Indymedia Israel Newswire RSS Feed

Israeli West Bank Annexation Bill

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 08:02:58 +0000

Israeli West Bank Annexation Bill - by Stephen Lendman

Palestinians petitioned the UN for sovereign recognition and full UN membership.

Four extremist MKs responded, calling for West Bank settlements annexed. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/09/calls-to-annex-west-bank-settlements.html

MK Deputy Speaker Danny Danon wants more.

On September 27, the JTA Global News Service of the Jewish People headlined, "Knesset to vote on annexing the West Bank," saying:

On September 27, Danon said the Knesset will "take up the bill, which he authored, at the end of October."

It includes rescinding Israeli/PA financial obligations established by prior agreements. According to Danon:

"If the Palestinian Authority wishes to proceed on this reckless path and bring further instability to the region, Israel cannot continue to pour funds into this sinking ship of failed leadership."

"The funding agreements with the PA were reached with the hope that their leaders would work to create an environment of lasting peace and security with Israel. Given that it is clear that the Palestinians have no such desire, Israel must no longer be required to stand by these arrangements."

Palestinians, of course, want and deserve what Israel denied them for 63 years after stealing their homeland violently. Using long ago discredited arguments, Danon and others like him think Israel has a divine right to their land.

Growing millions globally disagree, including Israeli Jews and others everywhere able to distinguished between right and wrong.

Danon said his bill nullifies Oslo, stating:

"All obligations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority as established by international agreements....will be considered null and void."

Oslo, of course, was a Palestinian Versailles, benefitting Israel, not them. Sovereign recognition and full UN membership are first steps to reversing unilateral surrender.

Representative Joe Walsh (R. IL) is as hardline as Danon. On September 8, he introduced HR 394:

"Supporting Israel's right to annex Judea and Samaria (the West Bank and Jerusalem) in the event that the Palestinian Authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations."

He didn't address if that would make them Israeli citizens, subhuman serfs to be exploited, or illegal infiltrators on Israeli land, subject to arbitrary expulsion.

Nor did consider what right he, others in Washington, or outsiders anywhere have to meddle in internal Palestinian affairs. America, of course, long ago refined it to an art form, attested to by mass global deaths, destruction and human misery.

Walsh also introduced HR 2457: Palestinian Accountability Act:

"To restrict funds for the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes."

In other words, obey or we'll cut off your allowance. Coming with strings, it's less aid than bondage to do what we say or we'll spank you with more than harsh words.

On September 27, Turkish Prime Minister proposed a different solution than Walsh and hardline MKs. On September 27, Haaretz headlined, "Erdogan: UN sanctions on Israel could aid Mideast peace process," saying:

Sanctions "would have resolved the issue of Mideast peace long ago....adding that he felt the Quartet('s)" proposal fell far short of resolving the longstanding Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Through today, he said, "the UN Security Council has issued more than 89 resolutions on prospective sanctions related to Israel, but they've never been executed....One might" ask why?

"When it's Iran in question, you impose sanctions. Similarly with Sudan. What happens with Israel then."

If sanctioned, the "conflict would have been resolved long ago." As a result, he believes the Quartet has no interest in resolution. "Unfortunately, I do not even see (its) traces within the Quartet. Because if (it) was so willing to resolve this issue, (it) would have imposed certain issues on Israel today."

Of course, strained Turkey/Israeli relations place both countries on opposite sides of various issues, including Palestinian statehood.

Despite the Quartet's anti-Palestinian UN membership proposal, Haaretz headlined, "Israel's cabinet fails to reach consensus on Quartet plan for talks with Palestinians," saying:

Netanyahu "and the eight senior cabinet members were unable to (agree on) the Quartet's initiative for renewed talks between Israel and the Palestinians."

Despite Netanyahu's support, consensus so far isn't reached. Meanwhile, Security Council deliberations continue on and off behind closed doors.

Reports disagree on whether Palestinians have nine needed votes to force a US veto. Haaretz said UN sources say Washington has enough support to avoid a it.

