough words with actions.

Yet, even if Obama is ready to put unprecedented pressure on Israel,
he would likely have to exhaust much of his political capital just
to get Israel to agree to a settlement freeze, let alone to move on
any of dozens of other much more substantial issues.

And despite the common perception of an escalating clash between the
Obama administration and the Israeli government (which may come over
minor tactical issues), when it comes to substantive questions they
agree on much more than they disagree. Obama has already stated that
"any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's
identity as a Jewish state," and he affirmed that "Jerusalem will
remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided." As for
Palestinian refugees, he has said, "The right of return [to Israel]
is something that is not an option in a literal sense."

For all the fuss about settlements, Obama has addressed only their
expansion, not their continued existence. Until the Obama
administration publicly dissociates itself from the positions of the
Clinton and Bush administrations, we must assume it agrees with them
and with Israel that the large settlement blocks encircling
Jerusalem and dividing the West Bank into ghettos would remain
permanently in any two-state solution. Neither Obama nor Netanyahu
have mentioned Israel's illegal West Bank wall suggesting that there
is no controversy over either its route or existence. And now, both
agree that whatever shreds are left can be called a "Palestinian
state." No wonder the Obama administration welcomed Netanyahu's
speech as "a big step forward."

What is particularly dismaying about the position stated by Obama in
Cairo -- and since repeated constantly by his Middle East envoy
George Mitchell -- is that the United States is committed to the
"legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a
state of their own." This formula is designed to sound meaningful,
but these vague, campaign-style buzzwords are devoid of any
reference to inalienable Palestinian rights. They were chosen by
American speechwriters and public relations experts, not by
Palestinians. The Obama formula implies that any other Palestinian
aspirations are inherently illegitimate.

Where in international law, or UN resolutions can Palestinians find
definitions of "dignity" and "opportunity?" Such infinitely
malleable terms incorrectly reduce all of Palestinian history to a
demand for vague sentiments and a "state" instead of a struggle for
liberation, justice, equality, return and the restoration of usurped
rights. It is, after all, easy enough to conceive of a state that
keeps Palestinians forever dispossessed, dispersed, defenseless and
under threat of more expulsion and massacres by a racist,
expansionist Israel.

Through history it was never leaders who defined rights, but the
people who struggled for them. It is no small achievement that for a
century Palestinians have resisted and survived Zionist efforts to
destroy their communities physically and wipe them from the pages of
history. As long as Palestinians continue to resist in every arena
and by all legitimate means, building on true international
solidarity, their rights can never be extinguished. It is from such
a basis of independent and indigenous strength, not from the elusive
promises of a great power or the favors of a usurping occupier, that
justice and peace can be achieved.

Hasan Abu Nimah is the former permanent representative of Jordan at
the United Nations.

Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One
Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse
(Metropolitan Books, 2006).

A version of this article first appeared in The Jordan Times and is
reprinted with the authors' permission.

An Open Letter to Michael Ignatieff, MP

Mr. Ignatieff,

I write you this letter in response to your March 5^th article, “Israeli Apartheid Week and CUPE Ontario’s anti-Israel posturing should be condemned”, published in The National Post. Throughout your article, while claiming to respect the values of “differences of opinion, nationality, race and creed”, you attack the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week and their allies in CUPE Ontario for having such a difference in opinion. Your letter is rife with falsehoods, exaggerations, and distortions. You attack the free speech of others, yet claim paradoxically that this is done in the name of diversity and academic freedom. I would like to respond, point by point, to what I consider the most egregious misunderstandings, falsehoods, and distortions in your article, in the hopes of correcting some of the misinformation that has been circling about IAW and the global BDS (Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions) movement launched against Apartheid Israel.

