Passports to progress (Daniel Barenboim)

Full Text

At the same time, the citizens of Israel have just as much cause to be alert to the needs and rights of the Palestinian people (both within and outside Israel) as they have to their own. After all, in the sense that we share one land and one destiny, we should all have dual citizenship.

It seems amazing to me, naive foreigner perhaps, that an Israeli should choose to accept Palestininan citizenship. It's exciting to me. It's wonderful. That said, I think I have to agree with Sam Bahour in his intro to Barenboim's text: how can Israel ever be democratic as a 'jewish' state? How can a 'jewish' state 'integrate' a palestinian (ie. non-jewish) minority? How can any state which is defined along religious lines ever be democratic? I sincerely Barenboim hope is not giving in to the easy retoric of 'jewish' as a nationality and not as a religion. That will only be true when anyone can, even theoretically, become jewish, regardless of who their mother is, and without having to go through conversion, just as anyone can, in theory, become american, british or french. Never, basically.

Semantics

VOA

A senior U.S. diplomat says "ethnic cleansing" is underway in Kenya's Rift Valley in the aftermath of last month's disputed presidential election, but she says the violence does not rise to the level of genocide.

What exactly is the difference between 'ethnic cleansing' and 'genocide'? And, if there is a difference, what is the purpose of a 'senior U.S. diplomat' pointing out the difference in this particular case? Will it determine the appropriate response from the U.S.?
One is entitled to demand, that the origins of the violence be properly addressed, as well as the responsibilities of the democratically elected (?) government of Kenya, those of the political opposition and of the international community. But what am I complaining about?! As we can see above, serious talks are taking place while, to quote a phrase, the people suffer.

Suharto dies: we should cry?

DemocracyNow!
DemocracyNow! 12/11/1997
Allan Nairn


It turns out the uplifting feeling I experienced when the anti-(Irak)war, fluent-chinese-speaking, environmentally-friendly Kevin Rudd was elected in Australia may have been quite naive.

What a pity President Carter wasn't as aware, in the late Seventies, of the 'situation' in East Timor as he is today of the 'situation' the Palestinians are in. Does that mean, I wonder, that a president today ought to have more information than three decades ago? In that case, there is hope. Or does it mean, that a president has less information than the rest of us? In that case, we're f***ed.

Image of the day

Recognition

Now and again (quite regularly) we hear about how Hamas and other Palestinian nationalist forces must recognise Israel before they can be recognised or before a Palestinian state can come into existence. Now, there is no Palestinian state. Israel exists. Israel's existence is hardly in danger given the power of it's military and that of it's major ally, the USA. Hamas recognition or lack thereof does not affect Israel's existence in any way. The existence of a Palestinian state, on the other hand, depends entirely on Israeli and US goodwill.
When it comes to recognition of a state, what of Israel's recognition of the Republic Of China? Of course, wether or not Israel recognises Taiwan is not really relevant, since the two countries have economic relations anyway. How about Tibet, then? Do the Tibetans not have a right to a homeland? Judging by China's fury whenever the Dalai Lama is met by world political leaders, it's safe to say recognition of Tibet by world governments would not count for nothing.

Follow-up on the Hormuz 'incident'

FAIR

After Iran released its own video recording of the event--which showed a more routine exchange between the U.S. and Iranian vessels--the Pentagon distanced itself from the claim that the Iranian boats had issued a verbal threat. Three days after its original report citing unnamed officials who implied the threat had been issued from the boats, the L.A. Times (1/11/08) "clarified" that a key part of the official version of events was inaccurate: "Clarifying earlier accounts, officials said Thursday that they did not know whether a radio call in which a voice threatened to 'explode' the U.S. ships came from the small boats or whether it came from another source." Retreating from the account that definitely attributed the transmission to the speedboats, the officials now said only that "the radio threat was received at the same time as the encounter with the Iranian boats."

Congressman Kucinich finally in the debate

Dennis Kucinich was disinvited by MSNBC from the Democratic presidential debate yesterday. A judge ruled, that the debate could not go ahead without him, but the ruling was overturned by an appeal.
Democracy Now! invited Kucinich today, to answer the questions posed in the Las Vegas debate.

A Gruyère state for Palestinians?

