Friday, January 23, 2009

Jan. 24, 2009 Activist Newsletter

Jan. 24, 2009, Issue #143
HUDSON VALLEY ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER/CALENDAR
jacdon@earthlink.net, http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

This newsletter/calendar, published in New Paltz, N.Y., appears once a month, supplemented by the Activist Calendar of progressive events, which is sent to Valley readers only. Editor: Jack A. Smith (who writes the articles that appear without a byline or credit to other publications). He is the former editor of the (U.S.) Guardian Newsweekly. Copy Editor: Donna Goodman. Calendar Editor: Rocco Rizzo. If you know someone who may benefit from this newsletter, ask them to subscribe at jacdon@earthlink.net. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, unsubscribe at the same address. Please send event listings to the above email address. The current and back issues of the newsletter/calendar are available at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com.

—————————————————

EDITOR'S NOTE:

We are again referring you to our website in order to access Activist Newsletter articles instead of sending our entire long report to you via email. This issue of the newsletter is nearly 15,000 words and it is sent to about 3,500 people. The combination of large list and long report creates email problems, including garbled type in transmission. So after you check out our index, log on to http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

—————————————————

CONTENTS

1. PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND DR. KING — As we celebrate the ascension of an African American to the White House, and note the comparisons between the new president and the late civil rights leader, it's important to remember they were two different people treading dissimilar paths. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

2. ON TO WASHINGTON FOR PEACE, MARCH 21 — The first major antiwar protest in Washington since September 2007 will take place on the 6th anniversary of the Iraq war March 21. (We are organizing buses from the Mid-Hudson region to the nation's capital.) http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

3. TERRORISM IS AS TERRORISM DOES — Two new terrorist organizations have pushed al-Qaeda aside, seizing the leadership of the worldwide terrorist movement. They represent a danger a thousand times greater than anything Osama bin-Laden could put together. This article reveals who they are! http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

4. U.S. PEACE MOVEMENT PROTESTS GAZA WAR — At least several hundred demonstrations against the Israeli attack on Gaza have taken place in the United States during the 23-day war that ended in a shaky truce Jan. 18. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

5. LET GAZA LIVE — The brief text of former Rep. Cynthia McKinney speech at the Jan. 10 rally in Washington against Israel's war in Gaza. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

6. CHILD POVERTY IN AMERICA — Every sixth child in the U.S. lives in poverty. In the last year there was a 60% increase in children forced into "food insecurity." About 9 million kids do not have health insurance. The U.S. ranks 29th among world nations in infant mortality. And more. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

7. THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND — The words to Woody Guthrie's song of this title are well known to tens of millions of Americans, but the great majority never knew of the last three stanzas (including a critique of private property) until Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen delivered them at the Inaugural Celebration Concert in Washington Jan. 20. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

8. QUOTES IN THE NEWS — Interesting excerpts from current articles and talks. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

9. REFUTING ISRAEL'S JUSTIFICATIONS — An Israeli progressive organization lists eight of the Tel Aviv government's excuses for the Gaze war, and refutes them one by one. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

10. CHECK IT OUT — Links to several articles and videos about the Israeli bombing and invasion. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

11. THE NEWS IN BRIEF — Abstinence pledges are broken. Obama and the environment. Global warming harms crop yields. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

12. A POEM FOR GAZA — By Remi Kanazi. http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

13. DIET FOR AN ENDANGERED PLANET — The human diet in the developed countries will have to change because it is a major contributor to the environmental crisis. Anybody for vegetables, fruit and nuts? http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

—————————————————

1. PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND DR. KING

We have two reasons for joining all our readers in celebrating the presence of Barack Obama in the White House.

First, the inauguration of an African American as president of the United States is a big advance in the struggle against in racism in the United States, where white supremacy has been a motif of national life since our country was a handful of small colonies on the fringe of a vast wilderness.

Second, there is no question about the fact that President Obama and the Obama Administration will be head and shoulders above President George W. Bush and his administration. Who among us didn't feel an enormous sense of relief that the Bush gang of unindicted war criminals was finally gone?

We don't expect much from the center/center right administration now in power but compared to eight years of what was arguably the worst and most reactionary government in American history, Inauguration Day was a virtual Liberation Day, for the day.

It's good to remember though that despite occasional statements from the media that the inauguration of an African American as president of the United States "is the fulfillment of Dr. Martin Luther King's Dream," the struggle for black equality still has a long way to go.

For example, black unemployment is twice that of whites. Black family income is half that of white families.

And despite the understandable hopes of a majority of the American people for a much better day to come after a long period of neoconservative mismanagement — and forecasts by some on the left that Obama will bring about a new progressive era in the U.S. — we remain dubious about how much real change will come about.

Starting with our next issue of the newsletter, we will report as objectively as possible and as critically as necessary about the performance of the Obama Administration.

Given the proximity of the national holiday celebrating Dr. King's birth, one day before the inauguration, discussion of the progress made by African Americans since the 1960s was ever-present throughout the ceremonies. Television reporters and various commentators during this extraordinary media event at times seemed to conflate Obama and King into one symbol — but these are two quite different people treading dissimilar paths.

Obama is an extremely talented and ambitious professional politician with a trained legal mind, a self-disciplined and confident leader, and clearly a man of his times. He is 47, eight years older than King when the civil rights leader was assassinated at the age of 39 in 1968. Dr. King achieved more at his young age than just about any American politician living today. We wonder what he would have accomplished by 47 or by 80, the age he would be now.

King was a preacher in the Black Church, a convinced Gandhian nonviolent activist and the leader of one of the largest and most successful people's movements in American history. In the process he fearlessly challenged racist authority in whatever guise — from small town sheriffs to the president of the United States. Were he alive and at the top of his game, he'd undoubtedly be challenging President Obama on some issues.

King was a rebel with a cause that went beyond racial equality — a fact that is rarely mentioned by the politicians who praise him today. He fought for the poor and the oppressed. He supported uprisings by the downtrodden of the third world, in opposition to U.S. government policy at the time. He opposed militarism and imperialism, and said: "I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution [i.e., not opposing it] we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values."

He delivered one of the most trenchant critiques of America's unjust war in Vietnam a year before he was murdered when he identified "my own government" as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He would have defined the Iraq war as illegal, unjust and immoral, not simply a mistake, and he sure wouldn't remain silent about sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

As mentioned a number of times during the inaugural coverage, Obama owes his presidency to the struggle that King lived and died for. One way of truly honoring Dr. King for his services would be to pick up where the great civil rights leader was forced to leave off — especially in the matter of ending militarism and imperialism and America's penchant for deploying great violence in pursuit of its global ambitions. We shall soon see how deeply King's views have penetrated the Obama White House.

—————————————————

2. ON TO WASHINGTON FOR PEACE, MARCH 21

The Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter has chartered several buses to bring Mid-Hudson residents to Washington Saturday, March 21, to protest the war on the 6th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and at a time when the U.S. is in the process of vastly expanding the clash in Afghanistan. There will be a march to the Pentagon for a mass rally, demanding "Bring the Troops Home NOW!"

Additional buses may be difficult to obtain so we are urging people to reserve early. The buses will leave from Kingston, New Paltz and probably Poughkeepsie as well (depending on how many riders wish to travel from Poughkeepsie). The round trip price is $55, and there will be subsidies for students and low income people if we receive sufficient donations from our readers to do so. That depends on you.

To reserve a seat, send an email message to Jack Smith at jacdon@earthlink.net with your name, town, phone number and email address. If you are ordering for other people as well, we need the same information for them. Make out your check for $55 for each person to the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter and mail it to P.O. Box 662, New Paltz, NY 12561. Your reservation(s) will be secured when we receive your check. If you wish to make a donation, mark "donation" on your check and we will add it to our subsidy fund. For questions or to reserve by phone, call (845) 255-5779.

Buses will also be leaving from Albany in the upper Hudson Valley, chartered by Bethlehem Neighbors for Peace. For information, contact Joe Lombardo at (518) 439-1968.

The March 21 Coalition, the ad hoc group organizing the event, is composed of a great many peace coalitions, networks, and groups, the ANSWER coalition among them. This will be the first mass antiwar protest in Washington since September 2007.

Friends, George W. Bush is gone at last, replaced by a much better chief executive. However, the wars are continuing, and in Afghanistan the quagmire is getting larger. It is essential for the American peace movement to make itself seen and heard in Washington at this anniversary protest. Please join us to let the country and the world know that our desire for peace is as strong during an Obama Administration as it was during the Bush Administration.

Some 30,000 additional U.S. troops will soon join 70,000 American and allied soldiers already in Afghanistan. This may be followed by several more troop buildups. In addition, a large force of American troops will remain in Iraq until mid-2011, and there is a serious possibility that a residual force of tens of thousands will stay in that country indefinitely. These wars are the longest the U.S. has fought since the American Revolution and the most expensive in comparative dollars of any of its wars except World War II. Join us March 21!

————————————————

3. TERRORISM IS AS TERRORISM DOES

As 2009 gets underway, it is obvious that the so-called "War on Terrorism" has not only failed miserably but has turned into its opposite.

Osama bin-Laden has not been captured, and he recently delivered another public message — but he and al-Qaeda, the organization he leads that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, have become only minor, entirely secondary players in the global terrorism offensive.

Two other organizations have seized the leadership of the worldwide terrorist movement, and they now represent a danger a thousand times greater than al-Qaeda and all the other real and imagined terrorist groups put together.

Over the years the new outlaw chiefs wormed their way into terrorist leadership by deceiving world nations into believing that they actually opposed terrorism — all the while committing horrendous violence against civilian populations from Iraq and Afghanistan to Gaza and the West Bank.

What makes these two terrorist groups all the worse is that instead of slingshots, box cutters, and rifles, suicide belts and imprecise short-range rockets, they command huge, heavily equipped armies, unparalleled air supremacy, and the most cutting edge weapons of mass death and destruction including nuclear warheads and delivery systems.

Above all, they hold state power and, absurdly enough, this allows them to get away with mass terror against civilian populations and the torture of suspects under interrogation.

We speak, of course, of the United States and its junior partner in the Middle East, Israel.

The senior partner has been responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqi citizens as a consequence of its unjust, illegal and immoral invasion and occupation for nearly six years. Another million Iraqi civilians died from the killer sanctions and frequent bombing raids conducted by this same state terrorist from 1991 to 2003, ending with the invasion. The U.S. has killed many thousands in Afghanistan as well during more than seven years of war and is preparing to vastly increase the number of its troops in that country, insuring that the slaughter of civilians will expand exponentially.

The junior partner — supported and enabled by its patron — launched hi-tech wars in the summer of 2006 against its neighbor Lebanon (killing over 1,000 Lebanese civilians and destroying the homes of thousands more families), and the Palestinian Territory of Gaza, suffering few casualties of its own. Between the end of the first Gaza war in 2006 and the start of the second a few weeks ago, well over a thousand Gazans were slain in various Israeli attacks, compared to less than 20 who fell in Israel.

The 23-day Gaza war that began Dec. 27 continued state terrorism's penchant for disproportionate casualties. The terrorists destroyed or badly damaged the homes of 25,000 families (leaving 50,000 people homeless); they destroyed or damaged eight clearly identified hospitals, 26 health clinics; they targeted ambulances, schools, some 20 mosques, 50 UN facilities including food storage warehouses, 1,500 workplaces and factories, and 16 main government buildings including parliament— a war crime of extraordinary magnitude that was totally and publicly supported by the bigger state terrorist. Much of the destruction was caused by over 2,300 air strikes and from tanks. Gaza has neither airplanes, tanks or anti-aircraft weapons.

The state terrorists killed over 1,400 people on the Palestinian side, mostly civilians including about 415 children, compared to 13 deaths on the aggressor side — soldiers (some by "friendly fire") and three civilians. Instead of an eye for an eye, they gouged more than 100 eyes for each eye — state terrorism's reinterpretation of the biblical law of retribution. If God's on your side, or better yet the United States, you can rewrite any rule.

About 5,500 Gazans were wounded, some suffering terrible agonies after being burned with white phosphorus. It's illegal to direct this toxic substance at civilians, but then again the entire operation was illegal in international law, unjust in terms of the ethical definition of war, and immoral for those with consistent religious or secular principles. Israel will never suffer substantial sanctions or censure from the UN Security Council or the European Union because the powerful United States always comes to the aid of its junior partner.

For the last few decades the Tel Aviv government has initiated wars so disproportionate in violence and cruelty that David and Goliath by comparison were virtual equals in strength. Israel has been following a conscious policy of targeting Palestinian civilian populations and the civil infrastructure in order to inflict so much damage that all resistance to its illegal occupation and domination of the Palestinian Territories is broken for good. Virtually every significant target hit by Israeli bombs and tanks was pre-selected in the months leading up to the latest war.

We oppose the intentional targeting of civilians by any side, but it is self-serving and transparently dishonest and cynical to equate the small-scale violence of the oppressed with the massive violence of the oppressor.

The leadership in both Washington and Tel Aviv is changing. Will this result in more or less state violence?

In the United States, new President Barack Obama is superior to President George W. Bush, the departed war monger. The new government cannot help but put a better face on things after eight years of leadership by an individual recently described as a "blood-soaked moron" by Israeli peace movement figure Uri Avnery.

But will an Obama Administration pressure Israel to totally withdraw its troops, administrators and all its settlements from the Palestinian Territories it has illegally occupied since 1967, paving the way for the start of serious negotiations to bring about two equal states? (A single, bi-national state of Jews and Arabs living in harmony, an ideal solution still advocated by some, remains a far distant possibility.) Will the new administration insist, or mildly suggest, that the Israel it supports economically, militarily and politically dismantle the virtual prison it has constructed around the people of Gaza?

Referring to the recent war, which Israel suspended as planned just before the inauguration of Barack Obama, the new president on Jan. 22 condemned the Hamas government for the rocket fire into Israel and supported Israel's bombardment and invasion of Gaza. He did not see fit to mention the obvious war crime of intentionally targeting a mass civilian population. Obama did indicate that his administration supported a two-state solution to the ongoing crisis, as have several U.S. presidents before him, and he declared that "our hearts go out to" the suffering civilian population of Gaza. Politically, Obama lined up with Israel in brushing aside the democratically elected Hamas government and urged Palestinians and Arab nations to get behind the weak and dependent government of President Mahmoud Abbas.

The new U.S. administration may be less callous toward the Palestinians than the Bush Administration, but to the extent there will be any change at all in U.S. policy, we believe it will be cosmetic unless Washington is willing to sharply confront the Tel Aviv authorities. Look at it this way:

President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, State Dept. Middle East expert Dennis Ross, National Security Council Middle East expert Daniel Shapiro, and all the congressional and Democratic Party leaders are solidly pro-Israel and pro-Zionist, and have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not friends of the Palestinian people. Just days ago, both the Senate and House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to support Israel's terrorist onslaught against Gaza. Only four House Democrats and one libertarian Republican voted "no," and 22 Democrats (including Rep. Maurice Hinchey from the Hudson Valley) voted "present." This hardly augurs well for the Palestinian people.

The new Israeli government to be elected Feb. 10 will either be led by the far right Likud Party, backed by similar far right parties, or a combination of the right wing Kadima party (Ariel Sharon's split off from Likud that is occasionally and erroneously termed "centrist") and the center-right Labor Party (the third strongest), as now. Public opinion polls indicate a close race with a tilt toward Likud. No matter who wins, both parties are committed to the status quo, or worse.

The present Kadima/Labor coalition government is led by the disgraced President Ehud Olmert (a former Likud member not running for reelection, and an unindicted war criminal, just like Bush) who initiated the new offensive against Gaza in hopes of winning his party's reelection after what many believe was a disastrous blunder in conducting the unjust Lebanon war two summers ago.

If Likud wins, its chairman, extreme rightist former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will take power. He will not lead Israel to finally withdraw from the Occupied Territories, thus obliterating the chance of peace on his watch. On Jan. 13, Netanyahu insisted that Israel must remove democratically-elected Hamas from power in Gaza. Olmert wanted to do this too, but failed, which means another war may be on Israel's agenda.

Both Likud and the Kadima/Labor coalition are seeking support from key minor parties such as Shas, and Yisrael Beiteinu. Some sources still believe the Kadima/Labor alignment will trump Likud and its allies in the end, possibly bringing former Likud member Tzipi Livni to power. She is Kadima/Labor's hard-line foreign minister (and justice minister simultaneously). Waiting in the coalition's wings for her to fail is the current defense minister, Labor party chairman Ehud Barak, evidently the main civilian directing the recent Gaza war.