You claim, “Israeli Apartheid Week betrays the values of mutual respect that Canada has always promoted”. Yet, you do not provide any evidence of such claims in your article, instead making numerous unsupported statements. As an academic, you are well aware of the fact that it is the sign of a poor argument to make unsupported statements. Could you please share with us the basis for your claim? On what evidence do you make such a claim? If you had educated yourself on the matter, or perhaps attended one IAW lecture, you would see that this is far from the truth.

Israeli Apartheid Week holds true to the values of mutual respect by offering a forum for discussion of the daily realities faced by millions of Palestinians, both inside Israel, and in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. During the week-long event, which is held in more than 40 cities worldwide, academics of various stripes as well as journalists, activists, and community leaders come together to offer a critical discussion in relation to the State of Israel and its policies towards the Palestinian people. In Toronto this year, speakers included Naomi Klein, Omar Barghouti, and Robert Lovelace-a retired Chief of the Ardoch Algonquin First Nations, to name but a few. The goal of Israeli Apartheid Week is to educate the public about Israeli policies and their effect on the Palestinian population, and to motivate persons of conscience to act towards a just solution to the Palestinian question.

You write, “Labeling Israel as an ‘apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish State itself.” Mr. Ignatieff, if there is anyone who has deliberately undermined Israel’s legitimacy, it is Israel itself. Two months ago, the global public recoiled in horror over Israel’s brutal assault on Gaza, which has been under siege since 2005, the time of the supposed Israeli ‘withdrawal’. In reality, there was no withdrawal, only a reformulation of an existing strategy-to isolate Gaza from the rest of the Palestinian territories, and the world at large. Israel controls all but one of the border crossings; it exerts enough influence with Egypt to keep the remaining crossing-Rafah-closed. It controls Gaza’s sea ports and airspace, and regulates the flow of goods and services into the strip. This sealing in of 1.5 million people has resulted in Gaza becoming an open-air prison; even before the latest assault, Gaza was undergoing a humanitarian crisis, now made worse by the bombings-which included the use of white phosphorus, illegal under international law, as I am sure you are aware. As horrific as this latest attack was, it is but one of many that have happened since Israel illegally occupied Gaza and the West Bank in 1967. Israel enacts these policies based on race and religion-a key component of Apartheid.

Secondly, it is interesting that you claim that Israel’s existence as a “Jewish State” is legitimate. In doing so, you justify the maintenance of a state based on ethno-religious lines. Should states-Israel or otherwise- not be states for all its citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion? Certainly you would object to Canada being defined as a state for white people of British descent-this would fly in the face of the values of tolerance and mutual respect you claim to uphold-why can this same standard not be applied to Israel? If one is for democracy and multiculturalism, one must be for democracy and multiculturalism everywhere-no exceptions.

You write, “Criticism of Israel is legitimate. Attempting to describe its very existence as a crime against humanity is not.” I take issue with this statement on two points. Firstly, at what point did you become the authority on acceptable criticism of any topic, let alone criticism of Israel? The use of the term ‘Apartheid’ to describe official Israeli policies is not new, nor was it invented by the organizers of IAW. Figures such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter have used the term among others to describe Israel, whether as a whole or in relation to its policies in the Occupied Territories. The use of it in academia is also not new; there are numerous articles which describe in detail the realities of Israeli Apartheid, some of which predate Israeli Apartheid Week. I would suggest you read them before commenting next time, as it will lead to a greater understanding of the term “Israeli Apartheid”, and allow for a more intelligent and productive response on your part.

Secondly, no one is claiming that Israel itself is a crime against humanity. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, akin to saying, “Does Israel have the right to exist?” A cliché that is as tired as it is irrelevant (As you know, in international law no country, be it Canada, Israel, or Luxembourg has the inherent right to exist. The legitimacy of a state is based on its actions.) The criticisms found at Israeli Apartheid Week are in relation to the actions of the Israeli government, and are therefore subject to criticism, up to and including the use of the term ‘apartheid’, to describe its discriminatory policies. Let us look for a moment at the three main arguments that Israel is an Apartheid State.