EU representatives acted like Joe Walsh to a degree, telling PA officials they risk losing European aid by acting "unilaterally."

On September 28, Haaretz headlined, "Palestinian statehood bid to be reviewed by UN committee," saying:

On Wednesday, the Security Council "unanimously agreed to hand the Palestinian application to join the United Nations to a committee" for review.

Normally, it takes "a maximum of 35 days, but Western diplomats say that this limit can be waived and might take much longer...."

In other words, delay, obstruct, and consign Palestinian membership to memory hole oblivion. It's simple to get around it through the General Assembly, whether or not the Security Council provides support.

It recommends. The General Assembly alone admits new members provided Abbas goes that route properly.

A Final Comment

Palestinians have always been on their own since Britain's 1917 Balfour Declaration, promising a Jewish homeland in Palestine. It included a hollow one to indigenous Palestinians that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities."

During its Mandate period, they were systematically denied until losing them in 1948, then entirely in 1967. Israel was born in the original sin of mass slaughter and forced expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians, wanting only to live in peace on their own land.

With full backing from Washington and Western states, Palestinians never got justice. Israel operates outside the law with impunity. Peace process conflict resolution never existed and doesn't now.

Palestinians understand and want official sovereign recognition and full UN membership. In 1987, Law Professor Francis Boyle drafted its 1988 Declaration of Independence.

Through the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377, full UN membership is obtainable if Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad want it. A simple two-thirds General Assembly majority gets it.

On the Progressive Radio News Hour to air October 2, Boyle said the 170 nations support it, according to the Financial Times. If all 193 UN members vote, 129 are needed.

According to Boyle, if Abbas petitions the General Assembly under Resolution 377, full UN membership can be gotten in two weeks, making Palestine the body's 194th member.

Despite enormous Washington/Israeli pressure to back down, what Palestinians have wanted for 63 years is within easy reach. It's for Abbas and Fayyad now to follow through for them.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Calls to Annex West Bank Settlements

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:00:23 +0000

Calls to Annex West Bank Settlements - by Stephen Lendman

Since 1967, Israel established 121 settlements, recognized by the Interior Ministry as "communities." Another 100 unauthorized outposts were built.

In addition, 12 annexed Jerusalem neighborhoods are considered settlements under international law. Moreover, settler enclaves exist in Palestinian East Jerusalem areas. They include:

the Old City's Muslim Quarter;

Silwan;

Sheikh Jarrah;

Mount of Olives;

Ras al-'Amud;

Abu Dis; and

Jabal al-Mukabber.

Overall, Israeli occupied territory, including settlements, exceeds 40% of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, its choicest parts.

However, for extremist MKs, it's not enough. They want all Judea and Samaria west of the Jordan River, comprising the West Bank and Jerusalem. For now, however, they'll settle for annexing occupied settlements.

On September 27, Haaretz writer Jonathan Lis headlined, "Israel must annex West Bank settlements, right-wing MKs tell Netanyahu," saying:

In response to Palestinians petitioning the UN for statehood, the following MKs responded to their "unilateral" move:

Likud chairman Ze'ev Elkin;

Shas chairman Avraham Michaeli;

Habayit Hayehudi (the Jewish Home) chairman Uri Orbach; and

National Union MK Yaakov Katz.

They want Netanyahu to initiate steps to annex "all West Bank settlements; (cut or eliminate) Palestinian aid money; (accelerate) settlement building; (cancel) PA officials' VIP ID cards; and (prohibit) any Palestinian construction in areas controlled by Israeli security forces."

Stopping short of declaring war, they wrote Netanyahu:

"The PA's UN bid on unilateral recognition is a blunt breach of (Oslo and subsequent agreements), which have, in the last 18 years, taken their severe toll on us."

It condemned states involved in the Accords, now deliberating whether or not to support Palestine's bid.

"We call upon you to make it clear to those nations that their conduct during this crisis rules them out (as) mediators in future negotiations, (warning that) serious damage could befall Israel if it chooses to avoid response."