The key player in this entire situation is not to be found in Tel Aviv or Gaza/West Bank, but in the United States, the world's self-appointed unipolar hegemon and only military superpower. Washington has been Tel Aviv's enabler for four decades, increasing to the point where some speculate, incorrectly, that the tail is wagging the dog.

Israel may have the most powerful army in the Middle East, and an exceptionally strong propaganda apparatus in the U.S. (including most of the American corporate media), but it remains quite dependent upon Washington's support. If the U.S. were to threaten to terminate its huge annual subsidies and supply of war weapons, and end its blocking of UN Security Council censure and sanctions and other measures that would take Tel Aviv to task, Israel probably would come around quickly enough. Such a development would benefit not only the Palestinians but without a doubt the people of Israel as well.

This is what makes it so important for American progressives to focus intense pressure on the Obama Administration to adopt a balanced position in regard to Israel and the Palestinians. Peace will come to the region when Washington withdraws its support for Israel's intransigence and obliges the Tel Aviv government to pull back to its pre-June 1967 borders and engage in genuine negotiations with the Palestinians. And both Washington and Tel Aviv must discontinue their policy of splitting the Palestinian people, and start talking to Hamas now.

This will take some time, and Washington will resist. But it remains the only solution to 60 years of almost continual crises that have caused historic displacement and hardship for the Palestinian people, insecurity for the Israeli people, second class citizenship for Israeli Arabs, and severe disequilibrium throughout Middle East. Success will mean a great reduction in regional tensions and the removal of Israel from the ranks of state terrorists.

Of course, this will leave one state terrorist standing, the grimmest of reapers in terms of lives lost and hopes crushed:

The one that slaughtered several million Vietnamese and Cambodians in a gratuitous, illegal war; the one that 10 years ago illegally and unjustly bombed Serbian Yugoslavia every day for nearly three months; the one that has caused terrible injury to the people of Iraq; the one that has bombed, invaded, or violently subverted scores of countries over recent decades; the one that succeeded in overthrowing the democratically-elected secular government in Iran, that led to a brutal monarchy eventually dispatched by the present theocracy; the one that overthrew the democratically-elected government in Chile, leading to many years of fascist dictatorship; the one that helped to overthrow the leftist government in Afghanistan that ultimately led to the Taliban, al-Qaeda and 9/11; the one that tried but failed to overthrow the democratically-elected government in Venezuela a few years ago; and the one that has been trying to destroy socialist Cuba for 50 years.

We are writing this article in the hours after watching President Obama's inauguration on TV. His speech was moving, as always. The immense crowd was euphoric. The hope for change was palpable. His talk was about how America became great, and how his administration will make it greater still, and how he will see to it U.S. leadership is going to prevail in the world. He talked about making our country stronger and winning the war against terrorism.

There wasn't a word about the terrible violence and terrorism Washington has let loose upon a continuous succession of countries and peoples until this very day; nor was there a word about ending it. There were no hints of substantive changes to come in foreign and military affairs.

We agree that more time must pass before final conclusions are possible about the Obama Administration's international policies. The possibility of a positive change to one degree or another cannot be ruled out entirely. But on the basis of the situation today, it seems to us that militarism in quest of hegemony, the use of mammoth force against small countries, and building an ever more deadly military machine will remain a principal aspect of American policy during the Obama Administration as it has for every previous administration since the end of World War II.

We hope to be proven wrong, but in the meantime it's best to remember that state terrorism is as state terrorism does, not as it says it does.

————————————————

4. U.S. PEACE MOVEMENT PROTESTS GAZA WAR

At least several hundred demonstrations against the Israeli attack on Gaza have taken place in the United States during the 23-day war that ended in a shaky truce Jan. 18. In the Hudson Valley alone there were perhaps a dozen actions. Throughout the rest of the world the number was certainly was over 1,000. If anything, these are underestimates.

Some of the biggest peace protests in the U.S. took place on or around Saturday, Jan. 10, organized by the ANSWER Coalition, (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), Muslim American Society Freedom, Free Palestine Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, and Al-Awda - Palestine Right to Return Coalition. As we will note later, ANSWER essentially broke the U.S. peace movement's silence about the Israeli-Palestinian issue nearly seven years ago.

On Jan. 10 in WASHINGTON, the coalition reported: "More than 20,000 took to the streets in the freezing rain to demand, 'Let Gaza live!' The streets were so backed up that thousands of people in buses and cars were still arriving after the march had left. The protest began with a rally at Lafayette Park in front of the White House…. The spirited march then led to the Washington Post, where demonstrators denounced the paper for its biased pro-Israeli coverage of the massacre and its complete blackout of protest activities in the United States."

In LOS ANGELES Jan. 10 about 10,000 people participated in a march and rally at the Westwood Federal Building in an action supported by hundreds of co-sponsors and endorsers. ANSWER reported: "Hundreds of Palestinian flags and signs reading, 'Stop bombing Gaza!' and 'The real terrorists: U.S./Israel war machine!' lined all sides of the street and the lawn in front of the federal headquarters.… The Arab-American community came out in full force. The many families and young people at the protest showed intense outrage at Israel’s bombing of hospitals, schools, homes and mosques. 'Gaza, Gaza don’t you cry—Palestine will never die!' was the most popular chant of the day…. After a militant march through Westwood near UCLA, the protesters gathered for a rally, which was kicked off by a symbolic die-in."

Another nearly 10,000 protesters in SAN FRANCISCO Jan. 10 "rallied together at the Civic Center to demand an immediate end to the Israeli massacre of the people of Gaza," the coalition reported. "After nearly an hour of rallying and chanting, demonstrators took to the streets in a militant march. Israeli flags went up in flames as chants of 'Free Palestine!' echoed down major streets. The march returned to the Civic Center for an equally energetic closing rally."

The main action in CHICAGO took place Jan. 9, said ANSWER, when "over 10,000 people took to the streets to march against the U.S.-Israeli war on Gaza…. The Coalition for Justice in Palestine, American Muslims for Palestine and ANSWER Chicago sponsored the action. Protesters gathered outside Daley Plaza in downtown Chicago, then marched to the Israeli consulate to demand an end to the slaughter and the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. Hundreds of Palestinian flags waved in the air as marchers carried signs and banners."

ORLANDO, FL, "was the site of a statewide march for Palestine Jan. 10 under the slogan 'Let Gaza Live,'" the report continued. "A crowd of 2,000 demonstrators took part in the protest — the largest antiwar demonstration in Florida in more than a decade and certainly the largest ever protest in Florida calling for a free Palestine. Police sought to intimidate protesters by searching bags, forcing protestors to remove sticks from placards and denying the use of amplified sound until organizers challenged their scare tactics."

Many other U.S. protests took place the same day. Much closer to home, 60 demonstrators took part in a Jan. 10 protest in the Hudson Valley village of New Paltz despite sub-freezing temperatures, sponsored by Middle East Crisis Response and endorsed by this newsletter. This was followed a week later in Kingston when 30 protestors showed up in single-digit temperatures. A third rally is scheduled in New Paltz Saturday, Jan. 24, outside New Paltz Shopping Plaza on Main St. from 11 a.m.-1 p.m.

Outside the United States Jan. 10, ANSWER said, "Marches took place in London, Edinburgh, Cairo, Athens, Kuala Lumpur, Beirut, Seoul, Mexico City, Jakarta, Montreal, Paris, Barcelona, Marseilles, Lyon, Oslo, Berlin, Bern, Karachi, Nablus, New Delhi, Amman, Sarajevo, Ramallah, Stockholm, and Tokyo. The protests continue to grow — the following day, another 250,000 took to the streets in Spain and more than 100,000 in Algeria."

The corporate mass media in the U.S. have virtually ignored the many protests against the Tel Aviv government's invasion of Gaza throughout the war, while slanting their news and editorial coverage in Israel's favor. This is the media's usual practice.

In general the U.S. peace movement ignored the plight of the Palestinian people between the time of the June 1967 war — the beginning of the illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories — until the spring of 2002. At that time, ANSWER and an ad hoc group (that later became UFPJ) both planned nearby but separate protests mainly against the Afghanistan war in the nation's capital on April 20, followed by a joint march to the Capitol.

A few weeks before the planned action, however, Israel launched devastating attacks against basically defenseless Palestinian refugee camps that were sharply criticized by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Two weeks before the 20th, as the attacks continued, ANSWER decided to re-focus its protest on opposition to the anti-Palestinian war and spread the word throughout the country, with special emphasis on reaching the Islamic community, which heretofore was not part of the peace movement.

As we wrote immediately after the action: "For the first time, enormous numbers of Palestinian-Americans of the diaspora, Arab-Americans and the Muslim community — an estimated 30,000 people — joined with perhaps as many other demonstrators at the ANSWER rally. When the two demonstrations joined for the post-rally march, up to 100,000 people were taking part in what turned out to become a protest against the Israeli attacks."

Not all participants, particularly from the other demonstration, were pleased, but this action ultimately broke the back of resistance to antiwar involvement in the Israel-Palestine issue. In the years since that event, more and more antiwar organizations — including by now all the major peace coalitions — have criticized Israel's violence against the Palestinians.

————————————————

5. LET GAZA LIVE

[Editor's note: Former Rep. Cynthia McKinney was one of the speakers at the Jan. 10 "Let Gaza Live" rally in Washington. In sending the text of her brief talk, McKinney (the Green Party candidate for president last November) noted that "attendance was excellent despite the weather. The crowd was one of the most diverse that I have ever seen. I think our message is reaching deep into our country's heartland. Here are my remarks."]

We don't see the images. They are neatly censored from our view in this country. But everywhere else around the world the carnage that is Gaza is being seen and the people are revolted by what they see.

They see dead babies, decapitated bodies, defenseless relief workers killed. Maimed men, makeshift morgues, mortified mothers.

They see exploding white phosphorus shells, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions.

They see what is reportedly the world's fourth most powerful military using all of its power against a defenseless people.

In fact, they are witnesses to 15 days of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

They see Hugo Chavez expel Venezuela's Israeli Ambassador and they see lawmakers in Ecuador condemn Israel's actions, calling for an investigation into Israel's crimes against humanity.

And despite the obvious facts of an Israeli-sponsored terror campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, a piece of territory roughly twice the size of the District of Columbia, they see the U.S. Congress support a resolution totally supporting Israel, even though Israel is in violation of U.S. and international law.

They see Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, swaggering in insult to black America by initially refusing to seat Roland Burris from Illinois in the Senate, yet that same Reid cowers before the pro-Israel lobby, and they wonder why.

And sadly, they see the U.S. President-elect, who roared onto the scene like a lion, remain as quiet as a lamb in the face of the utter inhumanity of Israel's actions, and they wonder why.

And then, they see us. Gathered here in front of the White House, reaffirming our own humanity, and that of millions of people around the world, including in Israel, who disagree with this death and destruction. The tears of the Palestinians roll down our cheeks, even as we bury our own victims of police murder.

A new day is coming in U.S. politics. We will use the power of our vote to change U.S. policy. We will no longer check our values at the door and support politicians and political parties that fail to deliver.

Not one more bomb to Israel.

In defense of humanity, we will not give up and we will win.

————————————————

6. CHILD POVERTY IN AMERICA

"It is a national disgrace that the richest nation on earth lets every sixth child live in poverty." With these words Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) president Marian Wright Edelman released a new report Dec. 22 titled "The State of America’s Children 2008."

"The number of poor children has increased nearly 500,000 to 13.3 million," said the CDF report, "with 5.8 million of them living in extreme poverty, and nearly 9 million children lack health coverage — with both numbers likely to increase during the recession…. Every 33 seconds a baby is born into poverty. One in 6 children in America is poor. Black and Latino children are about 3 times as likely to be poor as white children."

Children in the United States "lag behind almost all industrialized nations on key child indicators," the 74-page report continued. "The United States has the unwanted distinction of being worst among industrialized nations in relative child poverty, in the gap between rich and poor, in teen birth rates, and in child gun violence, and first in the number of incarcerated persons."

Commenting on child poverty in the U.S., Edelman declared:

"Investing in our children — the seed corn of our nation's future — is key to our nation's economic recovery and competitiveness in the global economy. And we do not have a minute to waste as a child drops out of school every 11 seconds of the school day; is abused or neglected every 35 seconds; is born without health coverage every 39 seconds; and is killed by guns every three hours. No external enemy poses such a grave threat to our children’s and nation's security as these facts….

"A cradle to prison pipeline crisis is fueling a massive and costly prison system that is becoming the new American apartheid. It is draining tens of billions of dollars from crucial health and education investments all children need to get into a pipeline to college and productive work. Poverty and continuing racial disparities in all child serving systems are sentencing countless children to dead-end lives. That a black boy born in 2001 has a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison in his lifetime and a Latino boy has a 1 in 6 chance is a personal tragedy and national catastrophe. We can and must change these horrifying outcomes. If we can bail out Wall Street bankers who have brought our economy to its knees, we can rescue our children from hopelessness, despair, sickness, illiteracy and preventable poverty."

Editorializing on the plight of poor youngsters, the New York Times reported Dec. 26: "The nation’s poorest citizens are already suffering some of the harshest effects of the economic decline, most notoriously with a 60% increase in children forced into 'food insecurity.' That’s bureaucratese for families driven to skipping meals. There were more than 690,000 youngsters who didn’t have enough to eat last year…. This year, the hunger struggle has worsened."

And it is certainly spreading in the beginning of this second year of the Great Recession. Contributing to the increasing plight of America's poor children and their families, according to the Times, is what the Democratic Clinton Administration considered one of its greatest achievements. "It’s no surprise," the newspaper noted, "that a politically acclaimed reform of the 1990s — 'the end to welfare as we know it' in favor of 'workfare' — is fast fraying at the edges. States are reporting a surge in applicants for the limited short-term cash aid allowed under the workfare rules. And the program’s emphasis on shunting the poor toward low-paying, start-up jobs is becoming increasingly pointless as the job market ossifies."

Following are some highlights from the CDF report and other sources. (Keep in mind that the poverty level for a family of four in the U.S. is an annual income of $21,200, though it will actually take twice that income for the family to live in relative comfort; for a family of two it is $14,000 a year. A family in extreme or severe poverty has an income of half the poverty level — i.e., $10,600 a year for a family of four. Low income families, as opposed to the officially poor, have incomes less than double the poverty level.)

• The majority of the 13.3 million poor children (out of a child population of about 75 million) live in families at or below the poverty line, but nearly 1 in 13 children in the United States — 5.8 million — live in extreme poverty. Young children are more likely than school-age children to live in extreme poverty: 1 in 11 young children, compared to 1 in 14 older children.

• All told, reports the National Center for Children in Poverty, "18% of children in the U.S. live in families that are considered officially poor (below the poverty level)…. Across the states, official child poverty rates range from 6% in New Hampshire to 31% in Mississippi." In New York State, 20% of children live in poor families." Nearly 40% percent of the nation’s children — about 29 million in 2006 — live in families with low incomes, that is, incomes below twice the official poverty level. This figure is obviously higher in today's recession.

• Currently, 8.9 million children are without health insurance. One in 5 Latino children and 1 in 8 black children are uninsured, compared to 1 in 13 white children. Among uninsured children: 9 out of 10 have at least one employed parent; 6 out of 10 live in two-parent families. And 9 out of 10 are United States citizens.

• In almost every state, black and Latino babies are less likely than white babies to be born to mothers who received early prenatal care. About 1 in 12 babies born in the United States is low birthweight, with black babies about twice as likely as white or Latino babies to be born at low birthweight. Infant mortality rates are more than twice as high for black infants as for white infants.

• In a report last October from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it was disclosed the U.S. ranks 29th among world nations in infant mortality, with 6.71 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Most of the industrialized world has lower rates. Canada, for instance has a rate of 4.8%, and in Sweden it's 3.2%. In the developing world, composed of the overwhelming majority of nations, the rate is substantially higher, with 15 countries experiencing rates of over 100 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Cuba appears to enjoy the lowest mortality rate among these poorer countries (and lower than the U.S. as well) at 5.1 per 1,000, according to the UN Population Division.

• More than 900,000 children were abused or neglected in the U.S. in 2006. Although black children comprise 15% of all children, they are 32% of the approximately 500,000 children in foster care. More than 2.5 million grandparents are raising their grandchildren.

• In 33 states and the District of Columbia, the annual cost of center-based child care for a preschooler is more than the annual tuition at a 4-year public college. In New York State, average annual in-state tuition in a 4-year public college is $5,022. The annual cost for a preschool age child receiving center-based childcare is $9,391. Low-cost or free preschool child-care facilities are incomparably more available in virtually all other advanced capitalist societies.