1. Israel discriminates against its Palestinian citizens: True. This has been documented by, among others, Adalah-The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.
2. Israeli Actions in the Occupied Territories are based on discrimination on racial or religious grounds: True. Since 1967, Israel has continued its policy of illegally colonizing the West Bank, in violation of international law. In 2004, Israel began construction of its Apartheid Wall-deemed illegal by both the World Court and the Israeli High Court, as I am sure you are aware-which diverges from the 1967 borders, encircling and isolating the remaining Palestinian villages and towns, cutting them off from one another and the outside world. Israel maintains this system of racial segregation through a series of checkpoints and Jewish-only roads, leaving what remains of the West Bank as a series of disorganized, separated Bantustans.
3. Israel refuses to allow the Palestinian Right of Return: Once again, this is a true statement, and has been documented many times over. At the same time, it allows any person of Jewish descent, whether they have ties to Israel or not, to immigrate to Israel and receive automatic citizenship. Israel refuses to allow the same right to the Palestinian refugee population-the largest in the world-based on racial reasons (Allowing the right of return would change the demographics in Israel from one of a Jewish-majority state to one of a mixed state, with a relatively equal number of Jews and Palestinians).

What we have here is a state which discriminates against a visible minority group, colonizes territories it occupies on racial terms, and refuses a basic human right to those it has dispossessed-whether in 1948, 1967, or beyond. If that is not an Apartheid state, Mr. Ignatieff, then what is? The reason Israel has been labeled as an “Apartheid State” is because it is an apartheid state-a fact backed by the historical record and the experiences of the Palestinian people.

You write, “IAW is part of a global campaign of proclamations, boycotts, and calls for divestment which originated in the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance held in Durban, South Africa in 2001.” I am not sure where you get your facts, Mr. Ignatieff-in reading your statement there has been a steady stream of opinions predicated on false assumptions-but this is not correct. Israeli Apartheid Week follows in the wake of a 2005 call from Palestine for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) signed by over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations, including trade unions, refugee associations, and cultural organizations. IAW, as well as the broader global BDS movement has heeded this call, and stands in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle for human rights and self-determination, which Israel has continuously denied, historically speaking and up to the present day.

Nor does IAW or the Global BDS movement, in your own words, “target institutions and individuals because of what and who they are—Israeli and Jewish”. The global call for BDS, heeded by the organizers of IAW and their allies worldwide, is based on the following three demands, which can be viewed online at (www.pacbi.org):

1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; 
 
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 
 
3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

As you can clearly see, the global BDS call is designed to bring the State of Israel into compliance with international law and is not, as you seem to believe, targeting Jews and Israelis based on national or ethno-religious reasons. The Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid, the organization behind Israeli Apartheid Week, is strongly against any and all forms of racism, Anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, or any other form of discrimination based on race, gender, nationality, or religion. During Israeli Apartheid Week, this was repeated over and over at the beginning of every presentation, and compliance with these was strictly enforced. In fact, the only one who is making statements about Israel based on racial and ethno-religious lines is you, Mr. Ignatieff. I thusly call on you, as a respected academic and Member of Parliament, to renounce your previous, ill-informed statement. Failure to do so will only contribute to the current climate of misinformation and fear surrounding Israeli Apartheid Week and the BDS movement, and will impede healthy debate and discussion on this issue.

Your statement, “IAW goes beyond reasonable criticism into demonization”, is as false as it is misleading. Again, when did you become the moderator of what is and what isn’t ‘reasonable criticism’ in relation to Israel-Palestine? I refer you to the Open Letter issued by Faculty for Palestine, which can be viewed online at (www.caiaweb.org). The open letter which has been, to date, signed by 377 Canadian academics, reads as follows: 

We the undersigned:

