ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
As always, thank you for sharing with all of us Hermano Enrique.
As the risk of giving people information overload it is my hope
that others will examine the below accumulated news articles
forwarded from you by others and other sources.
There is a lot going on that most American citizens are not even
aware of and deep historical forces have been brewing and churning
for long decades, in some respects for centuries.
Let history be a guide to action! We will need to learn from the tragic
lessons of history. People are going to have to learn to live as one,
respect differences of opinion and see the beauty of broad diversity.
In relation to the Palestinian-Israel conflict both governments and
peoples should see their common interests in there being a Free
Palestine, plus the people of Palestine need to forge unity with the
Israeli people who also need to Liberate Israel itself!
We should learn to distinquish between the proclamations of passing
official governments and the eternal survival needs of all peoples.
In the vast scheme of things, surely we need to examine alternative
ways of governing society and the global economy, namely, global
democratic socialism! It cannot be national socialism, it would have
to be a worldwide economic-political-social order if there is ever going
to be peace upon Mother Earth among all peoples, all cutlures!
No Flags, No Walls, No Borders, No Divisions!
Education for Liberation!
Peter S. Lopez ~aka: Peta
Sacramento, California,Aztlan
Yahoo Email: peter.lopez51@yahoo.com
http://anhglobal.ning.com/profile/peta51
Join the Alliance for a New Humanity!
http://anhglobal.ning.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Humane-Rights-Agenda/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NetworkAztlan_News/
From: Enrique Ferro <ferro.enrique@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 4:26:51 PM Subject: Freedom Theatre + 24 Hours in Gaza, H.Arraf, Bil'in, WB Water, Tuwani, Sheikh Jarrah, East J'lem + "The House of Dajani" + IRAN (3) + HONDURAS (Several) + Sandinistas + Marwa's Totschlag + Carter:The Words Of God Do Not Justify Cruelty To Women
 |  |  | |  | |  |  |
Free Gaza--and Palestine
By Huwaida Arraf
July 17, 2009
Last month I led a group of twenty-one human rights workers on a boat from Cyprus to challenge Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. We carried toys, medicine, olive tree saplings, toolkits, a fifty-kilo bag of cement and school supplies on our small converted ferry boat.
-
Ezra Nawi: The author is going to prison--for peacefully resisting settler and army violence against West Bank Palestinians and the illegal expropriation of their land.
-
Israel's Crimes, America's Silence
John Dugard: There is now sufficient evidence to charge Israel with war crimes for its actions in Gaza. Why is Obama silent?
-
Free Gaza--and Palestine
Huwaida Arraf: Last month the Israeli Navy seized a boat attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to blockaded Gaza and arrested its passengers, and received little international criticism.
Nervous after a previous boat of ours was dangerously rammed at sea in December by the Israeli military, I replied, "Israeli Navy, this is Arion (the registered name of our ship). We are twenty-one unarmed civilians carrying aid for the Palestinian people of Gaza. Any blockade on Gaza is unlawful as you are the occupying force in the territory and are therefore responsible for the well-being of the civilian population there. As our boat, its cargo, and the twenty-one civilians on board do not constitute any kind of threat to Israel or its armed forces, you are obliged to allow us entry. We are proceeding to Gaza. Do not use force against us."
Shortly thereafter our navigational systems were disabled for nearly four hours as the warnings continued. In their "final" warning to us, the Israeli Navy threatened to open fire. "Israeli Navy, we are unarmed civilians; do not use force against us. Do not shoot." We did not stop.
We were boarded by force. Before we were separated, I saw Navy forces grabbing my husband, Adam, a filmmaker who has made documentaries from Palestine to Darfur, about the neck. Later, I learned that outside of my view, these government-sanctioned pirates pummeled Adam in order to wrest his videocamera from his grasp.
Though I know it could not have been easy for him, Adam did not fight back. He was a multi-sport athlete in high school, threw out Manny Ramirez stealing second and is one of those rare individuals who bring a football player's intensity to peace work. But like the rest of us, Adam insists on using nonviolent means to resist Israel's military occupation. And though in his widely hailed Cairo speech President Obama made an implicit call for nonviolence as the means to challenge the Israeli occupation, the Obama administration made no public statement on our behalf -- nor did it do so three months ago, when my dear friend Bassem Abu Rahme was killed while nonviolently protesting Israeli expansionism in the West Bank that threatens to destroy his village of Bil'in.
Perhaps we were politically inept. Had we sailed toward Iran to offer assistance to civilian protesters there, we would have been a cause celebre if the Iranian government had arrested us. Iran, however, for all its troubles, is not now under foreign occupation as Palestine is. Yet as I watched the demonstrations in Iran, I could not miss the similarities to Palestine's nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation. I cannot count the times I have marched peacefully, waving a flag and demanding freedom for my people -- with only my voice and my presence as my weapons. And sadly, the number of friends I have lost -- killed by Israeli forces as, like Neda Agha-Soltan in Iran, they nonviolently demonstrated for freedom -- is becoming too great a pain in my heart.
My colleagues and I invested time and energy in this difficult journey and put our lives at risk because for too long the international community has been complicit in Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people. For too long, diplomats and world leaders have paid lip service to Palestinian human rights. For too long, the Palestinian people have been told to wait -- wait in the checkpoint line, wait on the peace process, wait to have your rights recognized, wait for freedom.
Students I met on a recent successful voyage to Gaza certainly did not want to wait to be slowly suffocated and drained of their dreams. So desperate were they to escape their confinement in Gaza to obtain higher education abroad that they asked us to drop them in international waters and they would swim the rest of the way to Cyprus. This was youthful madness, but indicative of how trapped people in Gaza are today.
I was born in the blanket of freedom of the United States. My parents immigrated here, knowing that I could not be free in my homeland. But today I use my freedom to struggle as a Palestinian for my friends and relatives who endure the yokes of occupation, oppression, discrimination, exile, internment and apartheid.
Most Palestinians in the occupied territories have not lived a day free of Israel's occupation, and Palestinian citizens of Israel continue to live as a discriminated-against minority. Just the other day, Israel's housing minister, Ariel Atias, declared, "We can all be bleeding hearts, but I think it is unsuitable [for Jews and Palestinians] to live together [in Israel].
This is the Israel the United States funds with billions each year. Under the leadership of President Obama--or any American president, for that matter--support for this sort of raw bigotry makes no sense and is antithetical to our most cherished principles. Yet when Israeli leaders utter such contemptible language it is ignored. When Israeli soldiers fire lethal weapons at unarmed, peaceful protesters it is too often ignored. When Israeli naval boats become pirate ships -- boarding a vessel that poses them no threat, arresting and beating American citizens--it is ignored.
It is ignored and Israel continues to enjoy the patronage of the United States and to present itself as a moral beacon for the world. But my generation finds racist language like that of Atias'--and the actions that result from such outdated thinking--abhorrent.
We find it unacceptable that Palestinians continue to be asked to wait, to improve our self-government and to be patient as we build ourselves toward the same rights that people elsewhere take for granted. With the fourth Palestinian generation born into refugee camps, with a new generation in Gaza being raised poorer and more desperate than the last, with my land being carved and sliced and walled for the exclusive benefit of one ethno-religious group, I say we cannot wait.
The question facing the world now must no longer be about where to squeeze a Palestinian state. The only relevant question is how to advance the immediate freedom of ten million Palestinians. There can be no more waiting, no more prevaricating, no more negotiations on that simple, beautiful human concept--freedom.
We will be free. President Obama can expedite the process by putting pressure on Israel, or he can sideline himself and the process for the next eight years. Sooner or later, however, Israel's subjugation of us will be overturned. The current situation is untenable. Whether we live in two states or one state with equal rights for all--as in South Africa and, indeed, the United States--we will achieve our freedom. What South Africa was to students in the 1980s, Palestine is fast becoming to younger generations increasingly repulsed by the entrenchment of Israel's dual system of law, domination of another people and ongoing confinement of 1.5 million Palestinians to a tiny parcel of land in Gaza.