• Only about one-half to two-thirds of children eligible for Head Start are enrolled, and only about 3% of eligible infants and young children are enrolled in Early Head Start. In many cases, as with Food Stamps, the parents are not aware of their children's eligibility, not least because of inadequate publicity about the rights of poor people and all the available programs.

• About two-thirds of all public school 4th graders cannot read at grade level; 6 out of 10 cannot do math at grade level. More than 80% of black and Latino 4th graders in public school cannot read at grade level, compared with 58% of their white peers. A total of 85% of black 4th graders in public school cannot do math at grade level, compared to 78% of Latino children and about half of white children. Some 7 out of 10 public school 8th graders cannot read or do math at grade level. More than 4 out of 5 black 8th graders cannot read or do math at grade level, compared to 3 out of 5 of their white peers.

• More than half the children participating in the School Lunch Program ― more than 17 million children ― receive free or reduced-price meals. The 8 million children in the School Breakfast Program who received free or reduced-price meals — 4 out of 5 participants — are the neediest children. Yet the Summer Food Service Program, an entitlement targeted at these children, served fewer than 2 million children, showing that needy children are not receiving this important assistance during the summer months.

• White, black and Latino teens are about equally likely to use drugs, but black juveniles are twice as likely as their white peers to be arrested for drug offenses and more than five times as likely to be incarcerated for drug offenses as white teens.

• Some 3,006 children and teens were killed by firearms in 2005, the equivalent of 120 public school classrooms of 25 students each. Another 16,000 children and teens suffered non-fatal firearm injuries.

After former Sen. John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic primary, all talk of fighting poverty, much less child poverty, became muted. While the final two contenders included the matter of poverty on their websites, the chances of a serious anti-poverty program getting underway during the new administration are considered limited to nonexistent.

— The Children's Defense Fund is a "a non-profit child advocacy organization that has worked relentlessly for 35 years to ensure a level playing field for all children." The full "State of America’s Children 2008" report is available at .

————————————————

7. THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND

For a number of American progressives, Woody Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" would be an appropriate National Anthem for the United States. At least two of its stanzas and the repeated chorus are probably better known to most Americans than two stanzas (or even one complete stanza without skipping words) of the Francis Scott Key's four-stanza "Star Spangled Banner," the present anthem.

Until a large group of singers, led by Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, delivered a rousing version of "This Land is Your Land" before a crowd of perhaps 400,000 people at the Obama Inaugural Celebration Concert in Washington Jan. 20, the last three stanzas they sang were virtually unknown.

These three stanzas were in Woody's 1944 version of the song, and are almost always omitted. Partly it's because the song is best performed with a sing-along audience, and few know them by heart, but also, we think, because they are more to the political left, especially the part about private property. So with thanks to Seeger and Springsteen (a link to a video of their singing at the concert is below), here is the full version of "This Land Is Your Land," including the usually neglected stanzas.

As I was walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway:
I saw below me that golden valley:
This land was made for you and me.

(chorus) This land is your land This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the redwood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.

I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding:
This land was made for you and me.

(chorus)

When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,
As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for you and me.

(chorus)

In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,
By the relief office I seen my people;
As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking
Is this land made for you and me?

(chorus)

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
Sign was painted, it said private property;
But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
That side was made for you and me.

(chorus)

Nobody living can ever stop me,
As I go walking that freedom highway;
Nobody living can ever make me turn back
This land was made for you and me.

(chorus)

— The Seeger-Springsteen version — sing along, and watch Pete at the end!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0wiOHc9tI

————————————————

8. QUOTES IN THE NEWS

• THE NOUVEAU POOR: In an article appearing on her website Jan. 13, titled "The Nouveau Poor Have Reached Numbers Too Large to Ignore," progressive author Barbara Ehrenreich wrote about the plight of rich people who have lost money in the financial market:

The media have been pelting us with heart-wrenching stories about the neo-suffering of the Nouveau Poor, or at least the Formerly Super-rich among them: Foreclosures in Greenwich CT! A collapsing market for cosmetic surgery! Sales of Gulfstream jets declining! Niemen Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue on the ropes! We read of desperate measures, like having to cut back the personal trainer to two hours a week. Parties have been canceled; dinner guests have been offered, gasp, baked potatoes and chili. The New York Times relates the story of a New Jersey teenager whose parents were forced to cut her $100 a week allowance and private Pilates classes. In one of the most pathetic tales of all, New Yorker Alexandra Penney relates how she lost her life savings to Bernie Madoff and is now faced with having to lay off her three-day- a-week maid, Yolanda. “I wear a classic clean white shirt every day of the week. I have about 40 white shirts. They make me feel fresh and ready to face whatever battles I may be fighting .…” she wrote, but without Yolanda, “How am I going to iron those shirts so I can still feel like a poor civilized person?”
— Full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/119360/

• A SCENE FROM DANTE'S INFERNO: Norwegian Dr. Mads Gilbert, interviewed by Democracy Now upon returning home after weeks of volunteering in a Gaza hospital:

The condition in Shifa Hospital and in the other hospitals in Gaza is horrifying. I’ve been to Gaza for the last 10 years, in and out, teaching and training people in the medical field. I’ve never seen anything like this. I mean, all windows in the Shifa Hospital are out, due to the bombing of the mosque across the street. They have very unstable electricity. They lack supplies, disposables, surgical equipment, trolleys, beds even. They have a fantastic staff, who are working heroically to save their patients, but we have been doing surgery with, almost regularly, two patients in each OR, on the wall, on the floor, in the corridors. The lifts are barely working. The ICU had to triple its capacity with makeshift ICUs. It is really, truly a scene from Dante’s Inferno.
— Full article:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/14/white_phosphorous_and_dense_inert_metal

• BUSH'S WORST DEED: Writing in TIME Jan. 8, Joe Klein identified "The Bush Administration's Most Despicable Act" in an article of the same name:

"This is not the America I know," President George W. Bush said after the first, horrifying pictures of U.S. troops torturing prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in April 2004. The President was not telling the truth. "This" was the America he had authorized on Feb. 7, 2002, when he signed a memorandum stating that the Third Geneva Convention — the one regarding the treatment of enemy prisoners taken in wartime — did not apply to members of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. That signature led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay. It was his single most callous and despicable act. It stands at the heart of the national embarrassment that was his presidency.
— Full article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1870319,00.html


• IS BUSH ABOVE THE LAW? New York Times columnist Paul Krugman thinks it is essential for there to be an official investigation of the Bush Administration's crimes:

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. “I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” he responded, but “we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards." I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power. Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. It’s not just torture and illegal wiretapping, whose perpetrators claim, however implausibly, that they were patriots acting to defend the nation’s security. The fact is that the Bush administration’s abuses extended from environmental policy to voting rights. And most of the abuses involved using the power of government to reward political friends and punish political enemies.
—Full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

• A WICKED MAN… IS MY ADVERSARY: In covering the Jan. 11 pro-Israel rally in New York City, journalist Max Blumenthal was so disturbed by the hateful comments he heard from some of the rally-goers he interviewed that he wrote:

The rally made me think of a passage in “The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its Ashes,” a powerful new book by former Israeli Knesset speaker and Jewish National Fund chairman Avraham Burg: “If you are a bad person, a whining enemy or a strong-arm occupier, you are not my brother, even if you are circumcised, observe the Sabbath, and do mitzvahs. If your scarf covers every hair on your head for modesty, you give alms and do charity, but what is under your scarf is dedicated to the sanctity of Jewish land, taking precedence over the sanctity of human life, whosever life that is, then you are not my sister. You might be my enemy. A good Arab or a righteous gentile will be a brother or sister to me. A wicked man, even of Jewish descent, is my adversary, and I would stand on the other side of the barricade and fight him to the end.”
— Full article: http://www.alternet.org/story/119372/

————————————————

9. REFUTING ISRAEL'S JUSTIFICATIONS

[Editor's Note: Since 1967, the Israeli government has demolished many thousands of homes in the occupied Palestinian Territories as punishment to the owners and occupants for a variety of alleged infractions against the colonial occupation. In response, a nonviolent direct action group was formed with the title of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions. Members seek to halt demolitions, often by attempting to block the bulldozers with their own bodies. They also engage in educational work and support for besieged Palestinian communities. Of course, the ICAHD is critical of the Israeli attack upon the people of Gaza. Following is a Jan. 10 brief version of a longer statement responding to the Tel Aviv government's public relations justifications for its brutal bombings and invasion of Gaza.]

By the ICAHD

Israel’s core messages, listed below, argue for the justice of its cause in Gaza, cast Israel as the victim and ensure that its war is seen not in terms of occupation but of the broader Western struggle against terror. The critical reframing we offer, that of Israelis committed to human rights, international law and a just peace as the only way out of this interminable and bloody conflict, argues that security cannot be achieved unilaterally while one side oppresses the other and that Israel’s attack on Gaza is merely another attempt to render its Occupation permanent by destroying any source of effective resistance. It argues that Israel could have avoided all attacks upon it over the last 20 years, and the rise of Hamas, if it had genuinely negotiated a two-state solution with the Palestinian leadership. Israel, the strong party and the Occupying Power, is not the victim. Indeed, its attack on Gaza is a form of State Terrorism.

• Israeli PR: Like all countries, Israel has a right and duty to defend its citizens. Israel, acting as any life-loving nation would, has a right to be a normal country living in peace and security.

The Reality: To pursue offensive policies of prolonged occupation as well as sanctions, boycotts and closures that impoverish a civilian population, and to then refuse to engage with that population’s elected leaders, is not defending one's citizens. To expect your citizens to live in security while a million and a half subjugated people just a few kilometers away live in misery is both unrealistic and presumptive. Israel will only be able to defend its citizens – which is indeed its duty – if it addresses the causes of their insecurity, a 41-year occupation.

• Israeli PR: Israel had no choice but to attack in response to the barrage of 8,500 Hamas rockets fired from Gaza into Israel over the past eight years that have killed 20 Israeli civilians.

The Reality: In the past three years alone Israel – together with the U.S., Europe and Japan – imposed an inhumane siege of Gaza while conducting a campaign of targeted assassinations and attacks throughout the cease-fire that left 1,700 Palestinians dead. Hamas’ barrage did not exist in a vacuum. This war is no “response:” it is merely a more deadly round of the tit-for-tat arising out of a political vacuum. The rocket firings could have been avoided had there been a genuine political horizon. To present the “barrage” as an independent event disassociated from wider Israeli policies that led to them is disingenuous.

• Israeli PR: There is no occupation – in general, but specifically in Gaza. Israel ended its occupation of Gaza in 2005 with the “disengagement.” Gaza could have flourished as the basis of a Palestinian state, but its inhabitants chose conflict.

The Reality: Economic development, not to mention a political process which might have prevented the violence on both sides, was actively prevented by both Israel and its international supporters, which share responsibility for the present tragedy in Gaza. At no time since the “disengagement” did Israel ever relinquish or even loosen its control. The closure remained in force, including by sea; Gazans were never allowed to reopen their sea or air ports; nor were any conditions conducive to economic development allowed. Israel’s claim that there has never been an occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza is rejected by every member of the international community. Neither does it accept Israel’s claim that occupation ended in 2005, since the definition of occupation in international law has to do with exercising effective control of a foreign territory, which Israel obviously does over Gaza.

• Israeli PR: Only Hamas violated the cease-fire, and thus it carries full responsibility.

The Reality: Israel and Hamas agreed to a truce (through Egypt) by which Israel would allow the opening of the Gazan border crossings (at least partially) in return for an end to rocket fire on Israel. Hamas largely, though not entirely, kept its part of the bargain; Israel almost never did. Killings of Palestinians from the air continued, and on the American election day in early November it attacked the tunnels (which functioned as alternative means of supplying Gaza in the absence of open borders, which would have allowed control over the movement of arms), killing a number of Hamas people. In response Hamas launched rockets and… the truce began breaking down.

• Israeli PR: Israel is only attacking the “infrastructure of terror” in Gaza and only targets Hamas fighters.

The Reality: Being the elected government, all the infrastructure, from traffic cops to schools to military installations, “belong” to Hamas. It is clear that Israeli attacks go beyond “the infrastructure of terror.” Who’s a “Hamas fighter?” The graduating class of traffic cops that was slaughtered in the first aerial attack on Gaza? Professors and students who attend the “Hamas” Islamic University? Family members of Hamas military figures? People who voted for Hamas? All, but for those actively participating in hostilities, would be defined as civilians under international law.

• Israeli PR: Civilians may die, but it’s because Hamas hides its fighters and weapons factories among ordinary people.

The Reality: Israel’s military headquarters are located in the center of Tel Aviv, the military headquarters over the West Bank are in the densely populated civilian settlement Neveh Ya’akov in East Jerusalem, the Pentagon is located close to downtown Washington D.C. and the British Ministry of Defense is located in central London. Hamas, of course, as both a government and a military organization, carries responsibility for protecting the civilian population and keeping the fighting away from them but the question that should be asked, and never is, is why Western nations who do the same are not faced with such criticism?

• Israeli PR: Hamas is a terrorist organization that refuses to recognize Israel or enter into a political process.

The Reality: Which Israel should Hamas recognize? 1947 UN partition borders? 1967 borders? With annexed East Jerusalem? With the settlement blocs? So long as Israel refuses to define its borders then there is only an abstract concept available for recognition. Hamas has openly declared that it will de facto recognize Israel on the 1967 borders. Israel has made no such offers to any Palestinian faction, government or representatives.

• Israeli PR: Hamas is a global problem, part of Islamist fundamentalism together with Iran and Hezbollah and therefore Israel is only doing its part in the West’s agreed-upon War on Terror.

The Reality: Hamas started as a social welfare organization that was allowed by Israel to develop as a political force in Occupied Palestine to weaken the standing of the secular PLO. There was no Hezbollah prior to the 1982 Israeli invasion. The theocrats in Iran were an organized but quite small political force until the U.S. overthrew Iran’s democracy [in 1954, installing a brutal monarchy that tover the years crushed that country's political left]. The local population will always resist when foreign countries try to oppose their will and the resistance will not always be pretty. Painting Hamas as part of a global conspiracy when it’s a product of the Occupation itself is disingenuous and a gross distortion of history.

— The ICAHD website is at http://www.icahd.org/eng/

————————————————

10. CHECK IT OUT (the all-Gaza issue):

ISRAELIS ASK, "WAS IT ALL WORTH IT?": According to this report in the Times of London, "Two days after their last soldiers returned from Gaza, Israelis are asking increasingly whether the offensive had achieved anything other than spawning a new generation of potential suicide bombers." Read it at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5567396.ece.

THE BOSS HAS GONE MAD: One of our favorite Israeli nonconformists, antiwar leader Uri Avnery, points out that "It is impossible to understand the viciousness of this war without taking into account the historical background: the feeling of victimhood after all that has been done to the Jews throughout the ages, and the conviction that after the Holocaust, we have the right to do anything, absolutely anything, to defend ourselves, without any inhibitions due to law or morality." Check it out at http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1232152100/.

ANOTHER WAR, ANOTHER DEFEAT: That's the title of an article in the Jan. 26 issue of The American Conservative written by John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and coauthor of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." He argues that "no matter what happens on the battlefield, Israel cannot win its war in Gaza. In fact, it is pursuing a strategy — with lots of help from its so-called friends in the Diaspora — that is placing its long-term future at risk." The article is at http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00006/.

OBAMA AND HAMAS: The New York Times has performed poorly in terms of Israel's Gaza war. It has been totally pro-Israel editorially, and its news coverage has been tilted toward Tel Aviv's version of events. Virtually the only article that showed some insight into developments wasn't printed until Jan. 22 when correspondent Steven Erlanger, writing from Jerusalem, touched on a few of the political complexities involved in the situation. He focused on the policy choice facing the Obama Administration — to either "support a Palestinian unity government, as Egypt and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, want, or continue to isolate Hamas and concentrate on building up the West Bank as a political alternative to radical Islam." We sure would have written it differently, but it shows what a sector of the U.S. foreign policy establishment is thinking about. It's at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22gaza.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper.

ATROCITIES IN GAZA: Norman Finkelstein, long a critic of Israel and the author of "The Holocaust Industry," was interviewed by a correspondent for Russia Today and the video is on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAhoLRfBNOQ.

BEYOND THE MYTHS ABOUT HAMAS: This is a history and analysis of Hamas from a progressive point of view by Deepa Kumar, an assistant Professor of Media Studies at Rutgers University. It's at http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/kumar210109.html.