• Defend the right to freedom of speech about Palestine for all members of the university community, including freedom to use the term ‘apartheid’ to identify and debate certain policies associated with the state of Israel and the freedom to support, facilitate and participate freely in activities under the rubric of “Israeli apartheid week”
• Call for an end to the silencing of speech around Palestine, removing extraordinary requirements for security clearance and fees for security services
• Support increased ties to Palestinian institutions and scholars, and activities to support the right to education and academic freedom of Palestinians

This statement reflects a growing consensus in the Canadian academic community in regards to the nature of Israel as an Apartheid state. Moreover, it is essential for academic freedom that individuals are allowed to present dissenting, even controversial at times, opinions without accusations of “demonization” or Anti-Semitism. What you appear to be encouraging is a silencing of a dissenting opinion based on false information, generalizations, and your own personal dislike of the term “Israeli Apartheid”. This, Mr. Ignatieff, is the exact opposite of the academic freedom you claim to defend, and indeed, of the free speech rights contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is also wrong to suggest that IAW, in your words, “leaves Jewish and Israeli students wary of expressing their opinions, for fear of intimidation.” As we have seen in the virulent campaign of distortion and misinformation conducted by the Zionist lobby and their allies, including you, there is no fear of expressing opinions on the pro-Israel side. There has been, however, a campaign of repression against Palestinian Solidarity activists, in particular on university campuses nationwide. At the University of Ottawa, IAW posters were banned from campus after being previously approved. At McMaster University, the administration attempted to ban the term “Israeli Apartheid” entirely. At the University of Toronto, your alma mater, it has recently come to light that the university administration, up to and including President David Naylor, actively conspired with Zionist groups on campus, including Hillel, to shut down pro-Palestinian events on campus through denial of space and the charging of security fees, in what amounts to effective censorship and repression of dissident voices. There have been numerous reports of intimidation, threats, and hate speech directed towards activists and their allies, in particular towards women of colour. At various events during IAW Toronto, attendees and speakers alike were confronted by the Jewish Defense League, considered by the FBI to be a terrorist group. These JDL supporters shouted hateful and racist slogans, including calling the speakers and organizers “terrorists”. During the events themselves, there were numerous attempts at disruption by Zionist students. Rather than encouraging the expression of opinion free from intimidation, it has become clear that there is an active and organized operation by Zionists on campus and elsewhere to restrict the debate on this issue, through a campaign of intimidation, repression, and hateful false accusations. Given your stated belief in the freedom to express one’s opinion without fear, I would expect a denunciation of these hateful acts to be forthcoming from your office almost immediately.

Lastly, your statement regarding the CUPE Ontario resolution is completely misguided. Had you read the resolution for yourself, as well as the BDS statement, you would see that the CUPE resolution and the global BDS campaign does not call for the boycott of individual Israeli academics, as you suggest, but an institutional boycott against those academic institutions which are complicit in Israel’s Apartheid policies. The CUPE motion was brought to its members and passed through democratic means. It is hypocritical of you to praise the actions of CUPE National President Paul Moist, who was not present, and did not vote, while condemning Sid Ryan and the members of CUPE Ontario, where the issue was debated and passed democratically. It is this feature-the ability to debate, discuss, and pass motions reflective of the collective will of the majority of members-which is a hallmark of democracy and gives the CUPE resolution its weight. That you would condemn a democratically-enacted motion because you disagree with the outcome betrays a contempt for democracy and the democratic process, the very pedestal from which you lecture the rest of us.

It is also unclear how IAW, the global BDS movement, and the CUPE resolution violate academic freedom. More specifically, of who’s academic freedom do you speak? Certainly not the academic freedom of Palestinians. During the Israeli assault on Gaza, the Islamic University of Gaza, along with several UN-run schools, were deliberately targeted by the Israeli military. Is this not an attack on academic freedom? What of the academic freedom of the residents of the West Bank, where Israel’s system of checkpoints, settlements, and settler-only roads severely restricts and curtails the right of Palestinians to education? Do their rights count less than that of Israeli academics, many of whom benefit from and contribute to the policies which define Israeli Apartheid? You are right to say that there is an attack on academic freedom, Mr. Ignatieff. However, the perpetrators are Israel and its allies; the very same people whose freedom you rush to defend.