So, yes, this was only one tiny humanitarian boat to Gaza. But Israel's heavy-handed action shows how much is at stake and how shaky Israel's grip over another people becomes when the world's citizens speak out and take action--even as governments fall short.At 5:30am, shortly after the Palestinian and international activists returned to their houses after patrolling the village all night, villagers gave the alert that four Israeli Army Jeeps were driving toward the village. Shortly thereafter, Israeli soldiers raided the house of Abd Al Fatah Bornat whose son Muhammed Abd Al Fatah Bornat (age 21) they had arrested at 2am on July 17, 2009. His brother is also wanted by the occupation forces, but he was not at home this morning. The Army left without making any arrests.
A few minutes later, they reached the house of Emad Bornat whom they arrested. Villagers and Palestinian and international activists tried to block the path to the Jeep where the soldiers were about to take the victim. They were pushed back violently by the Army so that any attempt to de-arrest the victim was futile. As the Jeep with the victim inside was about to drive off, the activists marched in a chain in front of it, preventing its escape. Soldiers in a second Jeep then threw sound bombs and tear gas at the activists which made them disperse allowing the Jeep to escape. The three remaining Jeeps followed under a rain of rocks thrown by the villagers. They drove into the village while activists followed. After stopping at an intersection, soldiers took extensive video footage of all the activists. All the Jeeps then turned back and left the village with the victim.
The situation is extremely serious for Emad Bornat. He is currently under medical treatment after a very bad tractor accident. It is vital for him to continue receiving this treatment.
Iyad Burnat- Head of Popular Commitee in Bilin co-founder of Friends of Freedom and Justice - Bilin
Email- bel3in@yahoo.com
Mobile- (00972) (0) 547847942
Office- (00972) (2) 2489129
Mobile- (00972) (0) 598403676
www.bilin-ffj.org
Israel leaves the inhabitants of the West bank thirsty
Join us in a protest against the water shortages caused by the occupation
Dry water taps – no water for drinking or bathing, many months during the summer heat. Since March this is the situation of many families in the villages Qarawat Bani Zayed, Kufr 'Ein, Ramani & Nabi Salah, 15,000 people. In the same time, these Palestinian villagers can see beyond the settlements' fences a different situation. They see green lawns and sprinklers irrigating the whole day. A similar situation exsists in many other parts of the West Bank.
We hereby call activists to join and donate money to the protest campaign
Checques can be made to Rabbis For Human Rights,
9 Harechavim St. Jerusalem, 93462, Israel.
Or to account No.153380 in Bank Hapoalim branch 782, Aza, Jerusalem.
N.B.: Mention for water campaign
In a later announcement we shall give details about the water convoy to Qarawat Bani Zayed that will take place on 07/08/09
Further activities will consist of demonstrations, petitions, letters, appeals to MKs, embassies and intl. organizations.
Details and comments: Yuval 050-7336117, Yakov 050-5733276, 09-7670801 email manor12@zahav.net.il
Background: Since the occupation in 1967, Israel took control over most of the water sources in the West Bank, and uses them for Israeli clients and especially for settlers. The mountain acquifer is considered a joint (Palestinian-Israeli) water reservoir that Israel is permitted to use – but not in the current way when 80% of the water is taken by Israel and the remaining 20% are allocated to the millions of Palestinian inhabitants. Other water sources, as in the Jordan valley, are used almost exclusively by Israelis and only meager quantities are left for the usage of Palestinians. The Palestinian inhabitants of the south Hebron area having a serious problem of water shortage as well. In Israel and the settlements, the mean per capita water consumption for domestic and municipal usage is 235 lites per day, and in the occupied territories it is 66 litres per day only. 227,500 people in 220 villages are not connected to the water system. An additional 190,000 people have only partial water supply.
The Oslo accords reaffirmed the Israeli control over the water supply and pumping. The Palestinians assumed that it was a temporary agreement, and according to the time table that was established then, by May 1999 an independent Palestinian state would be established with control over its natural resources. The continuing water shortage increases the anger and frustration the Palestinians feel.
The small quantity of water supplied to the Palestinians is not distributed equally. As the water runs through the pipes the quantity reduces and as a home is situated higher up the pressure diminishes, and as a result the highest situated homes do not receive supply at all.
The village Qarawat Bani Zayed, situated on a mountain slope, is an example to this difficult situation. Lately Israeli peace activists visited this village and heard of this difficult situation. Many inhabitants of this village have to purchase water from water tanks at high prices – up to NIS 40 to 1 cubic metre of water, ten times its price in Israel or the settlements. Abud spring that gave them water before the occupation was caught by Mekorot, the Israeli water supply company, and only a small portion of its water currently arrives at the village.
Supplying enough water to the Palestinian civilians – for their homes, public and agricultural needs is not a favour or act of compassion. This is a legal and moral obligation whose violation is a serious crime against international law.
Organisations participating: Anarchists against the fence, Bat Shalom, Gush Shalom, The Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, The Israeli Committee Against Torture, The Alternative Information Centre, Yesh Gvul, Sadaqa-Reut, Coalition of Women for Peace, Physicians for Human Rights.
Dangerous Untreated West Bank Wastewaterby Stephen Lendman July 17th, 2009
:: Article nr. 56079 sent on 17-jul-2009 18:11 ECT www.uruknet.info?p=56079 :: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website. |
CPTTuwani Team News
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
New Palestinian House and Olive Tree Destroyed in the Night
17 July 2009
AT-TUWANI: On the morning of 17 July, a Palestinian family from the
village of At-Tuwani discovered that their newly constructed house was
destroyed during the previous night. In addition, the family discovered
an olive tree located near the new house cut in half. The family believes
that Israel settlers from the Ma'on settlement and Havot Ma'on outpost are
responsible for the vandalism. Despite being threatened by both settlers
and officers from the Israel military District Coordinator (DCO), the
family plans to rebuild the house.
On 16 July Palestinian residents of At-Tuwani began construction on six
new small houses on land owned by the village. During the construction,
Israeli settlers from Havot Ma'on outpost shouted at Palestinians working
on the houses. Officers from the DCO told Palestinian land owners that
the construction was illegal and threatened to arrest the workers. In
addition, an officer told one At-Tuwani resident that everything he owned
would be destroyed if he did not stop building. Despite these risks,
Palestinians say that they plan to continue construction to assert their
right to build on their own land.
While the Israeli army restricts Palestinian building, Ma'on and Carmel
settlements and Avigail and Havot Ma'on outposts in the area continue to
expand. Members of Christian Peacemaker Teams have documented continuous
settlement expansion since 2004.
For photos of the demolished house, visit: http://cpt.org/gallery/album289
For photos of recent settlement expansion, visit:
http://cpt.org/gallery/album288
-----------------------------------
2. From: CPT Tuwani Team <cpttuwani@cpt.org>
CPT Update June, 2009
Summary
The month of June 2009 saw a continuation of problems with the Israeli
army escort of the Palestinian schoolchildren, an increase in aggressive
harassment and arrest of shepherds, consistent closures and intrusions by
the army, and continued settlement expansion. The army twice failed to
escort the schoolchildren to At-Tuwani, forcing the children to walk
unaccompanied in close proximity to the settlement Ma'on and the outpost
Havot Ma'on. Palestinian shepherds faced consistent and aggressive
harassment as the Israeli settlers, army, and police restricted
Palestinians from freely grazing their flocks. Using checkpoints,
closures, searches, detentions, and home invasions, the Israeli army
restricted the movement of Palestinians and subjected Palestinians to
humiliating treatment. The settlement of Ma'on and the outposts of Havot
Ma'on and Avigail continued to expand as new structures and homes were
built.
People on Team - Janet Benvie, Joy Ellison, Jessica Frederick, Sean
O'Neill, Sam Nichols, and members of Operation Dove (Doves)
Escort Problems
1 June
The army escort failed to arrive in the morning so the schoolchildren
walked to At-Tuwani unaccompanied. In the afternoon, the dispatcher
informed internationals that the children did not need an escort home.
The army escort arrived only after several phone calls and requests by
internationals.
4 June
The morning army escort failed to arrive, and the children again walked to
At-Tuwani unaccompanied.