Israel would "completely lose its deterrence, thus stimulating the Palestinians to continue their actions against it in the international arena."

"In fact, the international damage that Israel could suffer in the wake of the UN vote is significantly smaller than that it would suffer if it doesn't follow up on the principle you set up a decade ago - 'If they give, they'll get; if they don't give, they get nothing.' "

Fact check

In 1948, they "gave" 78% of historic Palestine. The rest followed in 1967.

In return, they "got" occupation, persecution, violence, premeditated war, mass arrests, imprisonments, torture, intimidation, daily terror, dispossessions, targeted assassinations, and loss of all rights.

Now they want them back under statehood and full UN membership. After 63 years, they want justice long denied. They'll settle for nothing less nor should they.

According to Maan News, not only won't Netanyahu agree, he wants more, including no end to settlement construction.

"We already gave at the office," he said, referring to an alleged 10-month moratorium during which time construction never stopped. Israel's land grab continued.

In many settlements, building proceeded apace. Dozens of construction sites remained active. Building on 2,000 units continued. Not even a visible slowdown occurred. Like its Washington paymaster/partner, Israel said one thing but did another.

Now it's doing more. Netanyahu called settlements "a pretext (Palestinians) use again and again....as a ruse to avoid direct negotiations."

Moreover, he won't halt construction, including plans for 1,100 new East Jerusalem Gilo neighborhood homes.

"I don't think there is anything new," he said. "We plan in Jerusalem. We build in Jerusalem. Period. (It's) the same way Israeli governments have (operated for) years - since the end of the 1967 war."

"We build in Jewish neighborhoods. The Arabs build in Arab neighborhoods. That is the way the life of this city goes on and develops for its Jewish and non-Jewish residents alike."

In fact, East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory. Israel is systematically dispossessing Palestinians to entirely Judaize it. Indeed, it's way life "goes on" for Arabs to lose out so Jews alone can benefit.

An unnamed State Department official called Israel's decision "counterproductive to the resumption of direct negotiations. Our position has not changed."

"Like every America administration for decades, we do not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity. We believe their continued expansion is corrosive not only to peace efforts and two-state solution, but to Israel's future itself."

At the same time, Haaretz said US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro never favored making a freeze a condition for negotiations, saying:

"We've never said that, in this administration or any other, as a precondition for talks. What we have said consistently is that we believe direct talks are the only way to resolve this conflict, and (it) can only be resolved by the parties themselves in those talks, and they should be entered without preconditions."

In other words, Washington calls construction "counterproductive" to peace, but rejects its continuation on stolen Palestinian land as a reason to halt talks that never worked before and won't now.

Israel won't tolerate peace so why bother, but wants its terms imposed unilaterally to impose unconditional surrender.

Imagine if South African Blacks required their apartheid government's permission to end the abhorrent practice. In fact, it took decades of struggle to achieve it.

Under it, pass laws segregated blacks from whites, restricted their movements, required pass books be carried at all times, and produced on demand or face arrest and prosecution.

Evolving from the 18th and 19th century until their 1986 repeal, they restricted entry to cities, forcibly relocated blacks, denied them most public amenities and many forms of employment, and became apartheid's most hated symbol.

Under Israeli military occupation, repression is worse than South Africa's. It's a sophisticated form of social, economic, political and racial discrimination, strangulation, and genocide.

It incorporates the worst elements of colonialism and apartheid as well as repressive dispossession, displacement, and state terrorism to separate Palestinians from their land and heritage, deny them their rightful civil and human rights, and gradually remove or eliminate them altogether.

Apartheid is the worst form of racism. Israeli militarized occupation is the worst form of apartheid, incorporating violence, military incursions, land theft, home demolitions, targeted assassinations, murder, mass arrests, torture, destruction of agricultural land, and isolation. These measures amount to genocide, including suffocating Gazans under siege.

On Monday, a divided Security Council began closed door discussions. Washington urged other members to delay enough to consign Palestine's petition to memory hole oblivion.