As for the reasons for this targeted campaign, you have stated them quite clearly. Quoting you,      “Canada enjoys strong academic, economic, and cultural ties with Israel and Israeli institutions, and these relationships benefit both our countries.” It is this complicity with a state engaged in apartheid policies which open the door for a BDS campaign. We are guilty of encouraging and supporting, through our academic, economic, and cultural ties, the continued campaign of dispossession, colonization, and oppression by Israel of the Palestinian people. It is for this reason that events such as Israeli Apartheid Week exist: to educate the public about Israel’s racist apartheid system, its effect on the Palestinian people, and Canada’s links towards their continuation. In doing so, the organizers and their allies hope to build momentum towards the full boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against Apartheid Israel until it complies with international law and fully recognizes the human rights of Palestinians inside Israel, in the Occupied Territories, and in the Diaspora.

Try as you might, your condemnation does not appear to be having an effect. This year alone, Israeli Apartheid Week was held in 40 cities worldwide, including cities in Canada, South Africa, and occupied Palestine. Global support for BDS is growing by the day, with resolutions passing in Ontario, the United States, and Britain. Recently, a South African dockworkers union refused to offload a shipment of Israeli goods, in solidarity with the Palestinian people and in support of the global BDS call. You and the Liberal Party can continue to posture and condemn, and Zionists and their allies can continue to attempt to repress and intimidate those who stand in solidarity with Palestine. It will do you no good, Mr. Ignatieff. We are witnessing a new movement of global solidarity with Palestinians and for a just resolution in the Middle East-and towards the end of Israeli Apartheid and the Zionist ideology which has inspired and sustained it, both in Israel-Palestine and worldwide, including Canada.

 

Regards,

 

Andrew Hyland

Whitby, ON

Apologies

Sorry about the lack of updates. Busy finishing final papers and gearing up for exams.

Hopefully I will have time this week to post some thoughts-including a recap of Israeli Apartheid Week Toronto, my response to Michael Ignattief, and some news on the BDS front.

Israeli Tolerance

We tolerate other religions, except when we don't

The above Haaretz article provides us with an interesting look into Israeli society. It states that despite claims, often heard by the pro-israel lobby, of Israel's "tolerance", most Israeli Jews view the non-Jewish population with a double standard. This justified bigotry allows for the existence of non-Jewish groups, so long as they remain in the shadows and to do not participate in civil society.

Some facts from the article:

•  Only 50 percent of the sample agreed that Jerusalem was central to the Christian faith
  

•  75 percent believe the state should not allow Christian organizations to purchase land to construct new churches in the city. 
  

•  Seventy-eight percent of religious Jews believe Christianity is "idol worship"

How can any State, in all seriousness, claim to be a model of tolerance when it refuses to acknowledge the freedom of religion of minority groups-i.e. the right of people to build and occupy houses of worship?

One must also be aware of the racial aspect of this religious bigotry-The vast majority of Christians in Israel are Palestinians. Thus, this can and must be viewed through the lense of Israeli Apartheid; the system which has forced an entire people into the role of the "inferior race", and where all acts must be approved from above-by the "superior race". We can now add to the list-in addition to the other human rights the Israeli state has systematically denied or stolen from the Palestinians-the right of freedom of worship.

Israeli Apartheid Week 2009 Trailer

They're all going to laugh at you, Pt.1

Fascist Agendas

Ibrahim maintained that any new government might need at least a year to consider all options and formulate its positions. "I believe that an Israeli government that has a fascist agenda cannot proceed or convince the international community of such an agenda, especially after Israel has just carried out a war on Gaza."

Obama, Afghanistan, and Poppies

Juan Cole has an excellent analysis on Obama's first official policy move in Afghanistan.