Army, Police, and Settlers Harass Shepherds
7 June
In the morning, the Israeli army approached a Palestinian shepherd,
accompanied by Ellison and a Dove. The army remained near the shepherd
until he moved off of the hillside, into the valley, and out of sight. In
the afternoon, Benvie and a Dove witnessed a group of seven settlers
confront shepherds from the Palestinian village of Jawayya. Settlers
remained amongst the flock, in close proximity to the shepherds, forcing a
verbal altercation. The shepherds soon after took their flocks back to
Jawayya.
16 June
Young boys from At-Tuwani were shepherding their flocks near the village
when Israeli soldiers stopped to question the boys, claiming the children
were throwing rocks into the settler bypass road. Two more army vehicles
arrived with officers in order to interrogate the boys. Soldiers harassed
and threatened to arrest the boys, as well as family members who came to
care for their children.
20 June
In the morning, an Israeli settler threw rocks and followed a shepherd
from the Palestinian village of Tuba while he grazed his flock in Umm
Zeitouna. Later that day, two settlers entered Tuba demanding to buy
sheep from a Palestinian family. When the family refused and threatened
to call the police, the settlers threatened to beat a member of the
family.
21 June
A shepherd from the Palestinian village of Tuba was approached by an
Israeli settler. Fearing attack, the shepherd left the area, yet the
settler spoke with Benvie and Nichols. The settler demanded to know why
the shepherd was in that particular area, claiming all of the land in
sight belonged to the settlement.
25 June
Two shepherds from Tuba, ages 15 and 16, were accompanied by O'Neill and
Benvie as they grazed the flocks near their village. Israeli settlers
drove out and watched the group for a period before the army arrived. The
army checked the identification of the boys and the internationals.
Police arrived and proceeded to arrest the boys. Police provided no
reason for the arrest of the young shepherds. The boys were taken to
Kiryat Arba police station and were released nearly 5 hours later.
Army Checkpoints, Searches, and Invasions
9 June
O'Neill and a Dove approached an army checkpoint in time to see soldiers
with a young Palestinian boy handcuffed, and on his knees. Upon seeing
internationals, the soldiers soon released the boy.
13 June 2009
An army hummer stopped and searched a vehicle in At-Tuwani. The hummer
then remained in the village, next to a house in the village for much of
the afternoon.
15-22 June
Five nights during the month, members of CPT and OD provided overnight
accompaniment to a family in the village of Lesaafer, near Beit Yattir
settlement. The Israeli army, looking for a member of the family, had
repeatedly ransacked the home, breaking valuables and threatening family
members with assault and arrest.
27 June
The Israeli army stopped a group of 30 students on their way to visit
At-Tuwani at a checkpoint. The soldiers told the group they would only
allow the students to pass if they continued with military escort.
Soldiers patrolled the village and stood outside the home of CPT and OD as
the students met with Palestinian nonviolent leaders from At-Tuwani. The
soldiers refused to leave the village because they claimed their job was
to protect the United States citizens in the group.
30 June
The Israeli army closed the road to Yatta in order to escort a group of
Israelis to Al-Birkeh (an ancient pool in a Palestinian village). The
road was closed to all Palestinian traffic while a group of 40 settlers
were escorted by 80 soldiers. Soldiers patrolled the urban area
surrounding Al-Birkeh, standing on rooftops and shouting at Palestinians
walking on the streets. A pregnant woman from At-Tuwani who was on her
way to the hospital was delayed from proceeding because of the road
closures.
=============================
On Sunday, 19th, at 12:00 expires the time given to the Sheikh Jarrah families to surrender the keys to their houses to the hands of settlers. Failing to do this, they are at risk of immediate eviction and arrest.
On Sunday, at 1 pm we shall be there with them, to support, protest and launch another period of constant presence of activists in the houses to prevent their eviction and protect their rights.
Volunteers are also needed to stay in the houses for some hours, day or night, during the period from this Sunday until the 27th July.
For details and directions, call RHR office at: 02-6482757, Maya at 054-7423044 or
Sharon 0544403753
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Sunday an American call to hold off on a planned Jewish housing development in East Jerusalem, saying Israel's sovereignty over the disputed city could not be challenged.
Mr. Netanyahu issued the statement because State Department officials had raised concerns over the project with Israel's new ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, during discussions last week on a range of issues. The American officials suggested that going ahead with the development now would cause problems in negotiations toward a two-state solution.
"I would like to re-emphasize that united Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel," the prime minister said. "Our sovereignty over it cannot be challenged; this means — inter alia — that residents of Jerusalem may purchase apartments in all parts of the city."
Israeli officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter, said the Netanyahu government had gone public with the issue to try to pre-empt further American efforts to stop Jewish building in East Jerusalem. Mr. Netanyahu noted in his statement that there are Arabs living in the predominantly Jewish western part of the city, adding, "We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem."
Israel captured the eastern part of Jerusalem and the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Middle East war. It annexed East Jerusalem, which contains sites holy to Jews, Christians and Muslims, as well as many Palestinian neighborhoods, and built a series of Jewish neighborhoods in and around it to solidify its claim. It has also built scores of West Bank settlements.
As Washington seeks to help create a Palestinian state, it has challenged Jewish settlements in both areas and demanded a freeze in further building. Israel has been seeking a compromise on the question. The Obama administration's Middle East envoy, George J. Mitchell, is expected here in a week for more meetings on the issue.
The East Jerusalem development in question, to be made into a 20-unit complex, was bought by a Miami-based businessman, Irving Moskowitz, in 1985. He has long supported Israeli and Jewish housing in East Jerusalem. From 1987 to 2002, he rented the building to the paramilitary border police. Recently the municipality granted permission for the housing development to proceed.
The property is in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, a predominantly Palestinian area that also has foreign consulates and Israeli government buildings.
At Sunday's weekly cabinet meeting, the head of the Shin Bet security services, Yuval Diskin, said Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules in Gaza and opposes Israel's existence, has been buying property in East Jerusalem and broadening its base here and that the Palestinian Authority had set up an intelligence network aimed at preventing Palestinians from selling their property to Israelis.
The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, told Israel Radio that instead of defending the Moskowitz development, Mr. Netanyahu should be preparing Israel to make peace. "He knows very well that there will never be peace between Palestinians and Israelis without East Jerusalem being the capital of the Palestinian state," Mr. Erekat said.
Israeli Author's Zionist Novel Creates Controversy
 Alon Hilu's "The House of Dajani" was awarded Israel's richest literary prize, but the decision was reversed. Critics branded Hilu's unflattering portrayal of early Zionist immigrants as an effort to undermine the Jewish state. (By Samuel Sockol -- The Washington Post) TOOLBOX COMMENT  COMMENTS ARE CLOSED Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging  |
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
HERZLIYA, Israel -- The idea for Israeli author Alon Hilu's latest novel, "The House of Dajani," came to him one day in a Tel Aviv cafe when he began mentally stripping the city to its roots.
Where he ended was with an Arab boy in the 1890s, at his family farm near what would become the Jewish metropolis, hallucinating about a future in which an army invades and builds skyscrapers over the land.
The novel based on Hilu's ruminations has now embroiled him in an intense discussion of Israeli letters and the identity of the Jewish state. Critics have labeled the book anti-Semitic, lambasted what they call its loose use of historical details and branded Hilu's unflattering portrayal of early Zionist immigrants as an effort to undermine the state. Admirers awarded the book Israel's richest literary prize, only to have their decision reversed over conflict-of-interest allegations.
Hilu, who is Jewish, said he felt that blunter talk about the country's founding, far from weakening Israel, would make it stronger by advancing reconciliation with the Palestinians.
The first immigrants "came from Europe with an attitude," Hilu, 37, said in an interview at his apartment north of Tel Aviv. "It was kind of a typical meeting between colonialists and natives. There are aspects of colonialism in Zionism. You can't deny that."
The novel's plot centers on the relationship between the local Dajani family and Haim Margaliot Kalvarisky, a real-life figure who in 1895 moved from Europe to what was then Palestine. A member of Brit Shalom, an early Zionist group that looked for ways for Jews and Arabs to coexist,
Kalvarisky was also an agronomist deeply involved in efforts to acquire land. In the book, he is portrayed as an adulterous schemer who ingratiates himself into the Dajani clan, befriends the prophetic son, Salah, and has an affair with the family matriarch while persuading her to hand over the farm.