————————————————Í

11. NEWS IN BRIEF
By Nathan Rosenblum

ABSTINENCE PLEDGES ARE BROKEN: Young people who pledge abstinence until marriage are no more likely to avoid sexual relations prior to marriage than those who do not take such a pledge. This is the verdict of a report released last month by researcher Janet E. Rosenbaum at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Many thousands of teenagers, encouraged by some religious groups, have taken "the pledge" in recent years, and pledge programs are supported by the U.S. government to the tune of $176 million a year. But on the basis of her research, Rosenbaum reported a few weeks ago that "Taking a pledge doesn't seem to make any difference at all in any sexual behavior." One result of taking the pledge, she noted, was that only 24% of teens who did regularly used condoms while 34% of teens who did not take the pledge did so. The researcher indicated that this difference appears to stem from the misleading information provided about condoms to those participating in abstinence programs.

OBAMA AND THE ENVIRONMENT: A group of 29 environmental, conservation, and scientific advocacy groups recently sent a 391-page "Green Action" report to President Obama and his advisers. The report "addressed the dual goals of environmental protection and economic recovery," and included a list of environmental recommendations, urging that they be taken within a few months. The list includes a “green jobs” program to help alleviate the effects of the recent economic collapse, concentration on poor and minority community access to new technology, and an emphasis on science in determining policies rather than the interests of industry. So far, Obama has filled several important environmental positions in his administration. These include Steven Chu as Energy Secretary and Carol Brower as head of efforts against global warming. Chu, like Obama, is a strong supporter of "cap and trade" systems, involving selling credits allowing for excess release of carbon dioxide, such as are in place in the European Union. Recent reports indicate that despite Europe’s system, carbon dioxide emissions there have actually increased.

GLOBAL WARMING HARMS CROP YIELDS: The increase in temperatures associated with global warming is having a detrimental effect on crops and food security in many countries in the tropics and subtropics. A research team, whose findings were published recently in the journal Science, analyzed 23 computer climate models and determined that there is an above 90% probability that seasonal temperatures in these regions will go above those recorded between the years 1900 and 2006 and that in temperate regions the highest seasonal temperatures over this period of time will become normal. Scientists studied heat waves in past year to determine what the effect might be on crop production. A heat wave affecting Western Europe in the summer of 2003, for example, was responsible for over a 30% decline in corn production in certain areas. The study also refuted the theory that global warming might assist in crop production. This warming could have particularly detrimental effects in Africa, which could lose entire growing seasons.

————————————————Í

12. A POEM FOR GAZA

By Remi Kanazi

I never knew death until I saw the bombing of a refugee camp
Craters filled with disfigured ankles and splattered torsos
But no sign of a face, the only impression a fading scream
I never understood pain
Until a seven-year-old girl clutched my hand
Stared up at me with soft brown eyes, waiting for answers
But I didn't have any
I had muted breath and dry pens in my back pocket
That couldn't fill pages of understanding or resolution

In her other hand she held the key to her grandmother's house
But I couldn't unlock the cell that caged her older brothers
They said, we slingshot dreams so the other side will feel our father's presence
A craftsman
Built homes in areas where no one was building
And when he fell, he was silent
A .50 caliber bullet tore through his neck shredding his vocal cords
Too close to the wall
His hammer must have been a weapon
He must have been a weapon
Encroaching on settlement hills and demographics

So his daughter studies mathematics
Seven explosions times eight bodies
Equals four Congressional resolutions
Seven Apache helicopters times eight Palestinian villages
Equals silence and a second Nakba
Our birthrate minus their birthrate
Equals one sea and 400 villages re-erected
One state plus two peoples . . . and she can't stop crying
Never knew revolution or the proper equation
Tears at the paper with her fingertips
Searching for answers
But only has teachers
Looks up to the sky and sees stars of David demolishing squalor with hellfire missiles

She thinks back words and memories of his last hug before he turned and fell
Now she pumps dirty water from wells, while settlements divide and conquer
And her father's killer sits beachfront with European vernacular
She thinks back words, while they think backwards
Of obscene notions and indigenous confusion

This our land!, she said
She's seven years old
This our land!, she said
And she doesn't need a history book or a schoolroom teacher
She has these walls, this sky, her refugee camp
She doesn't know the proper equation
But she sees my dry pens
No longer waiting for my answers
Just holding her grandmother's key . . . searching for ink

— Remi Kanazi is a Palestinian American poet and activist. He is editor of Poets for Palestine, www.poeticinjustice.net/. From MRZine.

————————————————

13. DIET FOR AN ENDANGERED PLANET

[Editor's Note: I wrote this article in April 2006 and it was published in that issue of the newsletter. Since about 30% of our readers are new since then, plus the fact that the danger of environmental collapse has zoomed to the forefront of much of our readers' consciousness in the last year, we are reprinting it below.]

One of the most important tasks confronting human society in this 21st century is to develop an antidote to the devastating ecological consequences of 150 years of virtually uncontrolled industrialization. There are many factors involved in such an immense project, because the negative aspects of positive technological developments largely have been ignored throughout much of modern history.

Taking serious measures to counteract global warming is one of the most imperative of responsibilities, due to the proximity of the impending danger. Another is developing clean energy sources sufficient to power modern societies. And there are a multiplicity of other complex scientific, social, political and economic alterations that must be set in motion to avoid an environmental catastrophe.

One of the critical components in the drive for ecological balance has received little attention so far, but it will become fairly obvious in coming decades. In essence, the human diet will have to change, probably at some time later this century, because it is a major contributor to the environmental crisis, which we shall show in this article.

The diet of most of the industrialized world is based on the consumption of meat, fish and fowl — and the great majority of people as yet have no idea of the disturbing impact this has on the environment. It’s causing the depletion of forests and water resources; pollution on a mass scale, including the fouling of the air we breathe and the water we drink; the waste of energy resources; the extinction of certain non-farm animal species, and many other consequences that endanger the Earth’s ecology. In addition, the excessive concentration on producing animal flesh for consumption in the richer countries contributes to world hunger in the poor countries.

The thought of reducing or giving up a meat-based diet to eat vegetables, grains, fruit and nuts is a touchy subject with most people in America, just as giving up smoking was to many millions a few decades ago. Today those who quit their nicotine addiction or never began are glad of it, and those who haven’t quit are a diminishing and often worried minority, besieged by restrictive laws and high prices. Eventually, when it becomes environmentally necessary to switch diets, we suspect it will take several generations to complete the transformation, but it can be done.

Science has greatly strengthened the rationale for vegetarianism in the last half century. Back in the 1950s, when this writer became a vegetarian, only about 1% of the American people refused to eat meat, fish and fowl. Usually, decisions to do so were based solely on ethical considerations — for example, a disinclination to cause the discomfort and slaughter of animals when it was not necessary to consume their flesh for human well-being or survival. Many also believed that other species simply had a right to survive and live as free as possible.

But in more recent decades science has provided two substantial further reasons for switching to a vegetarian diet. These reasons will become more compelling as time goes on, particularly as this knowledge proliferates and when governments are obliged to get behind the idea. They are: (1) the considerable proven health benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet; (2) the proven dangers to the world environment emanating from the mass consumption of farmed animals.

Today, largely due to knowledge of the health benefits, it is estimated that 3% to 4% of American adults are vegetarians and the number is growing. Perhaps a quarter to a third of this number are vegans who do not consume animal products (mainly eggs, dairy, and honey) as well as animal flesh. Time magazine reports that 10 million Americans consider themselves vegetarians. The National Restaurant Association suggests as many as 20% of U.S. college students identify themselves as vegetarians. According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Vegetarian Journal in late 2005, “3% of 8-to-18 years olds say they never eat meat, poultry, or fish/seafood. A whopping 11% of 13-15-year-old females said they never eat meat.”

Increasing numbers of people have given up red meat or other categories of animal flesh, largely for health reasons, but are not yet vegetarians or vegans. Some selectively shun certain foods because they object to the way particular animals are forced to suffer — such as geese (force-fed), veal (cruelly confined calves), and lobsters (boiled alive), for example — though the generality of animal suffering has been rationalized and ignored.

The average American has grown up on a diet of animal flesh and enjoys it, without delving too deeply into how this particular food becomes available. There is a disconnect in the mind of many consumers — a large proportion of whom may consider themselves animal lovers — between the live animal they do not see and the plastic-wrapped package they obtain in the supermarket or the burger procured at the fast-food counter. Few dwell upon the short, stunted and painful lives of the creatures sacrificed to make it all possible.

But the fact is that over 10 billion mammals and birds are slaughtered every year in the United States alone, according All-Creatures.org and government reports. In 2003, the total was 41.2 million cattle and calves, 133 million pigs, 4.1 million sheep, 291 million turkeys, 255.5 million ducks, 9.14 billion “broilers” and 425 million laying hens. This doesn’t include the slaughter of fish and aquatic life, which may equal that of the chickens. Worldwide, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the total of mammals and birds killed for food in 2002 was 51.2 billion. Statistically, the U.S., with about 5% of the world population, is responsible for almost 20% of the annual world kill rate.

We mention these extraordinary figures not to shock the reader about the extent of the carnage but to set the stage for explaining the environmental impact. We won’t even go into the matter of the horrors perpetrated upon our fellow animals in factory farms and slaughter houses for the same reason.

In terms of the gathering environmental crisis, one of the main problems emanating from an animal-based diet is that it requires an enormous infrastructure. The animals themselves must be fed, watered and medicated before the humans can be fed. The millions of acres in the United States devoted to raising farm animals are only a small proportion of the much greater acreage required to grow the food to sustain these animals. An estimated 80% of U.S agricultural land — nearly half the total land mass in the 48 contiguous states — is devoted to growing crops to feed farm animals.

Over 260 million acres of forests in the U.S. have been leveled to create the land to feed the animals. It takes one to one-and-a-quarter acres of land to grow the required 2,500 to 3,500 pounds of grain and soybeans to produce 165 pounds of feedlot beef. Some 80% of the American corn crop is consumed by farm animals, not humans. Over 95% of the oats go to animals as well. Some 70% of all the grain and cereals are fed to the farm animals.

By comparison, the same acreage required to sustain 165 pounds of beef could produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes for human beings. Look at it this way: 20 vegans can be fed well on a healthy diet of vegetables, grains and fruits on the same amount of land required to feed one meat eater. In terms of alleviating severe world hunger, which afflicts 852 million human beings (many millions of whom starve to death annually), the amount of grain and soybeans eaten by livestock in the United States could feed 1.3 billion people. Says PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), “animals require many times more calories . . . than they can possibly return in the form of animal flesh for meat-eaters to consume. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people.”

About 50% of the total water used in the United States every year for all purposes — from drinking to bathing to washing the car to industrial usages — is devoted to farmed animals, says the Audubon Society. In the 11 Western states it’s 70%, a factor behind the drying up of aquifers. More water is required for the production of beef than is used for America’s entire vegetable and fruit crop.

According to various vegetarian publications, some 2,500 gallons of water are required to produce one pound of meat. Those of our readers who dutifully conserve water will be astonished to learn that they could forego taking showers for an entire year and the saving would approximate the amount of water utilized to produce four quarter-pound hamburgers, according to the book “The Food Revolution” by John Robbins MD. The Center for Food Safety comments that “if water used by the meat industry was not subsidized by U.S. taxpayers, the cost of hamburger meat would be $35 a pound.” Quoting Newsweek, the same source points out that “the amount of water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a Naval destroyer,” literally. Incidentally, the amount of water in one shower is about the same required for a pound of wheat.

The main reason for the depletion of the world’s forests, including the Amazon rain forest, is the need to produce food and acreage for farmed animals. The forests are the Earth’s main instrumentality for converting carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming) into oxygen. They are also the habitat of animal and plant life that suffer, often to extinction, when a major forest is demolished. According to EatVeg.com, “The current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests and related habitats is 1,000 a year.”

PETA reports: “From tropical rain forests in Brazil to ancient pine forests in China, entire ecosystems are being destroyed to fuel our addiction to meat. According to scientists at the Smithsonian Institution, the equivalent of seven football fields of land is bulldozed every minute to create more room for farmed animals.” Vegetarian sources point out that the result of one individual deciding to give up meat, fish and fowl “saves an acre of trees per year.”

On April 6, Greenpeace in Europe formally charged McDonald’s fast-food restaurants with “destroying the Amazon rainforest.” It is estimated that one quarter-pound hamburger requires the clear-cutting of 55 square feet of rain forest. According to the Environmental News Service (ENS), “using satellite images, aerial surveillance, previously unreleased government documents, and on-the-ground monitoring, Greenpeace says it has traced soya [soybeans] grown on land that once was rainforest to an animal feed producer whose chickens are processed into Chicken McNuggests and other McDonald’s products.” This fact had been kept secret.

Gavin Edwards, who coordinates the Greenpeace save-the-forests campaign, declared: “Fast food giants like McDonalds are trashing the Amazon for cheap meat. Every time you buy a Chicken McNugget you could be taking a bite out of the Amazon.” Soybean production in the Amazon has more than doubled in recent years to satisfy foreign demand for captive animal feed. ENS quoted an expert at Brazil’s University of Minas Gerais as saying that “by 2050 current trends in agricultural expansion will eliminate a total of 40% of Amazon forests, including at least two-thirds of the forest cover of six major watersheds and 12 eco-regions.”

Maintaining farm animals to supply a flesh-eating industrialized society is extremely costly in terms of energy usage. The environmental magazine “E” reported in 2002 that “More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil.“ Noting the fact that huge populations, largely in the third world, are too poor or without resources to indulge in a meat-based diet, EatVeg.com reports that “the world's petroleum reserves would last [only 13 more years] if all human beings ate a meat-centered diet.” That number would increase to 260 years “if all human beings ate a vegetarian diet.”

America’s consumption of billions of mammals and birds each year is also a source of great pollution in the country’s soil, rivers and atmosphere. “Animals raised for food produce 130 times as much excrement as the entire U.S. population, roughly 68,000 pounds per second, all without benefit of waste treatment systems,” PETA declares. “According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, animals on factory farms in America produce 20 tons of fecal matter each year for every U.S. household. A pig farm with 5,000 animals produces as much fecal waste as a city of 50,000 people.”

Says Professor Peter Cheeke of Oregon State University, this situation constitutes “a frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems.” Raw manure is reported to possess 160 times more “pollution strength” than raw municipal sewage. All-Creatures.org estimates that about “a billion tons of waste is produced annually by U.S. livestock in confinement operations which is not recycled. Feedlot waste often ends up in our water.”

PETA continued: “The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that chicken, hog and cattle excrement have polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. . . . Factory farms produce millions of pounds of dust each year containing feces, mold and bacteria that pollutes our air.”

There is simply no question that world hunger and low-caloric intake could be significantly reduced if nutritious food grown for animals was eaten by people.

According to Dr. Waldo Bello of the Philippines, the executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, "There is enough food in the world for everyone. But tragically, much of the world's food and land resources are tied up in producing beef and other livestock — food for the well-off — while millions of children and adults suffer from malnutrition and starvation. In Central America, staple crop production has been replaced by cattle ranching, which now occupies two-thirds of the arable land."

PETA points out, “American companies are moving into Latin American countries and buying up land and grain so that they can raise animals to sell to meat-eaters in the States. These companies use the resources that should be used to feed the local people, so millions of people in Latin America and around the world are going hungry while animals raised for food gobble up their grain and destroy the environment. In Guatemala, for instance, 75% of children under the age of 5 are malnourished, and yet the nation continues to produce and export 40 million pounds of meat to the U.S. every year. Instead of feeding the world's hungry, we take their grain and land to feed our addiction to meat, eggs, and milk.”

In this connection, other sources report that the U.S. annually imports 200 million pounds of meat from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama while the “amount of meat eaten by the average person” in these countries “is less than consumed by the average American house cat.”

In terms of global warming, the industrial world’s addiction to meat is a major producer of three greenhouse gases — methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide.

Methane is an important ingredient in natural gas, a principal energy source, but it is also more complicit in global warming than carbon dioxide, though it dissipates more quickly. According to the EPA, “Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a hundred year period.” The EPA regards “ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock” as among the largest sources of methane emissions in the U.S. Ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) produce significant amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive processes.

Excess carbon dioxide is largely a derivative of the automobile culture and power plants but also emanates from animal manure, not to mention the prodigious emissions of CO2 by all the farming and transport vehicles required to sustain the growth, slaughter and delivery of some 10 billion animals to American dinner tables each year. In this regard, PETA points out that “the average American diet requires about 400 gallons of oil per year, almost twice the amount required for the average vegan diet.”

Nitrous oxide accounts for 5% of total U.S. greenhouse emissions and is largely a product of agricultural activities and animal waste.