The Palestine News & Information Agency (WAFA) reported Washington saying:

"There is no rush to act on the bid submitted Friday. The US has vowed to veto the Palestinian resolution and would prefer to avoid (an embarrassing) vote on the matter. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe confidential diplomacy."

Israeli settlers claim "This is Israel's land," no matter how long Palestinians lived on it as their own peacefully with a small Jewish population as neighbors.

In contrast, Arabs are barred from Jewish communities. As a result, they deserve their own sovereign state to escape a system as oppressive as how Nazis terrorized Jews. After 63 years, they're entitled to that an more.

A Final Comment

On September 25, JTA Global News Service of the Jewish People said:

"Top White House officials briefed Jewish community leaders about (the) Quartet('s proposal), urging Israelis and Palestinians to return to talks with no preconditions, a key Israeli demand."

What about Palestinian "demands," including the right to decide their own fate, not have Israel do it for them its way.

The Islamophobic Anti-Defamation League praised the call for no-condition talks, but wants Palestinians "sent the clearest possible message (that) the sole path to statehood lies in direct negotiations with Israel" so it has sole authority to decide.

In fact, most UN member states believe Palestine already is a state. At issue is its belligerent occupation, the longest in modern history.

PLO Executive Committee member and PA legislator Hanan Ashrawi raised the possibility of using the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 in the General Assembly for statehood.

In 1987, Law Professor Francis Boyle was Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) legal advisor in drafting its 1988 Declaration of Independence. It was a roadmap designed to succeed, avoiding legal loopholes to subvert it.

On Sunday, October 2, on the Progressive Radio News, Hour, Boyle will explain how Palestinians can achieve it in days.

Given their overwhelming world support, it's simple by following proper procedure through the General Assembly under Resolution 377.

At issue only is do Abbas and Fayyad want it. Listen Sunday to hear an expert explain.

He should know. He wrote the book on it and understands its fine points better than anyone.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Ahmad Qatamesh: Israeli Prisoner of Conscience

Wed, 28 Sep 2011 07:38:52 +0000

Ahmad Qatamesh: Israeli Prisoner of Conscience - by Stephen Lendman

On April 21, 2011 at 2:00AM, Israeli soldiers arrested Qatamesh at his brother's Ramallah home.

An hour earlier, his wife (Suha), daughter (Hanin), and two female relatives were held hostage to force his surrender.

At gunpoint, they forced Hanin to call him. When connected, a soldier threatened to hold his family hostage and destroy his house if he didn't surrender.

On May 2, in an Electronic Intifada article, Hanin recounted her ordeal, saying:

<blockquote>After breaking in and occupying their home, "(t)hey pointed their machine guns at us and told us they wanted to search the house."</blockquote)

<blockquote>"After a futile search, the soldiers went to the apartment right above ours whose owners - US citizens - were away. They knocked down the main door and wrecked the place."</blockquote>

<blockquote>"They confiscated our phones, disconnecting us from the outside world....The commander forced me at gunpoint to call my father....He then grabbed my phone and shouted at him, 'Surrender yourself or we'll destroy the house!' "</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Perhaps the most important principle that I learned from my dad was never to allow obstacles to keep me from realizing my dreams. I will continue to dream of Palestinian freedom. Along the way, I will continue to expose the brutality of Israel's occupation and our land - and houses."<blockquote>

Qatamesh's wife Suha said:

<blockquote>"It's so clear that he is there because of his ideas and political activism. He is a prisoner of conscience and he is there because of political reasons."</blockquote>

After arrest, he was taken to Ofer detention center in Beitunia.