Reviewers praised the novel's style and its structure -- built around the intertwined diaries of Kalvarisky and Salah -- and hailed Hilu as a rising literary star.
Hilu is unsparing in his treatment of the birth of the Jewish state, from the book's locator map -- the landscape that is now Tel Aviv is rendered with the Arab names and locations from that era -- to his portrayal of iconic Israeli figures. Characters resembling national founders, including David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan, are described as "warmongers dancing on blood." Naftali Herz Imber, composer of the Israeli national anthem, is portrayed as an itinerant peddler of verse who "dies in New York in sickness and drunkenness."
An opening quote from the Koran sets the tone: "We destroyed them and their people. . . . So those are their houses fallen down because they were unjust."
The backlash, while deferential to Hilu's right to publish what he wants, reflects the mood of a public that has become increasingly impatient with criticism of the country. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has argued that -- counter to Hilu's vision -- reconciliation will come when Palestinians stop regarding Jews as interlopers and acknowledge Israel as the rightful Jewish homeland. Members of his government have advocated measures that would require Israel's Arab citizens to take oaths of loyalty to the Jewish state and prohibit them from commemorating Israel's independence as the "naqba," or the disaster.
"Self-criticism is okay, but sometimes it is beyond the redlines," said Ben-Dror Yemini, a columnist for the Maariv newspaper whose articles helped trigger a campaign against the book after it was awarded the coveted Sapir Prize. "When Jews or Zionists are depicted in this way, it is going from criticism to delegitimization and demonizing the whole idea of the Jewish state."
The Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, the group that challenged the award, said its objections were unrelated to the book's content. Rather, the group alleged that the head of the award panel had a conflict of interest because his niece was Hilu's editor -- a fact not noted on required disclosure forms. (The prize, amounting to more than $35,000, is funded by the Israeli state lottery, and the threat of litigation over the use of public funds prompted the lottery's governing agency to retract the award from Hilu, along with smaller awards to the four other finalists.)
The following analysis, which was published in French in Le monde diplomatique's early July edition, should be read by all those who still hesitate that the official results of the Iranian election were fake. The op-ed, finally in English, reviews the process which led to the final rig as the logical consequence of a campaign of manipulation and intimidation. A MUST READ
Between religious and democratic legitimacy
Iran's stolen election
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave this injunction to members of the government nine months before the country's presidential election on 12 June: "Do not behave as though your mandate has only a few months left. Prepare yourselves for five more years in office!"
Khamenei showed no qualms over stating his wish that his prot̩g̩, the incumbent Mohammed Ahmadinejad, should serve a second term. This is a clear demonstration of the responsibility the Supreme Leader bears for the current crisis. It stems in large measure from his decision to consolidate his authority, get rid of his enemies Рincluding those in positions of power Рand block all attempts at reform.
The 2005 presidential election had provided him with a starting point (1). By the end of reformist Mohammed Khatami's second presidential term, the public had become very disillusioned with him: under the reformists, there had been steps towards liberalisation but they had proved unable to tackle the country's economic and social problems.
Eight presidential candidates had been authorised to stand in 2005 and, in spite of a relatively high turnout (62.8%), none won an overall majority in the first round. This meant a second round of voting, for the first time in an Iranian presidential election. Ahmadinejad, then mayor of Tehran, had polled just 5.7m votes out of the 29.4m votes cast in the first round. But in the second he won, beating both the reformists, whose camp was split, and Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the unpopular former president.
Ahmadinejad promised the electorate a fresh start. This was never very likely given that he had the backing of Iran's military, security forces and propaganda machine, and was also supported by the Supreme Leader's lucrative charitable foundations. But his populist rhetoric, focused on the notion of "justice", proved highly effective as US interventionism, particularly in the war against Iraq in 2003, had stoked up nationalist feelings and even xenophobia.
Four years on, Ahmadinejad's strategy was in little doubt: it was to block progress towards reform and marginalise the Supreme Leader's former ally Rafsanjani, who had by then become an irritant. But Ahmadinejad's aggressive tone and disastrous management of the economy had built up a huge coalition opposed to him winning a second term.. Its members come from across Iranian society – from the upper echelons of power to the lowest rungs of society. Reservations have even been expressed by Osoulgarayan, the umbrella group that brings together Iran's fundamentalists, which backed Ahmadinejad in the second round in 2005.
And when Khatami again put his name forward, he was greeted enthusiastically during his short campaign in March in Iran's southern provinces. But the state press launched a virulent campaign against him: the editor of Kayhan, the Supreme Leader's personal representative, predicted Khatami would suffer the same fate as Benazir Bhutto (assassinated in Pakistan in the run-up to elections). Faced with these threats, which the Supreme Leader refused to condemn, Khatami withdrew.
Meanwhile, when two conservatives close to Khamenei – Mohammad Ghalibaf, Tehran's mayor, and Ali Larijani, speaker of the parliament, who had both stood in 2005 – showed signs of putting themselves forward in this year's election in the hope of averting electoral disaster for their side, they came into directo conflict with the Supreme Leader.
Back from the wilderness
The way was now open for Mir-Hossein Mousavi to make his return from the political wilderness. Mousavi, who had been prime minister from 1981 until the post was abolished in 1989, presented himself as the compromise candidate, a "reformer who stresses the fundamental values" of the Islamic revolution. He sought to unite not only the reformists but also those in Osoulgarayan who wouldn't support a second term for Ahmadinejad.
Having led the government during the long war against Iraq and been involved in decision-making in the wake of the revolution, no-one could call him a western liberal. The US has even accused him of sponsoring the attack on the US marines base in Beirut in 2003, which resulted in 240 deaths. However, Mousavi has matured and – like many of the protagonists in the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9 – he believes that the regime must be open to change.
The Supreme Leader took a different view. Eight of the 12-member Guardian Council, which is responsible for selecting "acceptable" candidates for the presidential election, came out in favour of Ahmadinejad and played for as much time as it could before approving any other candidates. It prolonged the uncertainty in order to limit the time available for campaigning.
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad had been campaigning all over the country for months, benefiting from press support as well as that of the Supreme Leader, not to mention state funding. It was not until the last possible day that the Guardian Council approved the four runners in the presidential race. The four (all men) were picked from a field of 475 (42 of whom were women).
The architects of this plan believed they had everything worked out. They left two reformist candidates in the race – Mousavi and the former speaker Mehdi Karroubi – in the belief that they would cancel each other out. Also in the running was the conservative, Mohsen Rezai, the former leader of the Revolutionary Guard, who stood as an independent.
And so Iran plunged into a breakneck election campaign that lasted just 22 days. It would overturn all its organisers' plans and cause a seismic shock at the heart of the regime. Before the campaign officially began, state television and radio had given no airtime at all to the reformist candidates. This didn't stop them making daily accusations about their real or imaginary internal squabbles. The right of reply was refused. But, in the hope of curtailing the debate, national TV eventually decided to televise face-to-face encounters. The producers of the programmes gave each candidate's logo a different, randomly chosen colour. Mousavi got green – hence the subsequent talk of a "green revolution".
During these programmes the whole process went into overdrive. From the outset, Ahmadinejad chose attack as the best means of defence. Tens of millions of Iranians stayed up late to watch debates that were more fiercely polemical than anything they had ever seen before. They heard the highest authorities in the land accused of corruption and the president himself called a liar. Ahmadinejad made accusations against Rafsanjani, prompting him to write an open letter of protest to the Supreme Leader.
The debates showed the extent to which Iranians are thirsty for freedom. It even looked as though Iranian society was undergoing a democratic change. The aggressive rhetoric and usual dogma of official pronouncements suddenly sounded hollow. When forced to drop the rhetoric, Ahmadinejad fell back on figures and economic trends, which his opponents immediately pounced on as fabrications.
His opponents managed to get inflation, unemployment and Iran's disastrous economy onto the agenda (2). The heated nature of the debates encouraged expectations of a high turnout at the election. That posed a threat to the Supreme Leader's plans; and it also exposed a fundamental contradiction in the Islamic regime – its "double legitimacy". This was neatly encapsulated in a cartoon in the International Herald Tribune on 24 June. Under the heading "Theocracy explained", it shows Ayatollah Khamenei telling two voters: "You vote, God decides."