Democracy Now

Bush called for an end to the Israeli occupation and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. But he did not back down from his endorsement of Israel’s intent to retain large Jewish-only settlement blocs that Palestinians say will make peace impossible. Bush called on Israel to dismantle unauthorized settlement outposts scattered across the West Bank. But he did not criticize Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s declaration that Israel’s pledge to freeze settlement expansion only applies to those settlements that Israel doesn’t intend on keeping. Israel agreed to freeze settlement activity under the U.S.-backed road map but has continued to build in East Jerusalem and its large West Bank settlements. For the first time President Bush called for a compensation fund for Palestinian refugees who lost their homes in 1948. He did not offer details. The value of lost Palestinian land is estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars. President Bush’s visit to the West Bank came after a day of talks in Israel. The Independent of London reports Bush’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert “had the flavor of a love-in on a grand scale which transcended mere diplomacy.” In Gaza, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri dismissed Bush’s visit.

Bush Peace Hallucinations Continue

Blogus,bloga,blogum

Both Bush and Olmert did send one united message to the world. The
two-state solution was still the aim of the negotiations. Reading between the
lines, we can infer that the specter of a single state, from the Mediterranean
to the Jordan River, is the most frightening vision of all. The terrifying
notion of Palestinians (Muslims and Christians) and Israelis (Jews, Muslims, and
Christians) living side by side with equal national and civil rights, has never
been so apparent since the struggle in South Africa to end racist white
supremacy under Apartheid. To ensure that a one-state solution does not
materialize in historic Palestine, the U.S. and Israel talk about a two-state
solution, but meantime, the U.S. bankrolls Israel as it continues to create
facts on the ground that make any viable Palestinian state
impossible.

Skirmish and Presidential tour

According to the Pentagon there has been a skirmish between Iranian and US forces in the Strait of Hormuz.
Apparently behind the harassment of US warships by Iranian Revolutionary Guards lies Iran's imperial ambitions. While, according to US leadership, the Iranian provocation is dangerous, the leadership in Teheran has downplayed the confrontation, calling it a case of routine identification. While this confrontation was taking place, President George W Bush was preparing for a tour of the Middle East starting in Israel. Following the reappraisal of the so-called Iranian nuclear threat by the National Intelligence Estimate, it is belived, that Bush will be seeking to shore up support ahead of a possible invasion of Iran.

Thoughts for Kenya

Watching and hearing about the recent violence in Kenya, I felt at first, and as usual, frustrated and helpless. Oh sure, the 'western' powers have voiced their concern with regards to electoral irregularities and of course the violence which ensued. As we must all have realised by now, if the 'democratic West' says there were irregularities, then the reality must be much worse than the picture painted in our official media. But what exactly is the 'democratic West' intending to do about it? We've seen their reaction to the massacre of the burmese people. We've seen how much russian democracy matters to them. We've seen how the people of Darfur are still waiting for the 'West' to deliver them from their tyrants and bring 'democracy' to their country. So, what exactly should we expect our leaders to do for the Kenyans? However, I feel the need to react to the image of an ethnic war painted by the media. I have no doubt, that the kenyan media are also responsible. That Kenya is an artificial country created by colonialism is clear. That it is a country with various ethnic groups, of which the main two are the Kikuyu and the Luo, is also a reality. That said, politically it is one country, as is the United States of America. In the US, there are many ethnic groups, and these groups are also special interest groups, some more powerful than others: Latinos, Blacks, Jews, Cubans, WASPS...The leadership, however, is, for better or for worse, the american leadership. It goes without saying, that that leadership is dominated by white males and predominantly protestants. However, when George W Bush was elected in dubious circumstances, it wasn't a case of the white anglo-saxon protestant community oppressing other communities. If oppression of certain communities exists, and it certainly does, it is not done so by the dominant community but by the power in place. If whites in the US are generally treated better by the power, that does not mean, that whites are all out to downtread members of other groups. In fact, I would say, that on different levels, it is all the american people (and citizens of the world!) who are oppressed by the power. Through poverty, repressive laws, propaganda lies and more, the leadership keeps the population under control. It seems, to me, admittedly an outsider (just as much to the US as to Kenya), that in Kenya it is also the power in place which is oppressing the people of Kenya. If it is true, and it is, that the kenyan leadership is dominated by Kikuyus, that should not be understood to mean, that Kikuyus all have their boots on the heads or chests of Luos, Masais, Samburus or others (for yes, if we were to believe our media, only the Kikuyus and Luos count in this dispute). The question of independence for ethnic groups in countries such as Kenya or in the case of the Kurds of Irak is of course a complicated one. It is far from being a black&white one. Should countries break up or should unity be maintained? I believe the very least is to give real autonomy to ethnic groups, where they are effectively living apart from other groups and where their culture and way of life is endangered by more dominant groups. However, if the people of a given country, despite their ethnic affiliations, claim to be nationals of the country, then they should treat the leadership as a national leadership, and it's oppressive power to be directed at all citizens. If Kibaki and his accolytes are holding on to power through electoral fraud, they are not doing so on behalf of Kikuyus, just as Bush's interests are not that whites should dominate american life.
These are my thoughts of the moment, and nothing more. As usual open to discussion.