Clearly, in our view, efforts to avoid an ecological disaster, including global warming, eventually must include the elimination of farmed animals as a source of human food. There is sufficient non-animal food to sustain the entire population of the world many times over, and it is more healthful as well.

Additional benefits include a halt to the decimation of the world’s forests, and the reversion of part of the enormous acreage devoted to growing animal food back into forest land. Advances also will occur in the reduction of air, ground and water pollution; in the expansion of water supplies for human purposes; in major savings of energy resources; in the reduction of animal extinctions, and in the restoration of environmental balance.

In addition there is another benefit, well understood by those who primarily transition to vegetarianism for ethical reasons. The amount of suffering we human animals inflict upon other animals is cruel and immoral. It is a crying shame.

We close with two quotations. First, these words from the great Yiddish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer: “I think everything connected with vegetarianism is of the highest importance, because there never will be any peace in this world so long as we eat animals. . . . I became a vegetarian because all my life I had felt guilty and ashamed that I had eaten the flesh of an animal. I think that animals are just as much God’s creatures as men are. And we have to respect them, and love them, not slaughter them.”

And from Pete Seeger: “Becoming a vegetarian is not merely a symbolic gesture. Nor is it an attempt to isolate oneself from the ugly realities of the world. . . . Becoming a vegetarian is a highly practical and effective step one can take toward ending both the killing of nonhuman animals and the infliction of suffering upon them.”

----

Editor’s note: If you have an interest in vegetarianism and animal rights there are many websites with information. The VivaVegie Society’s http://www.vivavegie.org/ includes a free download of an informative 16-page pamphlet, “101 Reasons Why I’m a Vegetarian.” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, http://www.peta.org, offers a vegetarian starter kit and much useful material, including frequently asked questions on topics from vegetarian-vegan practices to animal rights, activist news, a cruelty free shopping guide, etc. They also sponsor a children’s website, http://www.petakids.com/, and http://www.goveg.com.

Green People, at http://www.greenpeople.org/index.htm, includes a listing of vegetarian organizations among its resources. Farm Sanctuary, http://www.farmsanctuary.org, focuses on farm animals and provides a website research report on “The Welfare of Cattle.” The North American Vegetarian Society is at http://www.navs-online.org/. In the Hudson Valley you can reach the Mid-Hudson Vegetarian Society at http://www.mhvs.org, and the Catskill Animal Sanctuary at http://www.casanctuary.org/index.php. The Vegetarian Resource Group has a full-service website, http://www.vrg.org/index.htm. Friends of Animals, which seeks to “free animals from cruelty and institutionalized exploitation around the world,” is at http://www.friendsofanimals.org/. Animal Concerns is another animal rights group with a good website at http://www.animalconcerns.org/index.html.

Use Google (check “vegetarian organizations”) to locate hundreds of interesting additional websites and links. Check “vegetarian recipes” for menus. Vegetarian Times magazine has lots of recipes, http://www.vegetariantimes.com/. Over the decades, but less so in recent years as non-meat dishes have become more popular, people used to ask quite seriously, “but what do you vegetarians eat?” Actually, vegetarian cuisine is quite delicious as well as healthful and varied, especially if fresh produce is consumed. It is also considerably less costly than animal flesh. And the environmental benefits are substantial.

End

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

01-13-09 Uri Avnery on Israeli war

January 12, 2009 The Progressive
ISRAEL IS LOSING THIS WAR
By Uri Avnery
[The author is a main leader of the Israeli peace movement]

NEARLY SEVENTY YEARS ago, in the course of World War II, a heinous crime was committed in the city of Leningrad. For more than a thousand days, a gang of extremists called "the Red Army" held the millions of the town's inhabitants hostage and provoked retaliation from the German Wehrmacht from inside the population centers. The Germans had no alternative but to bomb and shell the population and to impose a total blockade, which caused the death of hundreds of thousands.

Some time before that, a similar crime was committed in England. The Churchill gang hid among the population of London, misusing the millions of citizens as a human shield. The Germans were compelled to send their Luftwaffe and reluctantly reduce the city to ruins. They called it the Blitz.

This is the description that would now appear in the history books - if the Germans had won the war.

Absurd? No more than the daily descriptions in our media, which are being repeated ad nauseam: the Hamas terrorists use the inhabitants of Gaza as "hostages" and exploit the women and children as "human shields", they leave us no alternative but to carry out massive bombardments, in which, to our deep sorrow, thousands of women, children and unarmed men are killed and injured.

IN THIS WAR, as in any modern war, propaganda plays a major role. The disparity between the forces, between the Israeli army - with its airplanes, gunships, drones, warships, artillery and tanks - and the few thousand lightly armed Hamas fighters, is one to a thousand, perhaps one to a million. In the political arena the gap between them is even wider. But in the propaganda war, the gap is almost infinite.

Almost all the Western media initially repeated the official Israeli propaganda line. They almost entirely ignored the Palestinian side of the story, not to mention the daily demonstrations of the Israeli peace camp. The rationale of the Israeli government ("The state must defend its citizens against the Qassam rockets") has been accepted as the whole truth. The view from the other side, that the Qassams are a retaliation for the siege that starves the one and a half million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, was not mentioned at all.

Only when the horrible scenes from Gaza started to appear on Western TV screens, did world public opinion gradually begin to change.

True, Western and Israeli TV channels showed only a tiny fraction of the dreadful events that appear 24 hours every day on Aljazeera's Arabic channel, but one picture of a dead baby in the arms of its terrified father is more powerful than a thousand elegantly constructed sentences from the Israeli army spokesman. And that is what is decisive, in the end.

War - every war - is the realm of lies. Whether called propaganda or psychological warfare, everybody accepts that it is right to lie for one's country. Anyone who speaks the truth runs the risk of being branded a traitor.

The trouble is that propaganda is most convincing for the propagandist himself. And after you convince yourself that a lie is the truth and falsification reality, you can no longer make rational decisions.

An example of this process surrounds the most shocking atrocity of this war so far: the shelling of the UN Fakhura school in Jabaliya refugee camp.

Immediately after the incident became known throughout the world, the army "revealed" that Hamas fighters had been firing mortars from near the school entrance. As proof they released an aerial photo which indeed showed the school and the mortar. But within a short time the official army liar had to admit that the photo was more than a year old. In brief: a falsification.

Later the official liar claimed that "our soldiers were shot at from inside the school". Barely a day passed before the army had to admit to UN personnel that that was a lie, too. Nobody had shot from inside the school, no Hamas fighters were inside the school, which was full of terrified refugees.

But the admission made hardly any difference anymore. By that time, the Israeli public was completely convinced that "they shot from inside the school", and TV announcers stated this as a simple fact.

So it went with the other atrocities. Every baby metamorphosed, in the act of dying, into a Hamas terrorist. Every bombed mosque instantly became a Hamas base, every apartment building an arms cache, every school a terror command post, every civilian government building a "symbol of Hamas rule". Thus the Israeli army retained its purity as the "most moral army in the world".

THE TRUTH is that the atrocities are a direct result of the war plan. This reflects the personality of Ehud Barak - a man whose way of thinking and actions are clear evidence of what is called "moral insanity", a sociopathic disorder.

The real aim (apart from gaining seats in the coming elections) is to terminate the rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In the imagination of the planners, Hamas is an invader which has gained control of a foreign country. The reality is, of course, entirely different.

The Hamas movement won the majority of the votes in the eminently democratic elections that took place in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. It won because the Palestinians had come to the conclusion that Fatah's peaceful approach had gained precisely nothing from Israel - neither a freeze of the settlements, nor release of the prisoners, nor any significant steps toward ending the occupation and creating the Palestinian state. Hamas is deeply rooted in the population - not only as a resistance movement fighting the foreign occupier, like the Irgun and the Stern Group in the past - but also as a political and religious body that provides social, educational and medical services.

From the point of view of the population, the Hamas fighters are not a foreign body, but the sons of every family in the Strip and the other Palestinian regions. They do not "hide behind the population", the population views them as their only defenders.

Therefore, the whole operation is based on erroneous assumptions. Turning life into living hell does not cause the population to rise up against Hamas, but on the contrary, it unites behind Hamas and reinforces its determination not to surrender. The population of Leningrad did not rise up against Stalin, any more than the Londoners rose up against Churchill.

He who gives the order for such a war with such methods in a densely populated area knows that it will cause dreadful slaughter of civilians. Apparently that did not touch him. Or he believed that "they will change their ways" and "it will sear their consciousness", so that in future they will not dare to resist Israel.

A top priority for the planners was the need to minimize casualties among the soldiers, knowing that the mood of a large part of the pro-war public would change if reports of such casualties came in. That is what happened in Lebanon Wars I and II.

This consideration played an especially important role because the entire war is a part of the election campaign. Ehud Barak, who gained in the polls in the first days of the war, knew that his ratings would collapse if pictures of dead soldiers filled the TV screens.

Therefore, a new doctrine was applied: to avoid losses among our soldiers by the total destruction of everything in their path. The planners were not only ready to kill 80 Palestinians to save one Israeli soldier, as has happened, but also 800. The avoidance of casualties on our side is the overriding commandment, which is causing record numbers of civilian casualties on the other side.

That means the conscious choice of an especially cruel kind of warfare - and that has been its Achilles heel.

A person without imagination, like Barak (his election slogan: "Not a Nice Guy, but a Leader") cannot imagine how decent people around the world react to actions like the killing of whole extended families, the destruction of houses over the heads of their inhabitants, the rows of boys and girls in white shrouds ready for burial, the reports about people bleeding to death over days because ambulances are not allowed to reach them, the killing of doctors and medics on their way to save lives, the killing of UN drivers bringing in food. The pictures of the hospitals, with the dead, the dying and the injured lying together on the floor for lack of space, have shocked the world. No argument has any force next to an image of a wounded little girl lying on the floor, twisting with pain and crying out: "Mama! Mama!"

The planners thought that they could stop the world from seeing these images by forcibly preventing press coverage. The Israeli journalists, to their shame, agreed to be satisfied with the reports and photos provided by the Army Spokesman, as if they were authentic news, while they themselves remained miles away from the events. Foreign journalists were not allowed in either, until they protested and were taken for quick tours in selected and supervised groups. But in a modern war, such a sterile manufactured view cannot completely exclude all others - the cameras are inside the strip, in the middle of the hell, and cannot be controlled. Aljazeera broadcasts the pictures around the clock and reaches every home.

THE BATTLE for the TV screen is one of the decisive battles of the war.

Hundreds of millions of Arabs from Mauritania to Iraq, more than a billion Muslims from Nigeria to Indonesia see the pictures and are horrified. This has a strong impact on the war. Many of the viewers see the rulers of Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority as collaborators with Israel in carrying out these atrocities against their Palestinian brothers.

The security services of the Arab regimes are registering a dangerous ferment among the peoples. Hosny Mubarak, the most exposed Arab leader because of his closing of the Rafah crossing in the face of terrified refugees, started to pressure the decision-makers in Washington, who until that time had blocked all calls for a cease-fire. These began to understand the menace to vital American interests in the Arab world and suddenly changed their attitude - causing consternation among the complacent Israeli diplomats.

People with moral insanity cannot really understand the motives of normal people and must guess their reactions. "How many divisions has the Pope?" Stalin sneered. "How many divisions have people of conscience?" Ehud Barak may well be asking.

As it turns out, they do have some. Not numerous. Not very quick to react. Not very strong and organized. But at a certain moment, when the atrocities overflow and masses of protesters come together, that can decide a war.

THE FAILURE to grasp the nature of Hamas has caused a failure to grasp the predictable results. Not only is Israel unable to win the war, Hamas cannot lose it.

Even if the Israeli army were to succeed in killing every Hamas fighter to the last man, even then Hamas would win. The Hamas fighters would be seen as the paragons of the Arab nation, the heroes of the Palestinian people, models for emulation by every youngster in the Arab world. The West Bank would fall into the hands of Hamas like a ripe fruit, Fatah would drown in a sea of contempt, the Arab regimes would be threatened with collapse.

If the war ends with Hamas still standing, bloodied but unvanquished, in face of the mighty Israeli military machine, it will look like a fantastic victory, a victory of mind over matter.

What will be seared into the consciousness of the world will be the image of Israel as a blood-stained monster, ready at any moment to commit war crimes and not prepared to abide by any moral restraints. This will have severe consequences for our long-term future, our standing in the world, our chance of achieving peace and quiet.

In the end, this war is a crime against ourselves too, a crime against the State of Israel.

Uri Avnery, a founding member of the independent peace movement Gush Shalom [1], is a peace activist, journalist, and writer.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/12-4

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

01-07-09 Mid-Hudson buses to Washington for Gaza Jan. 10

From the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter
Jan. 7, 2009, jacdon@earthlink.net
http://www.activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/
—————————————————————

MID-HUDSON BUSES AVAILABLE FOR
SATURDAY, JAN. 10, FOR WASHINGTON
RALLY AGAINST WAR IN GAZA.
(Also, local protest in New Paltz Jan. 10)

Charter buses will leave the Mid-Hudson region at 6:30 a.m. Saturday, Jan. 10, to bring local residents to Washington for the march and rally in Washington demanding an end to Israel's war against the people of Gaza. The fare is $35 (scholarships are available if you're low on funds). The buses will leave for home in late afternoon.

To reserve seats and for further information, contact Yasmin at (914) 539-0236 or yasmin3566@gmail.com.

As we noted in our Jan. 4 Newsletter with the Gaza articles: "ANSWER, backed by many other groups, is organizing a major series of protests set for Saturday, Jan. 10 — mainly in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and many other cities and towns. The "Let Gaza Live National March on Washington" begins at 1 p.m. on the north side of the White House. People will start gathering at 12 noon. For information about the Washington event: http://answercoalition.org, info@internationalanswer.org, and (202) 544-3389. It is important to have a large turnout at the D.C. event because Congress will be in session and all eyes will be on the nation's capital in the days before the Inauguration."

The Mid-Hudson buses will pick up passengers at 6:30 a.m. at the Hudson Valley Islamic Community Center, 3680 Lexington Avenue, in Mohegan Lake, NY 10547. This location is about 35 miles south of the Poughkeepsie via Rt. 9.

Driving directions to Mohegan Lake, New York from Poughkeepsie side of Mid-Hudson Bridge:

1. Enter Rt. 9 South from the Bridge or other locations. (continue to follow US-9 for 29.1 miles.)
2. Slight left at Albany Post Rd., 0.5 mi
3. Continue on Highland Ave., 0.9 mi
4. Slight right at N Division St., 0.2 mi
5. Turn left at Main St/RT-35/US-202/US-6
5. Continue to follow Main to Lexington Ave. in Mohegan Lake.
Address: 3680 Lexington.

if you haven's traveled this route before, we suggest you consult a map and plan to arrive by 6 a.m. Rt. 9 is fast and easy and the other roads are okay, but it will be dark and extra time may be necessary.

AND DON'T FORGET THE NEW PALTZ ACTION:

For activists who want to join the call for an end to the Gaza war, but cannot make it to Washington: As part of the Jan. 10 actions there will be a demonstration in the Mid-Hudson town of New Paltz, N.Y., from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. at New Paltz Plaza on Main St. (Rt. 299), a short distance west of Thruway exit 18. From the access road past the toll booths turn left at Rt. 299. The rally is about an eighth of a mile distant on your right, just in front of the large plaza. People will be gathering in front of the movie theater in the plaza at 11 a.m. The event is sponsored by Middle East Crisis Response and is strongly endorsed by the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter and Mid-Hudson ANSWER. Information, mecr@mideastcrisis.org.

Sunday, January 4, 2009

Jan. 5, 2009, GAZA SUPPLEMENT

Jan. 5, 2008, Issue #141 (SUPPLEMENT)
HUDSON VALLEY ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER/CALENDAR
jacdon@earthlink.net, http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

This newsletter/calendar, published in New Paltz, N.Y., appears once a month, supplemented by additional listings of new activist events, usually sent to Valley readers only. Editor, Jack A. Smith (who writes all the articles that appear without a byline or credit to other publications). Copy Editor, Donna Goodman. Calendar Editor, Rocco Rizzo. If you know someone who may benefit from this newsletter, ask them to subscribe at jacdon@earthlink.net. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, unsubscribe at the same address. Please send event listings to the above email address. The current and back issues of the newsletter/calendar are available at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com.

—————————————————

EDITOR'S NOTE:

This supplement to the Activist Newsletter is entirely devoted to the strife in Gaza because it is almost impossible to get a true picture of the causes of the invasion of Gaza from the U.S. corporate media alone.