Unlimited power
In 1979 the preliminary draft submitted to the new republic's first constituent assembly provided for the establishment of presidential power by popular mandate (article 6). But in the name of divine sovereignty (3), this assembly – whose members were mainly clerics – imposed a supervisory religious role (velayat-e faqih or Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) (article 5). Those aspects of the president's role that would have allowed him the genuine exercise of power were effectively expropriated by a Supreme Leader, a religious figure with absolute control over legislative and executive functions as well as the judiciary (article 57).
It is the Supreme Leader who defines the entire framework of politics in Iran. He is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He has the power to declare war and to order a general mobilisation. He decides when to hold referendums and he appoints the religious members of the Guardian Council. He is in charge of the judiciary and director of the organisation that runs the state-controlled broadcasting monopoly. He is commander of the Revolutionary Guard and of the security forces.. He coordinates the three branches of power and arbitrates in cases of conflict. In certain circumstances he can even go beyond the rules of the constitution and indeed those of sharia. As the representative of the Hidden Imam on Earth, the Supreme Leader's powers know almost no limit.
The Iranian president, though the second most important person in the country, is only responsible for the day-to-day running of economic and social affairs. And even then he is under the very close scrutiny of the Supreme Leader and non-elected bodies that the Supreme Leader controls.
Nevertheless, universal suffrage gives the office of president a democratic legitimacy. As a result, the presidential elections every four years have a significance beyond that of choosing who will hold the post; they allow the expression of the popular will, however restricted and browbeaten it may be. The conflict of legitimacy between election by universal suffrage and the politico-religious institutions of the state are at the heart of the drama which is currently unfolding.
In February 1979, in the wake of the revolution, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr was elected the first president of the republic. There were 95 candidates. A conflict with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led to his deposition in June 1981 in circumstances reminiscent of the current situation in Iran. The two presidential terms served by the current Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, between 1981 and 1989, during the Iran-Iraq war, were also marked by this tension within the regime. Khomeini effectively imposed Mousavi as prime minister and confined Khamenei to a purely formal role.
Khomeini, whose religious authority had been uncontested, died in 1989. The choice of a new Supreme Leader posed problems. Ali Khamenei, a hodjatoleslam, was promoted to ayatollah overnight. It was as if a priest in the Catholic Church had become Pope in the space of 24 hours. Khamenei owed his elevation in part to Rafsanjani, who assumed the role of president.
Rafsanjani's two terms as president (1989-97) weren't without their power struggles but they didn't lead to serious crises. The restriction of the number of candidates authorised to stand and the fact that they were only on the ballot paper for appearances' sake meant that voter turnout dropped.
Then in 1997 the turnout jumped to 79.9%. Mohammad Khatami stood as a reformist and beat the Supreme Leader's candidate. It was a victory that would have been unthinkable in most of the Middle East, where only the official candidate ever wins. In Iran it thrust the conflict between religious and democratic power into the spotlight.
Khatami's two terms of office and his attempts at reform were met by constant blocking tactics from the Supreme Leader, who viewed the challenge as a threat to his own power. And so, in 2005, Khamenei's solution was to try to impose his own candidate – Ahmadinejad. For the first time in the republic's history, a second round of voting was required. But as a result of divisions in the reformist camp and the rejection of Rafsanjani, the Supreme Leader's candidate came out on top. Four years later, against the advice of some of his close advisers, Khamenei decided to support Ahmadinejad again, regardless of the cost.
Improbable figures
On 12 June, polling stations were crowded, but the election seemed to be passing off peacefully. But at 5pm, before the polling stations closed, the head of Tehran's security forces announced on television that he was deploying his forces on the ground. Then the other candidates' representatives were removed from polling stations and locations where the count was taking place. Joint protest from the three other candidates had no effect.
Silence descended on the room at the interior ministry where the results were due to be declared. Meanwhile, press agencies that supported Ahmadinejad, such as the Fars agency, began to issue improbable figures. There was astonishment a few hours later when the interior ministry confirmed these figures as correct. Results then began to be issued in blocks of 2m votes, without any reference to where in the country those votes had been cast. Then, early in the morning of 13 June, after several hours of silence, they switched to announcing results in blocks of 5m. Every result appeared first in a part of the media that supported the president before being announced by the interior ministry.
As the total number of votes counted rose to 39m (a turnout of 85%), the percentage won by each candidate remained exactly the same throughout the night. In other words, throughout the whole country, irrespective of local circumstances, the electorate had voted in exactly the same proportion for each candidate. Results broken down by province weren't released for another 10 days.
According to the official figures, Ahmadinejad received 24,527,516 votes (62.63%). In other words, after four years in power and with a deeply unpopular economic record, he had managed to add some 5.75m votes to the total he achieved in the first round in 2005. By contrast, his opponent Mehdi Karroubi got just 333,635 votes, 15 times fewer than he received in 2005. Even the Iranian authorities themselves mentioned "irregularities" concerning 3m votes.
Nothing short of a miracle
For those who suspected that fraud on a massive scale had taken place, there was further fuel to add to the fire. According to a study by Chatham House in London (4), in two provinces the number of votes cast was greater than the total number of eligible voters. In order to achieve the result he claimed, Ahmadinejad would have had to secure not only the conservative and centrist vote, but also nearly half of the reformist vote in one-third of the country's provinces. Yet contrary to received opinion, conservative candidates have always fared less well in the countryside, as the election results in 1997, 2001 and 2005 demonstrated.
The Chatham House study even showed that the conservatives tend to get their worst results in the country, especially in regions with minority populations, which are more suspicious of central power. This makes Ahmadinejad's majority nothing short of a miracle. More generally, the working classes in particular have suffered most from economic policies that have led to inflation over 20% and mass unemployment that has hit young people the hardest.
The day after Ahmadinejad's victory celebrations, amid congratulations from the Supreme Leader, millions of demonstrators in Tehran and around the country protested at what they saw as a stolen election. This protest, which was largely confined to the middle classes, would probably have been more problematic if the Bush administration, with its sabre-rattling rhetoric and unconditional support for Israel, had still been in the White House. As it was, Barack Obama's desire for dialogue has, in part, freed Iranians from fear of the US and its interference (5). Unlike his European counterparts, Obama has managed to strike a balance between interfering in the affairs of another state and condemning repression.
The Islamic Republic is experiencing the worst crisis in its history. But the outcome of the clashes in Tehran will affect more than just Iran's future. A hardening of attitudes within the country is also likely to lead to a more hardline attitude to the West and make a dialogue between Washington and Tehran that much more difficult.
More by Ahmad Salamatian
Ahmad Salamatian is a former member of the Iranian parliament
(1) See Ahmad Salamatian, "Iran and Iraq: the limits on Shia power", Ahmad Salamatian, Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, July 2005. There are many claims that the 2005 elections were rigged.
(2) See Ramine Motamed-Nejad, "Iran: money and the mullahs", Le Monde diplomatique, English edition, June 2009.
(3) According to Shia belief, the 12th imam disappeared in 874. In Khomeini's view, the Supreme Leader is his representative on earth and has unlimited powers. This theory of velayat-e faqih is challenged by other imams.
(4) Preliminary Analysis of the Voting Figures in Iran's 2009 Presidential Election (PDF), Royal Institute of International Affairs, London.
(5) Though many Iranians believe the Ahmadinejad camp retains the capacity to provoke the US.
"Any Sovereign Nation is Allowed to Bomb Another"
Biden, Israel and Iran
By Gary Leupp
Vice President Joe Biden, apparently speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, has just given Israel the green light to bomb Iran.
"Israel can determine for itself — it's a sovereign nation — what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," he told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday. "Whether we agree or not, they're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed. If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice," he declared.
The statement is presented in logically abstract terms. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do what's in its interest regardless of what "we" think, surely. How very reasonable---magnanimous, even, coming from the mouth of the vice-president of the superpower that's in the last eight years brutally imposed its will on two sizable Southwest Asian countries.
But to test Biden's universalist logic imagine yourself in 1939, substitute Germany for Israel and Poland for Iran and ask whether "any sovereign nation is" really "entitled to do that."
Of course Israel doesn't have any "sovereign right" to attack Iran! And Biden's implied distaste for the attack ("That is not our choice"), which may presage a calculated distancing from an action in the future, doesn't undo the fact that he explicitly validates such action here.