Now that the dust has settled: Benazir Bhutto

Robert Fisk

So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.

Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.

Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.

Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?

Er. Yes. Well quite.

You see the problem? Yesterday, our television warriors informed us the PPP members shouting that Musharraf was a "murderer" were complaining he had not provided sufficient security for Benazir. Wrong. They were shouting this because they believe he killed her.

You want some breaking news?!

DemocracyNow!

BBC

But an old friend of Ms Bhutto, Salman Tassir, told the BBC World Service he did not think criticism should be directed at the government.
"There have been suicide attacks on Gen Musharraf also," he told Newshour.
"I mean it is extremism and the fanatics who are to blame."

Ha'aretz

What makes the security failure all the more startling is the fact that it comes just weeks after the first assassination attempt following Bhutto's return to Pakistan from a lengthy political exile.

This being 'breaking news', this is just my on-the-spot knee-jerk reaction. I have to wonder, if the extremists opposed to democracy are to blame, and, that their enemies are just as much Musharraf as Bhutto or Sharif, why is the ex-General, or 'our man in Islamabad', still among us?

On a sadder note, I wonder aloud : will this be a moment of history as was the Kennedy brothers' assasinations, or just a footnote? Sure, she was but another 'democratic leader', whom the West would no doubt have found a creative way to cuddle up to. However, like my ten-year-old future mother in 1963, today I feel like crying. Not only for Benazir but for the scores of 'innocents' who died along with her.

The fantasy of endless consumption

Link

In an earlier day and age, the middle class' craving for consumption was satisfied by foreign trips, and by dowry. No more. No more do you have to wait for a rich uncle to return from London or Dubai with flashy goggles, a Walkman, and a bottle of Johnny Walker. No more is extortion through marriage the only way to acquire a Bajaj scooter of dubious fuel-efficiency. Not that these avenues, benign as well as benighted, are no longer in use. Just that these are no longer the only ones available. Your bank calls you on Diwali-eve to give you a pre-approved loan of half a million rupees. What for, you ask. The call centre employee at the other end is incredulous: "You mean don't want to buy anything?"

Debt servicing becomes a critical part of the monthly budget. Some cope, some don't. Those who do, trapeze from one high-paying job to the next higher-paying job. Consumption has to be kept up. The only way to do so is to ensure that you don't hang around in the same company too long. This is of course the very opposite of what our fathers and uncles believed in. In those Five Year Plan days, you joined a company and grew with it. Today, though, if you want to keep up with servicing your debt, fidelity to job is anathema.

Good news : Cops don't google!

Guardian

She turned to the internet after becoming suspicious about the story, which has gripped the world's attention, and she admitted her scepticism had paid dividends.

She told the Mirror that the Darwins should be nominated for a "World's Dumbest award".

A sort of non-lethal Darwin Award, maybe. I know, very easy!

Try it yourself!

Surprise surprise

US intelligence tells us Iran stopped it's nuclear weapons programme four years ago.

What's new?

No peers for Darfur

BBC

Jean-Marie Guehenno told the United Nations Security Council that excessive demands from Khartoum "would make it impossible for the mission to operate".

BBC

Two British Muslim members of the House of Lords have arrived in Sudan to push for the release of a British teacher imprisoned for insulting religion.