Following a brief introduction, we will discuss the U.S. antiwar movement's reaction to Israel's invasion of Gaza. In addition, we list a couple of extremely important demonstrations set for Jan. 10 calling for an immediate cease fire — one is a national demonstration in Washington, the other is in the Hudson Valley in New Paltz, NY. We normally we would consider organizing buses to take local residents to Washington but I am in the midst of a bout of pneumonia and can't do it on such sort notice. But we will help organize for both actions via our computer.

Following this will be texts of two important articles that explain the real facts behind the conflict between the Palestinian organization Hamas, which rules Gaza as a result of a democratic election, and the Israeli state. Articles include "The True Story Behind the War" and "Understanding the Gaza Catastrophe." Last, we publish the web addresses for several key articles that are necessary to obtain balanced information about Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza, including three from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.


————————————

1. INTRODUCTION TO ANOTHER GAZA TRAGEDY

About 1.5 million Palestinian refugees reside in the Gaza Strip, a 139-square mile sliver of land surrounded mainly by Israel, and also by Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea. It's quite small. Los Angeles County is over three times bigger.

Gaza is a locked-down prison. Both Israel and Egypt (an Arab country that largely takes orders from the U.S.) have sealed the borders. And the Mediterranean is blocked by the Israeli Navy. Gaza is absolutely vulnerable to military attack, without armed forces or weapons systems of significance. In an effort to force the population to turn against Hamas, which it will not do, food, medicine and essential supplies repeatedly have been stopped at the border for 18 months. Inadequate supplies eventually get through, but most of the population is hungry and lacking in basic necessities.

Israel claims that it is retaliating for the fact that Hamas has been firing rockets into Israel. Rockets have been launched and are continuing. But as the articles below point out, the actual events have been taking place in far broader context, which Washington and Tel Aviv prefer to ignore. The rockets are hardly the main reason for the current onslaught. A prominent real reason is the Israeli election that was set for next month, but is now delayed. The ruling Kadima Party, and its main coalition partner, the Labor Party, fear they will lose the election to the far right Likud, not least because of Israel's humiliation in the summer of 2006 when its airplanes, bombs and invading tanks were unable to crush Lebanon and Gaza. Destroying Hamas, even it means practically destroying Gaza, may win Kadima/Labor another term in office.

Israel launched massive air strikes on Gaza Dec. 27, nearly two weeks after Hamas announced it would not renew a six-month-old truce with Israel, increasing its rocket attacks across the border in the process. Since Dec. 27, over 500 Palestinians have been killed, as have four Israelis, a disproportion reminiscent of Israel's 2006 wars. Tel Aviv claims that nearly all those it killed have been Hamas combatants. However, the dead include at least 100 Gaza police officers who do not perform combat duties. In addition at least 87 Palestinian children have been killed as of Jan. 3. It has been estimated that up to 200 adult civilians, mostly women, have been killed as well. The Tel Aviv government also maintains "there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza" — a city under sanctions and siege for a year and a half, now being drawn and quartered by Israel's Army and Air Force.

Most of the world has either criticized the Israeli attack on defenseless Gaza or, at the least, has refrained from giving its support. The Bush Administration, of course, completely supports Israel and instructed its UN delegation to block an effort to bring the issue of Israel's onslaught before the Security Council. During the campaign, President-Elect Barack Obama and Secretary of State to be Hillary Clinton competed to demonstrate who was the more loyal to Israel. It is highly doubtful the incoming Democratic Administration will deviate from existing policy.

Most of the world's humanitarian organizations have been critical of Israel's actions, including the two principal U.S. groups, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Other groups expressing deep anxiety about the plight of civilians in Gaza include the UN's UNICEF, World Health Organization, and the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East; Britain's Oxfam, and the international Red Cross, among many others.

————————————

THE PEACE MOVEMENT''S RESPONSE

Antiwar organizations around the world have been demonstrating against Israel's invasion of Gaza.

In the U.S., all the major peace coalitions, from ANSWER to UFPJ, deplore the war and seek an immediate halt to the invasion and bombings. Virtually all U.S. left organizations have denounced Israel's war. American groups have staged over 100 demonstrations and many more are scheduled. What was described as the biggest U.S. rally calling for peace in Gaza took place in New York City Jan. 3, organized by a huge ad hoc coalition. We could not attend but were told that over 20,000 took part.

ANSWER, backed by many other groups, is organizing a major series of protests set for Saturday, Jan. 10 — mainly in Washington, San Francisco, Los Angeles and many other cities and towns. The Washington march and rally begins at 1 p.m. on the north side of the White House. For information about the Washington event: http://answercoalition.org, info@internationalanswer.org, and (202) 544-3389. It is important to have a large turnout at the D.C. event because Congress will be in session and all eyes will be on the nation's capital in the days before the Inauguration.

As part of the Jan. 10 actions there will be a demonstration in the Mid-Hudson town of New Paltz, N.Y., from 11 a.m.-1 p.m. outside New Paltz Plaza on Main St. (Rt. 299), a short distance west of Thruway exit 18. From the access road past the toll booths turn left at Rt. 299. The rally is about an eighth of a mile distant on your right, just in front of the large plaza. The event is sponsored by Middle East Crisis Response and is strongly endorsed by this newsletter. Information, mecr@mideastcrisis.org.

Israel's peace movement has been extremely active in opposition to the war, as have Israeli Arab organizations and the country's political left. Gush Shalom and some 20 other groups mounted an important peace march and rally in Tel Aviv Jan. 3 that drew 10,000. The action took place behind a huge banner in Hebrew, Arabic and English, reading: "Stop Killing! Stop the Siege! Stop the Occupation!" Among the chants was "Don't Build an Election Campaign Over the Dead Bodies of Children." For an account of the march and the text of a brief speech of Gush Shalom leader Uri Avnery: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/events/1231029668.

Perhaps the largest demonstration so far took place in London Jan. 3 when 60,000 people attended a rally at Trafalgar Square and a march, principally organized by the Stop the War Coalition. At least 18 rallies the same day were staged throughout the UK. For an account of the London event: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/04/israel-gaza-protest-london/print.

————————————

THE TRUE STORY BEHIND THIS WAR
IS NOT THE STORY ISRAEL IS TELLING

By Johann Hari
The Independent (UK), December 29, 2008

The world isn't just watching the Israeli government commit a crime in Gaza; we are watching it self-harm. This morning, and tomorrow morning, and every morning until this punishment beating ends, the young people of the Gaza Strip are going to be more filled with hate, and more determined to fight back, with stones or suicide vests or rockets. Israeli leaders have convinced themselves that the harder you beat the Palestinians, the softer they will become. But when this is over, the rage against Israelis will have hardened, and the same old compromises will still be waiting by the roadside of history, untended and unmade.

To understand how frightening it is to be a Gazan this morning, you need to have stood in that small slab of concrete by the Mediterranean and smelled the claustrophobia. The Gaza Strip is smaller than the Isle of Wight but it is crammed with 1.5 million people who can never leave. They live out their lives on top of each other, jobless and hungry, in vast, sagging tower blocks. From the top floor, you can often see the borders of their world: the Mediterranean, and Israeli barbed wire. When bombs begin to fall – as they are doing now with more deadly force than at any time since 1967 – there is nowhere to hide.

There will now be a war over the story of this war. The Israeli government says, "We withdrew from Gaza in 2005 and in return we got Hamas and Qassam rockets being rained on our cities. Sixteen civilians have been murdered. How many more are we supposed to sacrifice?" It is a plausible narrative, and there are shards of truth in it, but it is also filled with holes. If we want to understand the reality and really stop the rockets, we need to rewind a few years and view the run-up to this war dispassionately.

The Israeli government did indeed withdraw from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – in order to be able to intensify control of the West Bank. Ariel Sharon's senior adviser, Dov Weisglass, was unequivocal about this, explaining: "The disengagement [from Gaza] is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians... this whole package that is called the Palestinian state has been removed from our agenda indefinitely."

Ordinary Palestinians were horrified by this, and by the fetid corruption of their own Fatah leaders, so they voted for Hamas. It certainly wouldn't have been my choice — an Islamist party is antithetical to all my convictions — but we have to be honest. It was a free and democratic election, and it was not a rejection of a two-state solution. The most detailed polling of Palestinians, by the University of Maryland, found that 72 per cent want a two-state solution on the 1967 borders, while fewer than 20 per cent want to reclaim the whole of historic Palestine. So, partly in response to this pressure, Hamas offered Israel a long, long ceasefire and a de facto acceptance of two states, if only Israel would return to its legal borders.

Rather than seize this opportunity and test Hamas's sincerity, the Israeli government reacted by punishing the entire civilian population. It announced that it was blockading the Gaza Strip in order to "pressure" its people to reverse the democratic process. The Israelis surrounded the Strip and refused to let anyone or anything out. They let in a small trickle of food, fuel and medicine – but not enough for survival. Weisglass quipped that the Gazans were being "put on a diet". According to Oxfam, only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza last month to feed 1.5 million people. The United Nations says poverty has reached an "unprecedented level." When I was last in besieged Gaza, I saw hospitals turning away the sick because their machinery and medicine was running out. I met hungry children stumbling around the streets, scavenging for food.

It was in this context – under a collective punishment designed to topple a democracy – that some forces within Gaza did something immoral: they fired Qassam rockets indiscriminately at Israeli cities. These rockets have killed 16 Israeli citizens. This is abhorrent: targeting civilians is always murder. But it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to claim now to speak out for the safety of civilians when it has been terrorizing civilians as a matter of state policy.

The American and European governments are responding with a lop-sidedness that ignores these realities. They say that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate while under rocket fire, but they demand that the Palestinians do so under siege in Gaza and violent military occupation in the West Bank.

Before it falls down the memory hole, we should remember that last week, Hamas offered a ceasefire in return for basic and achievable compromises. Don't take my word for it. According to the Israeli press, Yuval Diskin, the current head of the Israeli security service Shin Bet, "told the Israeli cabinet [on 23 December] that Hamas is interested in continuing the truce, but wants to improve its terms." Diskin explained that Hamas was requesting two things: an end to the blockade, and an Israeli ceasefire on the West Bank. The cabinet – high with election fever and eager to appear tough – rejected these terms.

The core of the situation has been starkly laid out by Ephraim Halevy, the former head of Mossad. He says that while Hamas militants – like much of the Israeli right-wing – dream of driving their opponents away, "they have recognised this ideological goal is not attainable and will not be in the foreseeable future." Instead, "they are ready and willing to see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the temporary borders of 1967." They are aware that this means they "will have to adopt a path that could lead them far from their original goals" – and towards a long-term peace based on compromise.

The rejectionists on both sides – from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to Bibi Netanyahu of Israel – would then be marginalised. It is the only path that could yet end in peace but it is the Israeli government that refuses to choose it. Halevy explains: "Israel, for reasons of its own, did not want to turn the ceasefire into the start of a diplomatic process with Hamas."

Why would Israel act this way? The Israeli government wants peace, but only one imposed on its own terms, based on the acceptance of defeat by the Palestinians. It means the Israelis can keep the slabs of the West Bank on "their" side of the wall. It means they keep the largest settlements and control the water supply. And it means a divided Palestine, with responsibility for Gaza hived off to Egypt, and the broken-up West Bank standing alone. Negotiations threaten this vision: they would require Israel to give up more than it wants to. But an imposed peace will be no peace at all: it will not stop the rockets or the rage. For real safety, Israel will have to talk to the people it is blockading and bombing today, and compromise with them.

The sound of Gaza burning should be drowned out by the words of the Israeli writer Larry Derfner. He says: "Israel's war with Gaza has to be the most one-sided on earth... If the point is to end it, or at least begin to end it, the ball is not in Hamas's court – it is in ours."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/
johann-hari-the-true-story-behind-this-war-is-not-the-one-israel-is-telling-1214981.html.

————————————

[Editor's Note: The author of this article, which was posted Jan. 2, is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories.]

UNDERSTANDING THE GAZA CATASTROPHE
By Richard Falk

For eighteen months the entire 1.5 million people of Gaza experienced a punishing blockade imposed by Israel, and a variety of traumatizing challenges to the normalcy of daily life. A flicker of hope emerged some six months ago when an Egyptian-arranged truce produced an effective ceasefire that cut Israeli casualties to zero despite the cross-border periodic firing of homemade rockets that fell harmlessly on nearby Israeli territory, and undoubtedly caused anxiety in the border town of Sderot. During the ceasefire the Hamas leadership in Gaza repeatedly offered to extend the truce, even proposing a ten-year period and claimed a receptivity to a political solution based on acceptance of Israel's 1967 borders. Israel ignored these diplomatic initiatives, and failed to carry out its side of the ceasefire agreement that involved some easing of the blockade that had been restricting the entry to Gaza of food, medicine, and fuel to a trickle.

Israel also refused exit permits to students with foreign fellowship awards and to Gazan journalists and respected NGO representatives. At the same time, it made it increasingly difficult for journalists to enter, and I was myself expelled from Israel a couple of weeks ago when I tried to enter to carry out my UN job of monitoring respect for human rights in occupied Palestine, that is, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, as well as Gaza. Clearly, prior to the current crisis, Israel used its authority to prevent credible observers from giving accurate and truthful accounts of the dire humanitarian situation that had been already documented as producing severe declines in the physical condition and mental health of the Gazan population, especially noting malnutrition among children and the absence of treatment facilities for those suffering from a variety of diseases. The Israeli attacks were directed against a society already in grave condition after a blockade maintained during the prior 18 months.

As always in relation to the underlying conflict, some facts bearing on this latest crisis are murky and contested, although the American public in particular gets 99% of its information filtered through an exceedingly pro-Israeli media lens. Hamas is blamed for the breakdown of the truce by its supposed unwillingness to renew it, and by the alleged increased incidence of rocket attacks. But the reality is more clouded. There was no substantial rocket fire from Gaza during the ceasefire until Israel launched an attack last November 4th directed at what it claimed were Palestinian militants in Gaza, killing several Palestinians. It was at this point that rocket fire from Gaza intensified. Also, it was Hamas that on numerous public occasions called for extending the truce, with its calls never acknowledged, much less acted upon, by Israeli officialdom. Beyond this, attributing all the rockets to Hamas is not convincing either. A variety of independent militia groups operate in Gaza, some such as the Fatah-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade are anti-Hamas, and may even be sending rockets to provoke or justify Israeli retaliation. It is well confirmed that when US-supported Fatah controlled Gaza's governing structure it was unable to stop rocket attacks despite a concerted effort to do so.

What this background suggests strongly is that Israel launched its devastating attacks, starting on December 27, not simply to stop the rockets or in retaliation, but also for a series of unacknowledged reasons. It was evident for several weeks prior to the Israeli attacks that the Israeli military and political leaders were preparing the public for large-scale military operations against the Hamas. The timing of the attacks seemed prompted by a series of considerations: most of all, the interest of political contenders, the Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, in demonstrating their toughness prior to national elections scheduled for February, but now possibly postponed until military operations cease. Such Israeli shows of force have been a feature of past Israeli election campaigns, and on this occasion especially, the current government was being successfully challenged by Israel's notoriously militarist politician, Benjamin Netanyahu, for its supposed failures to uphold security. Reinforcing these electoral motivations was the little concealed pressure from the Israeli military commanders to seize the opportunity in Gaza to erase the memories of their failure to destroy Hezbollah in the devastating Lebanon War of 2006 that both tarnished Israel's reputation as a military power and led to widespread international condemnation of Israel for the heavy bombardment of undefended Lebanese villages, disproportionate force, and extensive use of cluster bombs against heavily populated areas.

Respected and conservative Israeli commentators go further. For instance, the prominent historian, Benny Morris writing in the New York Times a few days ago, relates the campaign in Gaza to a deeper set of forebodings in Israel that he compares to the dark mood of the public that preceded the 1967 War when Israelis felt deeply threatened by Arab mobilizations on their borders. Morris insists that despite Israeli prosperity of recent years, and relative security, several factors have led Israel to act boldly in Gaza: the perceived continuing refusal of the Arab world to accept the existence of Israel as an established reality; the inflammatory threats voiced by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad together with Iran's supposed push to acquire nuclear weapons, the fading memory of the Holocaust combined with growing sympathy in the West with the Palestinian plight, and the radicalization of political movements on Israel's borders in the form of Hezbollah and Hamas. In effect, Morris argues that Israel is trying via the crushing of Hamas in Gaza to send a wider message to the region that it will stop at nothing to uphold its claims of sovereignty and security.

There are two conclusions that emerge: the people of Gaza are being severely victimized for reasons remote from the rockets and border security concerns, but seemingly to improve election prospects of current leaders now facing defeat, and to warn others in the region that Israel will use overwhelming force whenever its interests are at stake.