They're entitled to do it, says Joe. Just as presumably they're entitled to remain outside the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime, and produce and stockpile the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East, while claiming that the Iranian nuclear program (begun under U.S. encouragement under the Shah) can only have military intentions and can only be designed to produced a "nuclear Holocaust" to destroy the Jews.
Just as presumably they're entitled to deploy vast resources to pressure the U.S. government to bomb Iran for them. (But no worry about the impact on U.S. foreign policy. "There is no pressure," says Joe, "from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed." What he really means is: There's actually a whole shitload of pressure from Israel on us to bomb Iran. But we might not do that. Because Obama thinks that the Israeli-demanded attack on Iran, like the assault on Iraq, might be a "strategic blunder.")
One could argue, of course, that in positing Netanyahu's "sovereign right" to bomb Iran, a nation which has not attacked another in modern times, Biden is just shooting off his famous mouth again. But there are at least two reasons his comments should be taken very seriously.
First of all, there is obviously much conflict within the U.S. power structure over the wisdom of a U.S. attack on Iran. The Israel Lobby demanding one may have suffered a defeat at the hands of the Pentagon, which sees such an attack as complicating the imbroglios it faces in Iraq and Afghanistan (and down the road in Pakistan?), and the intelligence community which knows that Iran does not possess a nuclear weapons program threatening the world.
Secondly, the state of Israel continues to depict the Islamic Republic of Iran as an "existential" threat to itself, while threatening to attack it with missiles if the U.S. does not do so.. The Bush administration always endorsed Israel's vilification campaign and conceded the possibility that it might act "on its own" (as though it could really do so without a green light from Washington). Dick Cheney told Don Imus on MSNBC in January 2005 that "Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel [sic (disinformation)], the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards." He implied that if the U.S. didn't take action, the Israelis would be justified in doing so.
This remains the U.S. position under the Obama administration. And having decided for geopolitical reasons to adopt a tougher line on Israel's illegal settlements on the West Bank, Washington is perhaps particularly disinclined to deter Israel should it opt to create the mess of which Cheney spoke. "That was not our choice," it will say.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
July 17-19, 2009
W hen the Honduran military overthrew the democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya two weeks ago there might have been a sigh of relief in the corporate board rooms of Chiquita banana. Earlier this year the Cincinnati-based fruit company joined Dole in criticizing the government in Tegucigalpa which had raised the minimum wage by 60%. Chiquita complained that the new regulations would cut into company profits, requiring the firm to spend more on costs than in Costa Rica: 20 cents more to produce a crate of pineapple and ten cents more to produce a crate of bananas to be exact. In all, Chiquita fretted that it would lose millions under Zelaya's labor reforms since the company produced around 8 million crates of pineapple and 22 million crates of bananas per year.
When the minimum wage decree came down Chiquita sought help and appealed to the Honduran National Business Council, known by its Spanish acronym COHEP. Like Chiquita, COHEP was unhappy about Zelaya's minimum wage measure. AmÃlcar Bulnes, the group's president, argued that if the government went forward with the minimum wage increase employers would be forced to let workers go, thus increasing unemployment in the country. The most important business organization in Honduras, COHEP groups 60 trade associations and chambers of commerce representing every sector of the Honduran economy. According to its own Web site, COHEP is the political and technical arm of the Honduran private sector, supports trade agreements and provides "critical support for the democratic system."
The international community should not impose economic sanctions against the coup regime in Tegucigalpa, COHEP argues, because this would worsen Honduras' social problems. In its new role as the mouthpiece for Honduras' poor, COHEP declares that Honduras has already suffered from earthquakes, torrential rains and the global financial crisis. Before punishing the coup regime with punitive measures, COHEP argues, the United Nations and the Organization of American States should send observer teams to Honduras to investigate how sanctions might affect 70% of Hondurans who live in poverty. Bulnes meanwhile has voiced his support for the coup regime of Roberto Micheletti and argues that the political conditions in Honduras are not propitious for Zelaya's return from exile.
Chiquita: From Arbenz to Bananagate
It's not surprising that Chiquita would seek out and ally itself to socially and politically backward forces in Honduras. Colsiba, the coordinating body of banana plantation workers in Latin America, says the fruit company has failed to supply its workers with necessary protective gear and has dragged its feet when it comes to signing collective labor agreements in Nicaragua, Guatemala and Honduras.
Colsiba compares the infernal labor conditions on Chiquita plantations to concentration camps. It's an inflammatory comparison yet may contain a degree of truth. Women working on Chiquita's plantations in Central America work from 6:30 a.m. until 7 at night, their hands burning up inside rubber gloves. Some workers are as young as 14. Central American banana workers have sought damages against Chiquita for exposing them in the field to DBCP, a dangerous pesticide which causes sterility, cancer and birth defects in children.
Chiquita, formerly known as United Fruit Company and United Brands, has had a long and sordid political history in Central America. Led by Sam "The Banana Man" Zemurray, United Fruit got into the banana business at the turn of the twentieth century. Zemurray once remarked famously, "In Honduras, a mule costs more than a member of parliament." By the 1920s United Fruit controlled 650,000 acres of the best land in Honduras, almost one quarter of all the arable land in the country. What's more, the company controlled important roads and railways.
In Honduras the fruit companies spread their influence into every area of life including politics and the military. For such tactics they acquired the name los pulpos (the octopuses, from the way they spread their tentacles). Those who did not play ball with the corporations were frequently found face down on the plantations. In 1904 humorist O. Henry coined the term "Banana Republic" to refer to the notorious United Fruit Company and its actions in Honduras.
In Guatemala, United Fruit supported the CIA-backed 1954 military coup against President Jacobo Arbenz, a reformer who had carried out a land reform package. Arbenz' overthrow led to more than thirty years of unrest and civil war in Guatemala. Later in 1961, United Fruit lent its ships to CIA-backed Cuban exiles who sought to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs.
In 1972, United Fruit (now renamed United Brands) propelled Honduran General Oswaldo López Arellano to power. The dictator was forced to step down later however after the infamous "Bananagate" scandal which involved United Brands bribes to Arellano. A federal grand jury accused United Brands of bribing Arellano with $1.25 million, with the carrot of another $1.25 million later if the military man agreed to reduce fruit export taxes. During Bananagate, United Brands' President fell from a New York City skyscraper in an apparent suicide.
Go-Go Clinton Years and Colombia
In Colombia United Fruit also set up shop and during its operations in the South American country developed a no less checkered profile. In 1928, 3,000 workers went on strike against the company to demand better pay and working conditions. At first the company refused to negotiate but later gave in on some minor points, declaring the other demands "illegal" or "impossible." When the strikers refused to disperse the military fired on the banana workers, killing scores.
You might think that Chiquita would have reconsidered its labor policies after that but in the late 1990s the company began to ally itself with insidious forces, specifically right wing paramilitaries. Chiquita paid off the men to the tune of more than a million dollars. In its own defense, the company declared that it was merely paying protection money to the paramilitaries.
In 2007, Chiquita paid $25 million to settle a Justice Department investigation into the payments.. Chiquita was the first company in U.S. history to be convicted of financial dealings with a designated terrorist organization.
In a lawsuit launched against Chiquita victims of the paramilitary violence claimed the firm abetted atrocities including terrorism, war crimes and crimes against humanity. A lawyer for the plaintiffs said that Chiquita's relationship with the paramilitaries "was about acquiring every aspect of banana distribution and sale through a reign of terror."
Back in Washington, D.C. Charles Lindner, Chiquita's CEO, was busy courting the White House. Lindner had been a big donor to the GOP but switched sides and began to lavish cash on the Democrats and Bill Clinton. Clinton repaid Linder by becoming a key military backer of the government of Andrés Pastrana which presided over the proliferation of right wing death squads. At the time the U.S. was pursuing its corporately-friendly free trade agenda in Latin America, a strategy carried out by Clinton's old boyhood friend Thomas "Mack" McLarty. At the White House, McLarty served as Chief of Staff and Special Envoy to Latin America. He's an intriguing figure who I'll come back to in a moment.