At the time, the Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association expressed grave concern, saying:

<blockquote>"not only because (it's) motivated by his political opinions and beliefs and as such should be considered a case of arbitrary detention, but also because (he's) been (targeted by) Israeli authorities before on numerous occasions, notably" for long incarcerations without charge.</blockquote>

Addameer later composed an undated letter to Netanyahu, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, and other Israeli officials on his behalf for supporters to sign and use. In part it says:

<blockquote>"I am writing to express my strong concerns regarding Ahmad Qatamish's administrative detention, which violates international human rights and humanitarian law."</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Mr. Qatamish, a renowned and respected Palestinian author and political scientist, has been held in administrative detention since 3 May 2011 despite a number of irregularities with his detention that should provide sufficient ground to invalidate" it.</blockquote>

It ended saying:

<blockquote>"I therefore urge you to intervene in this matter without delay and:

Immediately and unconditionally release" him;

"Immediately put an end to Israel's practice of administrative detention and arbitrary arrests;

At all times ensure strict respect for international human rights and humanitarian law during arrests and detention in the occupied Palestinian territory."</blockquote>

More on Israel's abusive administrative detentions below.

Speaking on his behalf, Palestinian activist Mustafa Barghouti called Israel's arrest "a shameless attempt at muzzling him in an unjustifiable attack on his freedom of expression."

Gerarda Ventura, Euromed Platform of NGOs vice president, called him "one of the most sensitive and intellectual people I have ever met," especially in the struggle for "freedom, justice and peace."

A distinguished writer, scholar, academic, lecturer and activist, Qatamish earned his doctorate in political science. He wrote several books on political, philosophical and literary topics, and spoke often at local universities and research centers.

In 2010, he taught at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, the only Arab institution of higher learning in the divided city.

His ordeal began in 1969 when he was detained a few months, then released. In 1972, he was arrested again and imprisoned for four years.

Until 1992, he went underground to stay free until September when he was again arrested and administratively detained for the next five and half years. At the time, he was Israel's longest ever uncharged detainee.

In prison, he was tortured and abused for weeks. Israel called him a "dangerous" national leader. Later he documented his ordeal in prison notes called "I Shall not Wear Your Tarboush."

On September 9, 2011, an Amnesty International (AI) "URGENT ACTION" said:

<blockquote>Qatamesh "received a new six-month administrative detention order on 2 September. The military review of the order has been postponed; he remains in detention and cannot appeal until the review takes place."

AI "is concerned that (he) may be detained solely for the peaceful expression of his political views, in which case the organization would consider him a prisoner of conscience."

"Amnesty urges that action be taken....before 21 October 2011 by sending appeals to Israeli military authorities and diplomatic representatives."</blockquote>

Since detained last April, he's faced numerous delays, irregularities, and other obstructions to keep him isolated. Shin Bet (the Israel Security Agency) claims secret evidence justifies it.

At issue is his outspoken activism, not evidence about alleged crimes. Nonetheless, Israel can hold him indefinitely to silence him.

Abusive Israeli Administrative Detentions

Those held are denied due process. They may be held indefinitely, aren't told why, can't dispute it, cross-examine witnesses, or present contradictory evidence to refute them.

Four Israeli entities have decision-making authority:

Shin Bet (the Israel Security Agency);

the military commander in charge;

the military's prosecutor's office; and

military judges who adjudicate cases.

Three Israeli laws authorize detentions:

the Order Regarding Administrative Detention; it's part of military law governing the West Bank;

the Emergency Powers (Detentions) Law for Israel; and

the Internment of Unlawful Combatants Law (the 2002 Unlawful Combatants Law).

America has a similar one Law Professor Francis Boyle once called a:

<blockquote>"quasi-category universe of legal nihilism where human beings can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried in kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism."</blockquote>

Prior to detention, the ISA or police conduct interrogations, lasting from a few days to a few weeks. If no indictment follows, the military commander decides whether or not to detain and for how long. A judge must then approve it.

Each order lasts six months, sometimes three, but can be indefinitely renewed so can last years in Israeli Prison Service (IPS) facilities.

Most detainees are held pursuant to individual administrative orders under the West Bank's Administration Detention Order. It lets commanders order detentions based on a "reasonable (belief) that the security of the region or public security" is at issue.

As a result, prolonged arbitrary detentions are common, grievously breaching international law. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

<blockquote>"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law.

Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful."</blockquote>

Although exceptions are permitted when public emergencies threaten national security, Israel abusively violates international law, including Fourth Geneva's Article 78 stating:

<blockquote>"If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment.

Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal (decided on) with the least possible delay. (If it's upheld), it shall be subject to periodical review...."</blockquote>

Acting arbitrarily to silence dissent, Israel spurns international law and norms. Detentions without charge normally last six months in Israeli territory.

Subject to bi-annual reviews, however, military judges can order detainees held indefinitely. Decisions may be appealed to Israel's Supreme Court, but rarely does it intervene.

Administrative detentions never substitute for customary criminal proceedings. Their purpose is only to prevent future lawless acts.

Moreover, detained Palestinians held are protected persons. International law prohibits transferring them to Israeli territory or holding them indefinitely uncharged.

Nonetheless, Israel systematically, abusively, and repeatedly flaunts international law with impunity, including by imprisoning some of Palestine's most heroic figures like Qatamish.

It's done to silence and intimidate anyone challenging Israeli lawlessness.

Israel doesn't have enough prison space for them all or their growing millions of global supporters.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Obstructing Palestinian Statehood Begins

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:44:36 +0000

Obstructing Palestinian Statehood Begins - by Stephen Lendman

On September 23 in New York, a State Department "Special Briefing" was held. An unnamed "Senior Administration Official" commented on the Quartet's Palestinian statehood proposal, saying:

"As the Palestinians develop(ed) their own ideas of what was necessary in terms of (petitioning the UN), we were intensively engaged with them in providing ideas for an alternative path."

That says it all! It reveals the Washington/Israeli/EU/Ban Ki-moon duplicitous strategy to subvert Palestinian statehood by a combination of diversion, delay and exclusion from debate on what Palestinians most want and deserve.

It includes unconditional sovereignty within 1967 borders (22% of historic Palestine), total control over their own lives, Israel's occupation and Gaza's siege ended, fixed borders, diaspora Palestinians' right of return, settlement construction ended, and East Jerusalem as their capital.

In other words, they want what all independent states enjoy, including fair and open elections to choose their own leaders democratically, free from outside influence.

They also need to know the collaborationist credentials of leaders representing them - namely, Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, conspiring against them while pretending otherwise.

Why else would Israeli President Shimon Peres suggest that Abbas is best for Israel, saying:

"I call on my friend, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who I respect and acknowledge as the best leader Israel will work with, to return to the negotiating table."

Nonetheless, on return to Ramallah Sunday, he was welcomed like a rock star. Thousands gathered to greet him. They cheered when he claimed a "Palestinian Spring" arrived. Indications are his popularity soared.

He addressed supporters, saying:

"We have told the world that there is the Arab Spring, but the Palestinian Spring has been born. A popular spring, a populist spring, a spring of peaceful struggle that will reach its goal."

He also said a "long path" remains. "There are those who would put out obstacles....but with your presence they will fall and we will reach our end."

In contrast, Netanyahu said settlement construction will continue. Negotiated peace must precede statehood, and establishing one within pre-1967 borders is rejected.

Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, he said his "advice" for Abbas was:

"If you want to get to peace, put all your preconditions to the side."

Despite negotiating in good faith for decades, Palestinians never achieved peace because Washington and Israel won't tolerate it.

Meet the Press host David Gregory didn't explain. Nor did he question why after 63 years Palestinian statehood is still denied, or ask what right have Israel and Washington to decide.

In fact, Abbas proposing it is rhetoric, not reality with Washington, key EU allies and Ban Ki-moon against it.

On September 26, Frank Barak, Russell Tribunal Committee on Palestine Organizing Committee member headlined his Electronic Intifada article, "The UN is part of Palestine's problem," saying:

"The UN is one of the most undemocratic bodies in the world." One of a select five among its 193 members may veto what all others want. Decision-making by minority rules, including a minority of one.

"The UN is therefore part of the problem and will never bring justice to the Palestinians." In 1947, its partition plan unjustly gave future Israel (with one-third of the population) 56% of Palestine, including its choicest areas.