That such a human catastrophe can happen with minimal outside interference also shows the weakness of international law and the United Nations, as well as the geopolitical priorities of the important players. The passive support of the United States government for whatever Israel does is again the critical factor, as it was in 2006 when it launched its aggressive war against Lebanon. What is less evident is that the main Arab neighbors, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with their extreme hostility toward Hamas that is viewed as backed by Iran, their main regional rival, were also willing to stand aside while Gaza was being so brutally attacked, with some Arab diplomats even blaming the attacks on Palestinian disunity or on the refusal of Hamas to accept the leadership of Mamoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority.

The people of Gaza are victims of geopolitics at its inhumane worst: producing what Israel itself calls a 'total war' against an essentially defenseless society that lacks any defensive military capability whatsoever and is completely vulnerable to Israeli attacks mounted by F-16 bombers and Apache helicopters. What this also means is that the flagrant violation of international humanitarian law, as set forth in the Geneva Conventions, is quietly set aside while the carnage continues and the bodies pile up. It additionally means that the UN is once more revealed to be impotent when its main members deprive it of the political will to protect a people subject to unlawful uses of force on a large scale. Finally, this means that the public can shriek and march all over the world, but that the killing will go on as if nothing is happening. The picture being painted day by day in Gaza is one that begs for renewed commitment to international law and the authority of the UN Charter, starting here in the United States, especially with a new leadership that promised its citizens change, including a less militarist approach to diplomatic leadership.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-falk/understanding-
the-gaza-ca_b_154777.html?page=2&show_comment_id=19353693#comment_19353693

————————————

OTHER ARTICLES OF NOTE:

"Amnesty Calls on Rice to Drop 'Lopsided' Gaza Stance," Jan. 3. by Jim Lobe, Inter Press Service.
— http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13994

"U.S. quashes Arab-backed Gaza cease-fire resolution in UN Security Council meet,"
by Shlomo Shamir and Barak Ravid, Jan. 4, Haaretz (Israeli daily).
— http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052324.html.

"And there lie the bodies," by Gideon Levy, Haaretz.
— http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1052348.html.

"The IAF, bullies of the clear blue skies," by Gideon Levy, Dec. 31, Haaretz.
— http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051317.html

"Why Israel went to war in Gaza," by Chris McGreal, The Observer (UK), Jan. 4.
— http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/
johann-hari-the-true-story-behind-this-war-is-not-the-one-israel-is-telling-1214981.html.
End

Friday, January 2, 2009

Jan. 2, 2009 Israeli Peace Movement Speaks Out

From the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter, Jan. 2, 2009

ISRAELI PEACE MOVEMENT SPEAKS OUT

How often do you read or hear the voice of the Israeli peace movement in the U.S. corporate mass media? But peace forces are mounting a brave opposition within Israel against the attack on Gaza, just as they did during Tel Aviv's war against Lebanon and Gaza in the summer of 2006. Read here about what the Israeli movement is saying.

So far, the same disproportion of deaths is taking place — 400 Palestinians to four Israelis, and it is still not enough. How many more "eyes for an eye" will be closed forever?

Following (1) is the Jan. 2 statement of Uri Avnery, the best known leader of the Israeli peace movement, who was a fighter for Israel in its war of independence. Next (2) is the brief Dec. 30 statement from Gush Shalom, Israel's main peace group, followed (3) by the Dec. 28 statement of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions.

Before the articles:

If you wish to sign Ramsey Clark's petition calling for an end to the attacks, go to
http://www.iacenter.org/gazapetition

Hudson Valley readers may wish to travel down to New York City tomorrow, Saturday, Jan. 3. There will be a protest against the Gaza war by over two dozen organizations — from ANSWER and the Green Party to Al-Awda: Palestine Right to Return Coalition-NY and Arab Muslim American Federation. A rally at Times Square (42nd St. and 7th Ave.) starts at 1 p.m., followed by a march to the Israeli mission.

——————————————

(1) ISRAEL'S GIGANTIC BLUNDER
By Uri Avnery, January 2, 2009,

JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT, Aljazeera’s Arabic channel was reporting on events in Gaza. Suddenly the camera was pointing upwards towards the dark sky. The screen was pitch black. Nothing could be seen, but there was a sound to be heard: the noise of airplanes, a frightening, a terrifying droning.

It was impossible not to think about the tens of thousands of Gazan children who were hearing that sound at that moment, cringing with fright, paralyzed by fear, waiting for the bombs to fall.

“ISRAEL MUST defend itself against the rockets that are terrorizing our Southern towns,” the Israeli spokesmen explained. “Palestinians must respond to the killing of their fighters inside the Gaza Strip,” the Hamas spokesmen declared.

As a matter of fact, the cease-fire did not collapse, because there was no real cease-fire to start with. The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings. There can be no life in Gaza without a steady flow of supplies. But the crossings were not opened, except for a few hours now and again. The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water.

Those who decided to close the crossings – under whatever pretext – knew that there is no real cease-fire under these conditions.

That is the main thing. Then there came the small provocations which were designed to get Hamas to react. After several months, in which hardly any Qassam rockets were launched, an army unit was sent into the Strip “in order to destroy a tunnel that came close to the border fence”. From a purely military point of view, it would have made more sense to lay an ambush on our side of the fence. But the aim was to find a pretext for the termination of the cease-fire, in a way that made it plausible to put the blame on the Palestinians. And indeed, after several such small actions, in which Hamas fighters were killed, Hamas retaliated with a massive launch of rockets, and – lo and behold – the cease-fire was at an end. Everybody blamed Hamas.

WHAT WAS THE AIM? Tzipi Livni announced it openly: to liquidate Hamas rule in Gaza. The Qassams served only as a pretext.

Liquidate Hamas rule? That sounds like a chapter out of “The March of Folly”. After all, it is no secret that it was the Israeli government which set up Hamas to start with. When I once asked a former Shin-Bet chief, Yaakov Peri, about it, he answered enigmatically: “We did not create it, but we did not hinder its creation.”

For years, the occupation authorities favored the Islamic movement in the occupied territories. All other political activities were rigorously suppressed, but their activities in the mosques were permitted. The calculation was simple and naive: at the time, the PLO was considered the main enemy, Yasser Arafat was the current Satan. The Islamic movement was preaching against the PLO and Arafat, and was therefore viewed as an ally.

With the outbreak of the first intifada in 1987, the Islamic movement officially renamed itself Hamas (Arabic initials of “Islamic Resistance Movement”) and joined the fight. Even then, the Shin-Bet took no action against them for almost a year, while Fatah members were executed or imprisoned in large numbers. Only after a year, were Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and his colleagues also arrested.

Since then the wheel has turned. Hamas has now become the current Satan, and the PLO is considered by many in Israel almost as a branch of the Zionist organization. The logical conclusion for an Israeli government seeking peace would have been to make wide-ranging concessions to the Fatah leadership: ending of the occupation, signing of a peace treaty, foundation of the State of Palestine, withdrawal to the 1967 borders, a reasonable solution of the refugee problem, release of all Palestinian prisoners. That would have arrested the rise of Hamas for sure.

But logic has little influence on politics. Nothing of this sort happened. On the contrary, after the murder of Arafat, Ariel Sharon declared that Mahmoud Abbas, who took his place, was a “plucked chicken”. Abbas was not allowed the slightest political achievement. The negotiations, under American auspices, became a joke. The most authentic Fatah leader, Marwan Barghouti, was sent to prison for life. Instead of a massive prisoner release, there were petty and insulting “gestures”.

Abbas was systematically humiliated, Fatah looked like an empty shell and Hamas won a resounding victory in the Palestinian election – the most democratic election ever held in the Arab world. Israel boycotted the elected government. In the ensuing internal struggle, Hamas assumed direct control over the Gaza Strip.

And now, after all this, the government of Israel decided to “liquidate Hamas rule in Gaza” – with blood, fire and columns of smoke.

THE OFFICIAL NAME of the war is “Cast Lead”, two words from a children’s song about a Hanukkah toy.

It would be more accurate to call it “the Election War."

In the past, too, military action has been taken during election campaigns. Menachem Begin bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor during the 1981 campaign. When Shimon Peres claimed that this was an election gimmick, Begin cried out at his next rally: “Jews, do you believe that I would send our brave boys to their death or, worse, to be taken prisoner by human animals, in order to win an election?” Begin won.

Peres is no Begin. When, during the 1996 election campaign, he ordered the invasion of Lebanon (operation “Grapes of Wrath”), everybody was convinced that he had done it for electoral gain. The war was a failure and Peres lost the elections and Binyamin Netanyahu came to power.

Barak and Tzipi Livni are now resorting to the same old trick. According to the polls, Barak’s predicted election result rose within 48 hours by five Knesset seats. About 80 dead Palestinians for each seat. But it is difficult to walk on a pile of dead bodies. The success may evaporate in a minute if the war comes to be considered by the Israeli public as a failure. For example, if the rockets continue to hit Beersheba, or if the ground attack leads to heavy Israeli casualties.

The timing was chosen meticulously from another angle too. The attack started two days after Christmas, when American and European leaders are on holiday until after New Year. The calculation: even if somebody wanted to try and stop the war, no one would give up his holiday. That ensured several days free from outside pressures.

Another reason for the timing: these are George Bush’s last days in the White House. This blood-soaked moron could be expected to support the war enthusiastically, as indeed he did. Barack Obama has not yet entered office and had a ready made pretext for keeping silent: “there is only one President”. The silence does not bode well for the term of president Obama.

THE MAIN LINE was: not to repeat the mistakes of Lebanon War II. This was endlessly repeated on all the news programs and talk shows.

This does not change the fact: the Gaza War is an almost exact replica of the second Lebanon war.

The strategic concept is the same: to terrorize the civilian population by unremitting attacks from the air, sowing death and destruction. This poses no danger to the pilots, since the Palestinians have no anti-aircraft weapons at all. The calculation: if the entire life-supporting infrastructure in the Strip is utterly destroyed and total anarchy ensues, the population will rise up and overthrow the Hamas regime. Mahmoud Abbas will then ride back into Gaza on the back of Israeli tanks.

In Lebanon, this calculation did not work out. The bombed population, including the Christians, rallied behind Hezbollah, and Hassan Nasrallah became the hero of the Arab world. Something similar will probably happen this time, too. Generals are experts on using weapons and moving troops, not on mass psychology.

Some time ago I wrote that the Gaza blockade was a scientific experiment designed to find out how much one can starve a population and turn its life into hell before they break. This experiment was conducted with the generous help of Europe and the US. Up to now, it did not succeed. Hamas became stronger and the range of the Qassams became longer. The present war is a continuation of the experiment by other means.

It may be that the army will “have no alternative” but to re-conquer the Gaza Strip because there is no other way to stop the Qassams – except coming to an agreement with Hamas, which is contrary to government policy. When the ground invasion starts, everything will depend on the motivation and capabilities of the Hamas fighters vis-à-vis the Israeli soldiers. Nobody can know what will happen.

DAY AFTER DAY, night after night, Aljazeera’s Arabic channel broadcasts the atrocious pictures: heaps of mutilated bodies, tearful relatives looking for their dear ones among the dozens of corpses spread out on the ground, a woman pulling her young daughter from under the rubble, doctors without medicines trying to save the lives of the wounded. (The English-language Aljazeera, unlike its Arab-language sister-station, has undergone an amazing about face, broadcasting only a sanitized picture and freely distributing Israeli government propaganda. It would be interesting to know what happened there.)

Millions are seeing these terrible images, picture after picture, day after day. These images are imprinted on their minds forever: horrible Israel, abominable Israel, inhuman Israel. A whole generation of haters. That is a terrible price, which we will be compelled to pay long after the other results of the war itself have been forgotten in Israel.

But there is another thing that is being imprinted on the minds of these millions: the picture of the miserable, corrupt, passive Arab regimes.

As seen by Arabs, one fact stands out above all others: the wall of shame.

For the million and a half Arabs in Gaza, who are suffering so terribly, the only opening to the world that is not dominated by Israel is the border with Egypt. Only from there can food arrive to sustain life and medicaments to save the injured. This border remains closed at the height of the horror. The Egyptian army has blocked the only way for food and medicines to enter, while surgeons operate on the wounded without anesthetics.

Throughout the Arab world, from end to end, there echoed the words of Hassan Nasrallah: The leaders of Egypt are accomplices to the crime, they are collaborating with the “Zionist enemy” in trying to break the Palestinian people. It can be assumed that he did not mean only Mubarak, but also all the other leaders, from the king of Saudi Arabia to the Palestinian President. Seeing the demonstrations throughout the Arab world and listening to the slogans, one gets the impression that their leaders seem to many Arabs pathetic at best, and miserable collaborators at worst.

This will have historic consequences. A whole generation of Arab leaders, a generation imbued with the ideology of secular Arab nationalism, the successors of Gamal Abdal Nasser, Hafez al-Assad and Yasser Arafat, may be swept from the stage. In the Arab space, the only viable alternative is the ideology of Islamic fundamentalism.

This war is a writing on the wall: Israel is missing the historic chance of making peace with secular Arab nationalism. Tomorrow, It may be faced with a uniformly fundamentalist Arab world, Hamas multiplied by a thousand.

MY TAXI DRIVER in Tel-Aviv the other day was thinking aloud: Why not call up the sons of the ministers and members of the Knesset, form them into a combat unit and send them off to head the coming ground attack on Gaza?

———————————

(2) ISRAELI PEACE GROUP: STOP THE BOMBING!
By Gush Shalom, Dec. 30, 2008

This war is inhuman, superfluous and harmful. Nothing good for Israel will come out of it.

The killing of hundreds of Palestinians and the destruction of the infrastructure of life in the Gaza Strip are abominable acts. Those who hope to reap electoral profits from them are greatly mistaken.

A ground invasion will cause even greater harm, destroy what is left in Gaza and cause many casualties - Israelis and Palestinians, soldiers and civilians.

If, after hard battles, the Israeli army will succeed in conquering the ruins of Gaza, the result will be, at most, to drive Hamas underground and to increase their influence both in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank.

The attack, which has already deepened the hatred, will

AROUSE the whole civilized world against us,

RAISE all over the region a new generation that will hate the State of Israel even more,

INCREASE the impact of Hamas,

UNDERMINE even more the status of peace-seeking Palestinians,

PREVENT Palestinian unity, without which there can be no peace.
On behalf of thousands of Israelis who have demonstrated in the streets of Tel-Aviv within hours after the start of the war, we demand:

• To stop at once the attack on Gaza!

• To propose - and to maintain - a cease-fire that will include the end off all violent actions by both sides, a real opening of the border crossings and the termination of the blockade against the population of the Gaza Strip.

• To start a dialogue with Hamas. Hamas is an integral part of Palestinian society and the Palestinian political system. Without their participation, all negotiations and agreements are meaningless.

— http://www.Gush-Shalom.org

———————————

(3) ISREAL: END THE ATTACKS
ON GAZA IMMEDIATELY!

12-28-08 Statement of the
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions

Let's be crystal clear. Israel's massive attacks on Gaza today have one overarching goal: conflict management. How to end rocket attacks on Israel from a besieged and starving Gaza without ending the impetus for those attacks, 41 years of increasingly oppressive Israeli Occupation without a hint that a sovereign and viable Palestinian state will ever emerge.

Indeed, the Occupation, in which Israel controls Gaza under a violent siege which violates fundamental human rights and international law, is not even mentioned in Israel's PR campaign. Speaking to the international community, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni insists that no country would tolerate its citizens being attacked, a seemingly reasonable statement were it not for Israeli sanctions on Gaza supported by the US and Europe -- sanctions that preceded the rocket fire on Israel -- or the fact of Israeli Occupation in general. Solely focusing on the rocket attacks conceals the political policy that led to them: "The Hamas government in Gaza must be toppled," Livni has said repeatedly. "The means to do this must be military, economic and diplomatic."

The responsibility for the suffering both in Israel and Gaza rests squarely with successive Israeli governments, Labor, Likud, and Kadima alike. Had there been a genuine political process (remember, the closure of Gaza began in 1989), Israelis and Palestinians could have been living together in peace and prosperity already for 20 years. After all, already in 1988 the PLO accepted the two-state solution in which a Palestinian state would arise on only 22% of historic Palestine, alongside the state of Israel on the other 78%. A truly generous offer.

In Israel, however, the effort is to hide its preference for control over peace. Framing its attacks as a response to rockets from Gaza, exploiting an immediate trigger to effectively conceal deeper political intentions and policies, does that. It also conceals Israeli violations of the cease-fire. The fact that the rocket attacks could have been avoided altogether through a genuine political process means that the people of southern Israel are being held hostage by their government as well. Their suffering, and the suffering of the people of Gaza and the rest of the Occupied Territories, must be placed squarely at the feet of the Israeli government.