Zionism and the Land of Israel

Map of Eretz Israel in 1695 Amsterdam Haggada

Shaul Goldstein, Mayor of Gush Etzion:

"We belong to this place. We belong to Jerusalem, we belong to Bethlehem, we belong to..euh..Hebron. This is our heritage. This is our history. Without it, we are not a nation. After sixty years of the Holocaust (sic!), the world must recognise our right to have our jewish state and to help us to make it."

BBC Reporter: "All the way from the Mediterranean to the the River Jordan?"

SG: "From the Mediterranean to the the River Jordan. Israel cannot defend its self with the borders which is the '67 borders. Now we're asking Olmert 'what do you want to acheive? Don't tell me what you want to give! Tell me what you're goin to get!' It's zero.
We don't believe that anyone want's peace with us. The Arabs..want to occupy Israel."

And this is basically what he means:

We don't want anyone to want peace with us (that way we can hold on to Eretz Israel).

And this maybe an 'extremist' settler talking, but let us remember, that settlers are not generally the most religious. They are proof of the idea, that religious imagery is in actual fact an expression of nationalistic fervour. In Israel 'proper' there are religious zealots who claim divine right of Eretz Israel for the jews, and there are secular politicians who in effect do the same. Ariel Sharon was not an exception. All PMs have allowed settlements to expand although this has always been in violation of international law.
As we can see in the links above, noteably the Mafdal link, the idea of Eretz Israel in mainstream zionism is a confusion of secular and religious. Ben Gurion was a socialist, and Herzl was an assimilated (non-religious) austrian Jew. Yet, the idea of Eretz Israel is based on the promise made by 'god' to the jewish people.
In fact, certain ultra-orthodox jewish movements take that promise to have meant, that 'god' would lead the jews to their land, at the time of the coming of the messiah, and only then.

And then there are those who believe in this!:



Since this is an issue full of paradox, I am open to any comments/corrections!

Back to Court

Return to court

Posted (in french) on November 23rd by Caillou

This time around many more people turned up. If every time this tribunal expresses the law there are this many witnesses, it will no longer be able to do it's dirty work in secret. The room is full.

Men and women of Toulouse, unemployed, mothers, pensioners, people from Ariège, all here to support the young minor-adults. The latter are young people who, having entered the country have been integrated into foster families, are studying, even learning a trade...They have no or little family in their home countries. They cannot be sent back while minors, but as a birthday present, upon coming of age, they get a notification of deportation. The prefectures (translator's note: sub-regional jurisdiction) leave nothing out! And the departmental quota (translator's note: sub-regional quota set by the government) must be reached!

Then there's the young north african lady, shivering alone on a bench in the hall outside the courtroom. Married to a frenchman she came to our beloved country and recieved a resident's card, but after divorcing and moving, upon advising the Lot prefecture of her change of situation and address, a zealous employee nicked her card and so she became, on the spot "sans papier" and subject to expulsion.

There's also the young congolese man, who came to France with his mother and brother for the funeral of his father, who died "brutally" in a police station of the 18th arrondissement of Paris. His lawyer shows a letter from the interior minister of the time (our present president) authorising him to reside in the country "for the duration of the inquest". The family lodged a complaint, but one can imagine how long it takes for an inquest against the french police to proceed...So now, the prefect of Haute-Garonne is asking for the expulsion of the son.

Many more await their turn. It's the "justice" square before or during the detention center, a kind of washing machine of which the role is not so much to judge the content but rather the legal form of expulsion, armed with a law, more and more repressive and discriminatory. That morning, there were many slices of life and suffering, kneaded by this soulless machine, which obeys to the sole criteria that is the "legal" expulsion of 25 000 men, women and children by the 31st of December.

I have re-read Erich Maria Remarque. Love one another (Liebe deinen nächsten). It's a book published in 1939 and which tells of the incredible journeys of german jews, stateless, "Heimatlose", fleeing through Europe the Nazis in power in Germany. But this novel tells us about what is going on, right now, in the french tribunals, in the french detention centers, on the french streets...in the country of the declaration of "human rights" which our our marvelous elites revel in.

Lesson in democracy from Zapatero and his boss

¿Por qué no te callas?
envoyé par joraupa

Explanation in spanish, french, english and portuguese