The Holder-Chiquita Connection
Given Chiquita's underhanded record in Central America and Colombia it's not a surprise that the company later sought to ally itself with COHEP in Honduras. In addition to lobbying business associations in Honduras however Chiquita also cultivated relationships with high powered law firms in Washington. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Chiquita has paid out $70,000 in lobbying fees to Covington and Burling over the past three years.
Covington is a powerful law firm which advises multinational corporations. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, a co-chair of the Obama campaign and former Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton was up until recently a partner at the firm. At Covington, Holder defended Chiquita as lead counsel in its case with the Justice Department. From his perch at the elegant new Covington headquarters located near the New York Times building in Manhattan, Holder prepped Fernando Aguirre, Chiquita's CEO, for an interview with 60 Minutes dealing with Colombian death squads.
Holder had the fruit company plead guilty to one count of "engaging in transactions with a specially designated global terrorist organization." But the lawyer, who was taking in a hefty salary at Covington to the tune of more than $2 million, brokered a sweetheart deal in which Chiquita only paid a $25 million fine over five years. Outrageously however, not one of the six company officials who approved the payments received any jail time.
The Curious Case of Covington
Look a little deeper and you'll find that not only does Covington represent Chiquita but also serves as a kind of nexus for the political right intent on pushing a hawkish foreign policy in Latin America. Covington has pursued an important strategic alliance with Kissinger (of Chile, 1973 fame) and McLarty Associates (yes, the same Mack McLarty from Clinton-time), a well known international consulting and strategic advisory firm.
From 1974 to 1981 John Bolton served as an associate at Covington. As U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under George Bush, Bolton was a fierce critic of leftists in Latin America such as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. Furthermore, just recently John Negroponte became Covington's Vice Chairman. Negroponte is a former Deputy Secretary of State, Director of National Intelligence and U.S. Representative to the United Nations.
As U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985, Negroponte played a significant role in assisting the U.S.-backed Contra rebels intent on overthrowing the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. Human rights groups have criticized Negroponte for ignoring human rights abuses committed by Honduran death squads which were funded and partially trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when Negroponte served as ambassador his building in Tegucigalpa became one of the largest nerve centers of the CIA in Latin America with a tenfold increase in personnel.
While there's no evidence linking Chiquita to the recent coup in Honduras, there's enough of a confluence of suspicious characters and political heavyweights here to warrant further investigation. From COHEP to Covington to Holder to Negroponte to McLarty, Chiquita has sought out friends in high places, friends who had no love for the progressive labor policies of the Zelaya regime in Tegucigalpa.
Nikolas Kozloff is the author of Revolution! South America and the Rise of the New Left (Palgrave-Macmillan, 2008) Follow his blog at senorchichero.blogspot.com
By Manuel E. Yepe A CubaNews translation by Mercedes Rosa Diaz. Edited by Walter Lippmann. The events unleashed by the coup ousting Honduran president José Manuel Zelaya have yet to produce a clear outcome; nevertheless, the event is teaching the people of Latin America some important lessons about how old issues will be handled in these new times. Latin Americans and residents of the Caribbean listened in horror that last Sunday in June as they received news that signaled the real possibility of a return to a past of oppression and repression that they had intended to bury. Their fear drew on the memories of those unfortunate times during which the armies of the continent were merely the custodians of the imperialist interests of the United States, watching as local governments played the game of "representative democracy," and adjusting their political stances to conform with the norms and limitations imposed by the local oligarchies. If one of them surpassed his limits or broke the rules, the fig leaf would be ripped away and the military would rise to power. Throughout the 20th century, the bloody (more or less) coup was the remedy of choice for toppling national governments which tried to get out from under the subordination of the oligarchies. It also helped bring to power some of the most repudiated dictators, who soiled the histories of practically every country in Latin America and the Caribbean. A common characteristic of all the coups on the continent is that they had been ordered, organized and/or authorized by Washington. What is novel about the coup in Honduras is that it has taken place during a period of new correlations of political forces in Latin America and the Caribbean that have been developing over the past half-century. In addition is the fact that there is a president in the White House with singular characteristics, who is embroiled in covert and overt activities with all camps. Some political analysts are already describing Honduras as a dress rehearsal for a new type of coup, one designed to respond to the new forms of struggle in the region, where leftist leaders who are freely elected defy the status quo and resist complying with those limits allowed by their democracies. Just as the coup in Honduras itself caused consternation, the Honduran peoples' support for president Zelaya, and the massive resistance against the coup, with its integrated social organizations grounded in an enormous grass-roots campaign, has surprised many specialists. From the first moment, in Honduras, the region and the world, speculation swirled about what attitude the government of the United States would assume, considering that it was the principal suspect of having instigated the coup in the first place, given its past history of sponsoring criminal military coups on the continent. Only this time, the hopes sown by brand-new president Barack Obama, who campaigned on a policy of change very different from his unfortunate predecessor, promised the possibility of a different proclamation from the United States. But as events have unfolded, contradictions have arisen regarding the actions of the U.S. government that lead more than a few scholars of international relations to believe that the intentions of the coup did not exclude neoconservative objectives hostile to Obama.. Those who maintained—in fairness to the presumption of innocence—that negotiations had to take place with coup leaders, seemed content that this time the United States did not force regional consensus or coerce its closest allies to distance themselves from the will of the majority, as was its usual custom. This attitude is what has allowed regional unity to flourish in the first place. But before long, Washington's act hinted at discordant manipulation that would leave its president in a sad place indeed. Obama's discourse seemed definitive when he announced that the coup was illegal and that democratically-elected José Manuel Zelaya would remain the only president. He also acknowledged that "it would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections." Nevertheless, two weeks after that announcement, and even more forceful ones supporting the return of Zelaya to the presidency, the United States still has not even withdrawn its ambassador to Honduras, as all the other countries in the continent have done. Although the de facto government has made it clear that it only counts on the support and acknowledgement of Israel and Taiwan, it is clear that the military base in Palmerola, infamous for its role in the "dirty war" against Nicaragua during the first Sandinista government, and where there are hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, is the command center for the coup. Along with the hundreds of military advisers who occupy official positions, Washington controls the situation in Honduras.
Fidel Castro, the most accredited revolutionary leader on the continent, has prophesied that if president Zelaya is not returned to his office, a wave of coups will be unleashed to sweep away many governments in Latin America. This would weaken the authority of many civil governments in Central and South America, and coup leaders would disregard the civil government of the United States.
If this were to happen, the unrestrained revolution that simmers in the bowels of the continent would not be able to be contained. Given the subjective and concrete conditions that shaped the region's development, the option for peaceful change would go up in smoke. There would be no alternative but to follow the path of insurrection and armed conflict, like the one that liberated Cuba 50 years ago. Only this time, it would be on the scale of many unified, experienced countries that won't relinquish the modest democratic gains of the recent past, and who refuse to return to the violence of tyrannical regimes and new operations like "Condor."
The "Constitutional" coup has already started murdering opponents. Please google Roger Bados, the Trade Union leader murdered a few days ago. This is a must read article. Thanks to Lydia Howell for this submission. The sad part of all this is that Zelaya has been trying to do what "democrats" say can be done to help the poor through the system.