Echoing Juan's points, some notes:

• What does Obama hope to gain by increasing troop numbers? As Prof. Cole points out, the US attempt to pacify Iraq using sheer force of numbers has been a resounding failure; Obama knows this, as he made it a part of his campaign in arguing for the US' official withdrawl of combat troops. More than that, the history of Afghanistan shows that an imperial army, be it the Soviets or the US, cannot hope to outlast the Afghan insurgency simply by having more troops, in particular when the root causes remain blantantly unsolved.
• Re: Poppy production. This may play well in the United States. However, it shows a lack of understanding of the material situation of most Afghanis. Poppies for Herion production, as Juan points out, count for nearly 1/3rd of GDP. The people who cultivate these poppies are Afghanistan's rural poor. Poverty has driven them to this situation; Removing a crucial source of income for these poor will do absolutely nothing to better their situation.
• Of course, in 8 years of occupation, the US has been content to do little except engage in skirmishes with guerillas, kill civillians with impunity, and support a government made up of warlords and US-friendly puppets. The people of Afghanistan have seen little actual benefit from the US invasion of 2001-present.
• With NATO's commitment beginning to wind down, the US will once again be in a situation of unilateral occupation. As it stands, I see no reason for this imperial venture to end any differently than the one in Iraq.

I drink the coffee, you read the news

Israeli Right fights over who will brutalize Palestinians Next

The UN will "hold Israel to account." For real this time.

Obama considers UN Anti-Racism conference, bringing the US ever closer to joining the civilized world.

Racist State refuses to attend Anti-Racism conference. In other news, the sky remains blue.

Juan Cole on the biggest Foreign looting of Iraq since the Mongol invasion.

This is why we can't have nice things

I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I still attend Mass on Sundays, despite my own personal and political beliefs becoming ever more contrasting with the Vatican. In my heart of hearts, I'd like to believe one day that those the Church has officially persecuted in the 20th and 21th century for speaking Truth to Power will be officially recognized; and for those who have been excommunicated, their bannings lifted.

This is not one of those times

The development came even as a new report quoted Williamson as having declared in a 1989 speech that “Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism.”

Williamson’s views about the Holocaust created an uproar last month when Pope Benedict XVI lifted his excommunication and that of three other bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

“There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies,” Williamson said in the 1989 speech at Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Canada, according to the newspaper.

In the same speech, the paper said Williamson asserted that “the Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel.”

The Daily News reported that the bishop also wrote letters in 2001 and 2002 blaming “Judeo-Masonry” for the two world wars and claiming that Jews were bent on world domination. It did not say to whom the letters were sent.

Take your hate-speech elsewhere, Mr. Williamson. We do not need in. Not Catholics, nor Palestinians, nor the anti-Zionist movement.

I would also be remiss if I didn't point out the person behind this bigot being welcomed with open arms back into the Church. Thank you, Your Holiness (Not in the Least).

From the "False Sense of Superiority" Files

US Lectures Chavez on Democracy

State Department spokesman Noel Clay praised "the civic spirit" of the referendum on Sunday.

But he said it was important that elected officials in Venezuela focused "on governing democratically".

The US is well known in on the continent for its support of democracy. Ask the people of Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Argentina, Brazil...

Still, I don't think our friend Noel has anything to worry about:

On Monday, Venezuela's electoral commission said that with 94% of votes counted, 54% backed an end to term limits.

More than 11 million voters out of almost 17 million who were eligible took part in the referendum, said the head of the electoral body, Tibisay Lucena.

Election observers, who included representatives from Latin American nations, European Parliament deputies and European academics, said the ballot had been free and fair.

Well, maybe a few things to worry about. A popular, democratically elected, anti-imperialist head of government of a major oil-exporting country? Who does he think he is? Mossadegh?

Good Idea, Bad Idea in International Diplomacy

Good Idea

Hamas pusing forward with Egyptian-sponsored truce

Bad Idea

Clinton uses Asia trip to "warn" North Korea

Negotiations with the Occupation.