Israel cannot expect security for its people and political normalcy as long as it occupies Palestinian lands and continues its attempt to impose its permanent rule over the Palestinians by military force. We call on the Israeli government to end its aggression immediately and enter into genuine political negotiations with a united Palestinian leadership. We call on the international community to end its sanctions on Gaza immediately in accordance with international law, initiate an effective political process to end the Israeli Occupation, and bring about a just peace -- which reflects the will of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

12-31-08 Demonstrations support Gaza

From the Hudson Valley Activist Newsletter 12-31-08
————————————————————————
Demonstrations Across the U.S. and Around World
Demand an End to the Bombing and Siege of Gaza

Tens of thousands of people took to the streets in scores of U.S. cities in response to the call for December 30 to be a National Day of Action to support the people of Palestine.

The call was issued 72 hours ago by a number of organizations including the ANSWER Coalition, Muslim American Society Freedom, the National Council of Arab Americans, Free Palestine Alliance, Al-Awda - International Palestine Coalition for the Right of Return and others.

In New York City, thousands demonstrated at the Israeli Consulate located on 2nd Ave. and 43rd St.

In Washington D.C., 5,000 people gathered at the State Department and marched to the White House. Those taking to the streets included many children, teenagers and young adults demanding an immediate end to the bombing of Gaza. As the nighttime march entered the White House grounds, it took over and filled all of Pennsylvania Avenue with young people raising Palestinian flags at the White House fence.

Over 10,000 protestors filled the sidewalks in front of and across the street from the Israeli Consulate in San Francisco and marched.

Between 4,000 and 5,000 marchers took to the streets in Los Angeles. In Dearborn, Michigan, thousands braved below-freezing weather to demonstrate. In San Diego, 500 people protested.

Demonstrations also took place in Anchorage, AK; Phoenix, AZ; Modesto, Sacramento, San Jose, and Santa Rosa, CA; Colorado Springs and Denver, CO; Fort Lauderdale, Tampa and Ocala, FL; Atlanta, GA; Honolulu, HI; Chicago, IL; Louisville, KY; Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Ann Arbor, Flint and Kalamazoo, MI; Concord and Portsmouth, NH; New Brunswick, NJ; Albuquerque, NM; Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse, NY; Cincinnati, Cleveland and Youngstown, OH; Portland, OR; Philadelphia, PA; Sioux Falls, SD; Knoxville, TN; Dallas and Houston, TX; Norfolk, VA; Bellingham, Seattle and Tacoma, WA; and scores of other cities in the United States. Protestors even lined the street in front of incoming U.S. President Barack Obama's vacation compound in Kailua, Hawaii.

Coordinated protests were also held throughout the Middle East, Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa.

There will be a large-scale demonstration on Friday, Jan. 2, that will assemble at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, D.C., and march to the Egyptian Embassy. The sponsoring organizations include the ANSWER Coalition, the Muslim American Society Freedom, and the National Council of Arab Americans.

To make a contribution online or to find out how to contribute by check: http://www.answercoalition.org/. Email info@internationalanswer.org. National Office in Washington DC: 202-544-3389.
—
The international journalist Nir Rosen wrote a thoughtful and trenchant article about the plight of Gaza for the British newspaper The Guardian Dec. 29. It's titled, "Gaza: The Logic of Colonial Power." He notes: "As so often, the term 'terrorism' has proved a rhetorical smokescreen under cover of which the strong crush the weak." It is available athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel/print

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

December 15, 2008, Activist Newsletter

Dec. 15, 2008, Issue #142
HUDSON VALLEY ACTIVIST NEWSLETTER/CALENDAR
jacdon@earthlink.net, http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com/

This newsletter/calendar, published in New Paltz, N.Y., appears once or twice a month, supplemented by additional listings of new activist events, usually sent to Valley readers only. Editor, Jack A. Smith (who writes all the articles that appear without a byline or credit to other publications). Copy Editor, Donna Goodman. Calendar Editor, Rocco Rizzo. If you know someone who may benefit from this newsletter, ask them to subscribe at jacdon@earthlink.net. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, unsubscribe at the same address. Please send event listings to the above email address. The current and back issues of the newsletter/calendar are available at http://activistnewsletter.blogspot.com.

—————————————————

CONTENTS

1. IRAQI JOURNALIST CONFRONTS BUSH
2. RAMSEY CLARK RECEIVES UN AWARD
3. REMEMBER THE RESISTERS

—————————————————

1. IRAQI JOURNALIST CONFRONTS BUSH

It is a very rare occasion indeed when the U.S. corporate media allow the American people to hear the true voice of the Iraqi people.

But U.S. TV and news networks had to broadcast that voice Dec. 14 because the story was just too sensational to ignore or suppress.

We're speaking, of course, of the incident in Baghdad Sunday when progressive Iraqi journalist and Shi'ite Muntader al-Zaidi, 28, a correspondent for Al Baghdadia TV, publicly excoriated President George W. Bush at a press conference held in the U.S.-controlled Green Zone and threw his shoes in Bush's direction.

His words, including the Arab expression ya kalab (you dog), and the act of attempting the hit the visiting war criminal with a shoe, are considered extreme insults in Iraqi culture.

According to the New York Times account Dec. 15:

"The drama unfolded shortly after Mr. Bush appeared at a news conference in Baghdad with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to highlight the newly adopted security agreement between the United States and Iraq…. The Iraqi journalist…stood up about 12 feet from Mr. Bush and shouted in Arabic: “This is a gift from the Iraqis; this is the farewell kiss, you dog!” He then threw a shoe at Mr. Bush, who ducked and narrowly avoided it.

"As stunned security agents and guards, officials and journalists watched, Mr. Zaidi then threw his other shoe, shouting in Arabic, “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq!” That shoe also narrowly missed Mr. Bush as Prime Minister Maliki stuck a hand in front of the president’s face to help shield him. Mr. Maliki’s security agents jumped on the man, wrestled him to the floor and hustled him out of the room. They kicked him and beat him."

Al Baghdadia, which is described as an "independent anti-occupation, anti-sectarian" station, immediately broadcast an appeal for their reporter's release. News reports said thousands of Iraqis took to the streets demanding Zaidi's freedom.

According to an AP report Dec. 15:

"Zaidi's act of defiance Sunday transformed an obscure reporter from a minor TV station into a national hero to many Iraqis fed up with the nearly six-year U.S. [occupation]…. Zaidi's three brothers and one sister gathered in Mr. Zaidi's simple, one-bedroom apartment in west Baghdad. The home was decorated with a poster of Cuban revolutionary leader Che Guevara, who is widely lionized in the Middle East.

"Family members expressed bewilderment over Mr. Zaidi's action and concern about his treatment in Iraqi custody. But they also expressed pride over his defiance of an American president who many Iraqis believe has destroyed their country."

Several hours later, another AP dispatch reported:

"Iraqis and other Arabs erupted in glee Monday at the shoe attack on George W. Bush. Far from a joke, many in the Mideast saw the act by an Iraqi journalist as heroic, expressing the deep, personal contempt many feel for the American leader they blame for years of bloodshed, chaos and the suffering of civilians.

"Images of Bush ducking the fast-flying shoes at a Baghdad press conference, aired repeatedly on Arab satellite TV networks, were cathartic for many in the Middle East, who have for years felt their own leaders kowtow to the American president.

"So the sight of an average Arab standing up and making a public show of resentment was stunning. The pride, joy and bitterness it uncorked showed how many Arabs place their anger on Bush personally for what they see as a litany of crimes — chief among them the turmoil in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths since the 2003 U.S. invasion."

In an article on Uruknet.info, a website that provides "information from occupied Iraq," leftist Iraqi commentator Layla Anwar (well known for her signature, "An Arab Woman Blues"), wrote soon after the event: "We all watched it [on TV] and Mom and I burst into tears, tears of happiness and tears of grief. Happiness because Muntader filled us with hope, hope that there are still brave heroes left in Iraq…. We were also filled with grief… because we knew that Muntader Al-Zaidi signed his own death warrant. This guy is finished."

Hopefully, the young journalist will survive Maliki's ire. So far it appears his extraordinary deed has generated great support throughout Iraq and the Middle East and this may mitigate his punishment. We think all of us who have opposed our country's war of aggression in Iraq should look upon Muntader al-Zaidi as a hero who bravely spoke truth to unjust power in the cause of national liberation.

—————————————————

2. RAMSEY CLARK RECEIVES UN AWARD

American peace advocate and global humanitarian Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general in the 1960s, was the recipient of the United Nation's Human Rights Prize in a ceremony at UN headquarters in New York Dec. 10.

The award was presented on Human Rights Day as part of a commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Clark has previously accepted the Gandhi Peace Award and the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience Award for his tireless pursuit of peace and social justice.

Clark, who founded the International Action Center 1991 and which continues to this day, was one of five people from around the world who received the prize. It is bestowed every five years. The others were Carolyne Gomes, co-founder of Jamaicans for Justice; former High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour; Denis Mukwege, director of a hospital that treats victims of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch, on behalf of his organization.

Leaving the government at the end of the Johnson Administration in 1969, Clark soon began to openly protest the Vietnam war, visiting North Vietnam in 1972. As time went on he became an advocate for the poor people of the world and a staunch critic of U.S. foreign policy and imperialism. He was a leading voice against the first Gulf War in 1991, the Clinton Administration's war against Yugoslavia in 1999, and, following 9/11, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Believing that both Yugoslavia and Iraq were the targets of an unjust U.S. attacks, he defended former Yugoslav President Slobodan Miloseviç at his trial in Holland and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein when he was judged in Baghdad. Asked why he did so he replied, "I'm a lawyer." He has defended a wide selection of clients including Native American political prisoner Leonard Peltier and peace activist Fr. Philip Berrigan.

Clark will turn 82 on Dec. 18, and he's still on the front lines.

—————————————————

3. REMEMBER THE RESISTERS

Military war resisters have been relatively few in number since the end of conscription in 1973, two years before the end of the Vietnam war. In general, most members of today's volunteer Armed Forces remain mute, indifferent or supportive of the Bush Administration's unjust wars.

Members of the organization Vietnam Veterans Against the War are an exception, of course. An even rarer exception are active duty soldiers who decide not to fight an unjust war.

The group Courage to Resist, which calls upon the antiwar movement to mail holiday cards to several active duty resisters, sent the following message December 9:

Write Holiday Greetings to War Resisters

The holidays are a difficult time for many folks, especially when separated from family and friends. Now imagine you’re a war resister imprisoned for refusing to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Please take a few moments this holiday season to write a letter of support to a imprisoned objector. Better yet, organize your community to write letters to these brave people with the courage to resist.

Tony Anderson, Robin Long, and Daniel Sandate are currently jailed and are not expecting release until well into 2009. Benji Lewis, Blake Ivey and André Shepherd are publicly taking bold stands against war that may result in their eventual courts martial.

Shown below are brief profiles of these resisters, as well as addresses that letters can be sent to.

Tony Anderson
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave. #41, Oakland, CA 94610
—
Robin Long
PO Box 452136, San Diego CA 92145-2136
—
Benji Lewis, Blake Ivey, and Daniel Sandate
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610
—
André Shepherd
c/o Military Counseling Network (MCN)
Hauptstrasse 1, D-69245 Bammental, Germany
($.94 USPS postage req.)
—
WAR RESISTER PROFILES:

Tony Anderson

Tony Anderson is a 19 year-old Private in the U.S. Army who refused to deploy to Iraq in July of this year.

Anderson had vague thoughts about filing for conscientious objector (C.O.) status but was discouraged from doing so by his commanding officers, who told him that it would not be possible for him to obtain, and even falsely informed him that he was "not the right religion." Anderson was led to believe that filing a C.O. application would be futile.

When he was ordered to deploy to Iraq on July 1st, Anderson decided he could not go. Just hours before boarding his flight, he went AWOL, eventually turning himself in after 22 days in hopes of diminishing the severity of his punishment. On his return, Anderson was again ordered to deploy to Iraq immediately. This time, he simply refused, and he says, "they haven't tried to deploy me since then because they realize I'm not going to go."

Private Anderson recently chose to apply for C.O. status, this time with the extra help of his lawyer. The military charged Anderson with disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer during a time of war and desertion with intent to avoid hazardous
duty. He went to trial in November and received a 14 month sentence.

Tony Anderson is currently serving time at the Ft. Sill stockade in Oklahoma. He is in a low security area. He is living in a dorm, has been assigned wood shop detail, and plans to enroll in as many classes as possible.

To ensure delivery to Tony, letters should be sent care of Courage to Resist The Ft. Sill stockade regulations are that in order to receive mail from someone, Tony must first put that person on his designated mailing list of people first. However, this regulation is sometimes waived for first time correspondence.

Tony Anderson
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave. #41
Oakland, CA 94610

You can try to write Tony directly if you wish; however, mail from “unauthorized senders” may be returned: Anthony Michael Anderson, PO Box 305, Fort Sill, OK 73503-5305
—

Blake Ivey

Blake Ivey, currently stationed in Ft. Gordon, Georgia, is publicly refusing to deploy to Afghanistan. The 21 year-old soldier filed for conscientious objector status last July but was ordered to deploy while his application was being processed. He is determined not to go, and as of our last phone call, was still actively serving on his base, weighing his options for refusal.

Blake became a conscientious objector after joining the military, as a result of his personal studies in anarchism and nonviolent philosophy. He is close friends with Ryan Jackson, a high profile war resister who went AWOL in 2007.

Blake is determined not to go to Afghanistan, and he has contacted a civilian lawyer to discuss his options. Military punishment for refusing deployment varies, but in recent months, sentences have grown longer. Robin Long, an Iraq war resister deported from Canada, was recently sentenced to 15 months and a dishonorable discharge.

Despite the threat of steep punishment, Blake remains steadfast in his commitment to nonviolence. "I don't believe killing makes right in any situation," he says. "Governments use violence to fix situations. It's like fighting fire with fire."

He may have a significant price to pay for adhering to this belief.

You can write to Blake at:

Blake Ivey
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave #41
Oakland CA 94610
——————————————

Robin Long

Robin Long, the first Iraq War resister deported from Canada into U.S. military custody, was sentenced in August of this year to 15 months of confinement and dishonorable discharge, receiving credit for 40 days of time served. He is currently serving time at Miramar Military prison in San Diego.

Three years ago, Robin Long fled to Canada rather than fight a war in Iraq he deems immoral and illegal. On July 15th, the Canadian government forcibly returned Long to U.S. military custody, forcing him to leave behind his two year old son. Robin is the first war resister deported from Canadian soil since the Vietnam War.

The Canadian government's actions flaunt its long-standing tradition of providing safe haven for U.S. war resisters and ignore a non-binding parliamentary resolution to allow U.S. soldiers to stay in Canada.

Robin Long
PO Box 452136
San Diego CA 92145-2136

The Miramar brig regulations also state that Robin can only receive mail from people that he put on his brig mail list first. However, that regulation seems to have been waived for Robin. If mail is returned, please send it to Courage to Resist for forwarding:

Robin Long
c/o Courage to Resist
484 Lake Park Ave # 41,
Oakland, CA 94610

——————————————

André Shepherd

U.S. Army Specialist André Shepherd applied for asylum in Germany Nov. 26, becoming the first Iraq War veteran to pursue refugee status in Europe.

After attending college and failing to find meaningful employment, Shepherd enlisted in the military early in 2004. He became an Apache airframe mechanic, hoping to someday qualify up to the role of helicopter pilot.

His first unit was already deployed to Iraq when he completed his training, so he joined them immediately, with only one day at his unit's home in Germany. Shepherd spent six months on a forward operating base near Tikrit, working 12-hour days to keep the heavily armed Apaches (and their signature Hellfire missiles) in the air.

Though he enlisted in order to bring freedom, prosperity and peace, Shepherd found none of these traits in the locals with whom he interacted.

"Some had the look of fear, while others looked outright angry and resentful," he said of locals contracted for jobs around the base. "I began to feel like a cruel oppressor who had destroyed the lives of these proud people."

Upon his return to Germany at the end of the deployment, Shepherd began to investigate the options available to an American soldier who questions the morality of war. He spoke with a superior about conscientious objection, but was told the process was lengthy and his application would probably be denied

André Shepherd
c/o Military Counseling Network (MCN)
Hauptstrasse 1, D-69245 Bammental, Germany
($.94 USPS postage req.)
—
More information is at http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/
(end)