By Bill Van Auken 15 July 2009 Ever since the military abducted President Manuel Zelaya at gunpoint on June 28 and expelled him from the country, the Obama administration has cast itself as a steadfast defender of "democracy" in Honduras. The real nature of that defense has become somewhat clearer with the news that key former aides to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have surfaced as top advisers to the illegal regime led by Roberto Micheletti, which was installed by the coup. Ginger Thompson of the New York Times reported from San Jose, Costa Rica Sunday that in organizing the first sessions of a US-brokered mediation exercise between the ousted President Zelaya and the leader of those who overthrew him, Micheletti, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias instructed both men to appear at his residence with just four advisers. "On Thursday morning, Mr. Micheletti showed up with six, adding an American public relations specialist who has done work for former President Bill Clinton and the American's interpreter, and an official close to the talks said the team rarely made a move without consulting him," Thompson reported. The PR man was identified as Bennett Ratcliff of San Diego. Thompson quoted an official close to the talks as saying that "Every proposal that Micheletti's group presented was written or approved by the American [Ratcliff]." Perhaps even more significantly, Lanny Davis has emerged as among Washington's most prominent defenders and spokesmen for the Honduran coup regime, acting as a lobbyist for the Honduran branch of the extreme right-wing Latin American Business Council. Davis has been closely tied to the Clintons since he attended Yale Law School together with them in 1970. Between 1996 and 1998, he served as President Clinton's special counsel. And in the 2008 presidential campaign, he served as one of Hillary Clinton's most prominent fundraisers and surrogates in attacking her principal rival, Barack Obama. It is inconceivable that such figures would be playing such a prominent role in advising and defending the coup regime in Honduras without receiving a green light from both Secretary of State Clinton and the Obama White House. Davis put in an appearance at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee last Friday, defending the coup and insisting that "democracy and civil liberties are flourishing in Honduras." This is an outrageous lie. Davis's testimony came less than a week after Honduran troops opened fire on peaceful protesters at the Tegucigalpa airport, killing 19-year-old Isis Obed Murillo. As he spoke, a curfew enforced by the military remained in effect. Hundreds remain jailed, and the regime itself admitted Monday that since the coup it had subjected 1,286 people to arbitrary arrest. Sections of the media that have opposed the coup were shut down or expelled from the country. The day after Davis appeared, Telesur and Venezuelan TV (VTV) journalists were arrested by hooded police and deported. In an indication that repression is intensifying rather than lessening, two prominent opposition leaders were shot and killed on Saturday, the night after Davis delivered his lying testimony to Congress. Roger Bados, a leader of the National Resistance Front and president of a cement workers union, was gunned down in the northern industrial city of San Pedro Sula. On the same day, Ramon Garcia was taken off a bus in the Callejones sector of the western province of Santa Barbara and executed. He had been a prominent figure in anti-coup demonstrations in the area. In his appearance before the House panel, Davis acknowledged that, given "the wisdom of hindsight," things "could have been done differently that night the army whisked him [Zelaya] out of the country." But he urged the committee to "look forward and not argue about past history," referring to the violent overturning of a government less than two weeks earlier. He praised his long-time political associate, Hillary Clinton, for engineering the mediation by Oscar Arias, while giving a strong indication of its real purpose. He stressed that this process "will take time and doesn't involve parachuting Mr. Zelaya immediately back into Honduras." Davis placed emphasis on the importance of "bipartisanship" and "civility" in discussing the coup. His own remarks were largely in bipartisan unity with those of another panelist, Otto Reich, George W. Bush's former assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere affairs. Reich is an anti-Castro Cuban émigré and extreme right-wing ideologue, who got his start in government as a key participant in the operation to support and fund the contra death squads attacking Nicaragua. He acted as the government protector of Cuban anticommunist terrorists Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch and, in 2002, played a prominent role in supporting the abortive coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. That one of the most prominent associates of Hillary Clinton finds himself in the same camp with such a figure is a far more accurate measure of the Obama administration' s real attitude to the Honduran coup than all of the platitudes about restoring democracy. Costa Rican President Arias, meanwhile, announced Tuesday that he would resume his mediation on Saturday, calling for Zelaya and Micheletti to return to San Jose. It is widely acknowledged in Honduras by both sides that this process, proposed by Washington, is serving to legitimize the coup regime and essentially run out the clock on what remains of Zelaya's presidency. Presidential elections are set for the end of November. The State Department is maintaining the fiction that Arias is acting independently. Department spokesman Ian Kelly told a press conference Monday, "It's not a process that is being led by the United States of America." The response of the reporters was general laughter. As in earlier statements by Clinton and other spokesman, Kelly reiterated the US "support for the restoration of democratic order in Honduras," without either condemning the coup or calling for the restoration of Zelaya.. Zelaya himself issued an "ultimatum" to the coup regime from neighboring Nicaragua on Monday, declaring that if the upcoming session does not result in his restoration to the presidency, "the mediation will be considered failed and we will proceed with other measures." He did not spell out any such measures, however, aside from talking about facing the regime's "bayonets" and inviting it to shoot him. Such dramatic rhetoric cannot conceal the fact that Zelaya, like Micheletti, is in the end appealing primarily to Washington to come to his aid. Zelaya, a product of the Honduran oligarchy, has no intention of overturning the class system and political establishment in Honduras. A number of critics of the coup have pointed to the appointment of Fernando Joya Améndola as a government minister as an indication of the reactionary character of the regime. No doubt it is. Better known as Billy Joya, he is a former captain in the Honduran army who is credited with the creation of a unit known as Battalion 316 in the 1980s, which provided aid to the CIA-backed contras and carried out death squad killings and torture against student activists, trade unionists and leftists in Honduras itself. He himself has been charged in numerous abductions, disappearances and killings. The only problem, however, is that he served Zelaya as well, brought into his government as a senior adviser to the secretary of security over the protests of relatives of those he killed. In the final analysis, no section of this ruling elite has any real independence from imperialism. This is also the standpoint of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who last week put in a call to the US State Department and publicly urged Obama to "do something" about Honduras. Chavez referred to the Honduran coup as Obama's "moment of truth," urging him, "Demonstrate that you are ready to confront the hawks." Nothing could more clearly express the bankruptcy of left bourgeois nationalism in Latin America. Obama is not going to confront any "hawks." The evolution of US policy in the wake of the coup has demonstrated, once again, that the military and intelligence agencies in the US are asserting their power even more directly than under the Bush administration, using Obama as their front man. This is undoubtedly the case in Honduras, where the overthrow of an elected president is inconceivable without prior approval from Washington and the US military, which continues to occupy the country. http://www.wsws.org/tools/index.php?page=print&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsws.org%2Farticles%2F2009%2Fjul2009%2Fhond-j15.shtml
The Author
- Eva Golinger
- Venezuela
- Eva Golinger, named "La Novia de Venezuela" (the Bride of Venezuela) by President Hugo Chávez, is a Venezuelan-American attorney from New York and author of the best-selling books, "The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela" (2006 Olive Branch Press) and "Bush vs. Chávez: Washington's War on Venezuela" (2007, Monthly Review Press). Her two latest books, "The Empire's Web: Encyclopedia of Interventionism and Subversion" and "La Mirada del Imperio sobre el 4F: Los Documentos Desclasificados de Washington sobre la rebelión militar del 4 de febrero de 1992" were released in Venezuela in early 2009. Since 2003, Eva, a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and CUNY Law School in New York, has been investigating, analyzing and writing about US intervention in Venezuela using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about the US Government's efforts to destabilize progressive movements in Latin America. Her first book, The Chávez Code, has been translated and published in five languages (English, Spanish, French, German and Italian) and is presently being made into a feature film.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
http://www.chavezcode.com/2009/07/mediator-arias-calls-for-amnesty-for.html
Many of the revolution's promises remain unfulfilled view
Tragedy Magnified - Media Silence on Marwa's Totschlag
The Words Of God Do Not Justify
Cruelty To Women
By Jimmy Carter
19, July 2009
The Observer
"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status ..." (Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
I have been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world.
So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when th e convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service. This was in conflict with my belief - confirmed in the holy scriptures - that we are all equal in the eyes of God.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. It is widespread. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries. The male interpretations of religious texts and the way they interact with, and reinforce, traditional practices justify some of the most pervasive, persistent, flagrant and damaging examples of human rights abuses.
At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities. The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met. In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family. It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices - as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom. I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive area to challenge.
But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy - and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.. The Elders have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights. We have recently published a statement that declares: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable." We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share. Although not having training in religion or theology, I understand that the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths. Similar Biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers. At the same time, I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn't until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted holy scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy. I know, too, that Billy Graham, one of the most widely respected and revered Christians during my lifetime, did not understand why women were prevented from being priests and preachers. He said: "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me from my study of the scriptures." The truth is that male religious leaders have had - and still have - an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions - all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views. Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.
http://www.countercurrents.org/carter190709.htm
-- "They have succeeded in dominating us more through ignorance, than through force". Simon Bolivar Thanks for your support and commitment, !VENCEREMOS! Enrique
1 comment:
They singled it out because Steve was saying how awesome it was, and how it would never break, this proves him wrong, thats why.
Dual control courtesy cars
Post a Comment