Hamas awaits Israeli reply on truce

Once again, we see a clear example of how negotiations with Israel work. Hamas, the supposed "terrorists", engage in multilateral diplomacy:

A Hamas delegation met Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman in Cairo late on Monday as Egypt continued bids to broker an extended truce with Israel over Gaza, the state MENA news agency reported.

It said the Islamist delegation was preparing to return to the Gaza Strip and Syria to await Israel's final say on a long-term truce.

 while Israel continues its collective punishment of an entire people.

Israeli warplanes targeted smuggling tunnels on Gaza's border with Egypt on Monday after two rockets were fired from the Palestinian territory, witnessessaid. Israel says armed groups use the tunnels around the border town of Rafah to smuggle weapons into the Hamas-run enclave.

Anyone with any logic knows these accusations, reported without question here in the West, are patently false. Gaza has been under a blockade since the supposed Israeli "withdrawl" of 2005. (A withdrawl which has left Gaza a wall-less prison of 1.5 million people, as Israel still controls the airspace, ports, and all but one border crossing). These tunnels, crude as they may be, by and large used to smuggle in not weapons, but desperately needed food and medical supplies, which Israel has cruelly denied the 1.5 million Palestinians access to.

Hamas has accused Israel of backtracking on a deal after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Saturday ruled out lifting the blockade of Gaza, a key Hamas demand, until the Islamists release captured soldier Gilad Shalit.

And what of the tens of thousands of Palestinian political prisoners, Mr. Olmert? When will they be released? People who have been arrested and jailed for years, without charge or trial, a violation of the most basic legal principles?

 I suppose that those lives are trivial, while the life of one occupying soldier must have the highest of considerations in any negotiatons between oppressor and oppressed.

As'ad AbuKhalil is awesome

Angry Arab makes Zionists go crazy

Israeli Apartheid Week 2009

Anyone who claims to be supportive of the human rights of Palestinians should attend this event.

More information can be found at the official website.

Bush's War on Terror: Institutionalizing Rape and Torture

Digby reports on the official institutionalization of rape and torture in the "War on Terror":

"A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the 'takeout' of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, during which a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location. A person involved in the Council of Europe inquiry, referring to cavity searches and the frequent use of suppositories during the takeout of detainees, likened the treatment to 'sodomy.' He said, 'It was used to absolutely strip the detainee of any dignity. It breaks down someone’s sense of impenetrability. The interrogation became a process not just of getting information but of utterly subordinating the detainee through humiliation.' The former C.I.A. officer confirmed that the agency frequently photographed the prisoners naked, 'because it’s demoralizing."

Those complicit in these vile acts, predicibly attempted to justify them:

"Pentagon spokesmen said the procedure was medically necessary because Mr. Kahtani was dehydrated after an especially difficult interrogation session."

However, there appears to be one official with some level of human decency, willing to depart from the official regime of truth:

"Another official, told of the use of the enema, said, however, "I bet they said he was dehydrated," adding that that was the justification whenever an enema was used as a coercive technique, as it had been on several detainees."

In case you were wondering, this was an officially sanctioned act from the Executive Branch of the United States government:

 

The Bush White House vehemently objected to provisions of the law dealing with rape by instrumentality. When House negotiators pressed to know why, they were met first with silence and then an embarrassed acknowledgment that a key part of the Bush program included invasion of the bodies of prisoners in a way that might be deemed rape by instrumentality under existing federal and state criminal statutes.

Those of us who have paid attention to US policy over the years know these actions are nothing new. (Read up on the US' involvement in the Latin American wars of national liberation for the prologue to these crimes). What is shocking is that this marks the first time that such policies have been openly sanctioned and institutionalized. These crimes, anywhere else in the world, would be cause for sending its perpetrators directly to the Hauge.

What is needed (though unfortunately unlikely) is a Truth Comission to investigate and punish these crimes against humanity. Justice demands it.