Thereafter, Israel violated or ignored with impunity dozens of Security Council and General Assembly resolutions "upholding the Palestinians' right of self-determination, demanding an end of occupation and colonization and Israeli withdrawal from occupied lands, and the right of return of the refugees."

Whatever Israel wants it gets because it's "part of the masters' clique. Israel is in their club and represents the same interests....In history, there has never been a case of a master relinquishing power for philosophical and altruistic reasons."

Liberation depends on sustained committed struggle. Palestinians are on their own to achieve it. Collaborationist leaders won't help. Understanding that reality is step one toward long delayed justice that won't ever come without it.

Examples throughout history show people "taking matters into their own hands" works. Masters also know it delivers what they reject. "The thought of it happening again sends shivers into their expensive suits." It's high time "shivers" turned to fear.

The Charade Begins

Instead, informal Security Council discussions began Monday. On September 26, Haaretz writer Shlomo Shamir headlined, "US Security Council to begin informal debate on Palestinian statehood," saying:

"Currently, the council's five permanent members are split over the PA's request, so the consultations are not expected to lead to a formal vote anytime in the near future, UN sources said."

According to the UN's Western deputy head of mission:

"It's highly likely that consultations will continue for some weeks. The Palestinian application is considered an extremely sensitive issue, and in particular, it's a source of controversy between the council's two leading powers, the United States and Russia. Therefore, no quick decision that would produce an official debate and vote is expected."

In fact, Washington plans obstruction and delay to subvert statehood entirely. Achieving it depends on whether Abbas follows proper UN procedure, including petitioning the General Assembly for full membership.

The Security Council recommends new members. Only the General Assembly admits them by a simple two-thirds majority. Palestinians have more than enough support.

Moreover, under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution 377, the GA can override Security Council vetos or rejection, provided Abbas follows procedure.

Instead expect him to accept rule of one authority, saying he tried his best, when, in fact, doing so is betrayal.

At best, he may petition the General Assembly to upgrade Palestine's status short of full membership. Doing so accepts defeat, leaving Palestinians at square one.

It's in their hands to demand better, to struggle for what's only possible that way.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

Release prisoner of conscience Nasser Abul and Lawrence al-Rashidi Immediately

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:00:04 +0000

Quartet Anti-Palestinian Statehood Proposal

Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:44:21 +0000

Quartet Anti-Palestinian Statehood Proposal - by Stephen Lendman

Quartet representatives UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, UN Middle East envoy Tony Blair, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and EU Foreign Affairs and Security Policy High Representative Catherine Aston explained its elements.

On September 21, an initial statement "expressed its strong support for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, which can resolve all final status issues within one year."

"The Quartet reaffirmed its full commitment to its previous statements, which provide that negotiations should lead to an agreement that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and results in the emergence of an independent, democratic, contiguous, and viable Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors."

"In the spirit of the Arab Peace Initiative, the Quartet called on Arab states to support Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and progress on the other tracks by taking bolder steps to foster positive relations throughout the region and to combat violence and extremism."

"Recalling that change on the ground is integral to peace, the Quartet reaffirmed its support for the Palestinian Authority's August 2009 plan for building the institutions of a Palestinian state within two years."

Quartet members established a timeline for "realistic and serious" negotiations to begin in a month. They hope for comprehensive proposals within three months, substantial progress in six, and a firm deal by end of 2012.

An international conference in Moscow was also proposed once "substantial progress" has been made on "comprehensive proposals."

In addition, a Donors Conference will convene to support "state-building actions developed by Prime Minister Fayyad under the leadership of President Abbas."

"The Quartet agreed to meet regularly" to monitor events and propose recommendations.

A follow-up September 23 statement can be accessed through the following link:

http://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/09/full-text-of-mideast-peace-brokers-statement/

Notably, the proposal excludes key issues, including settlements, 1967 borders, East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, Gaza's siege, diaspora Palestinians right of return, and their legitimate elected Hamas government, among others.

As a result, it's offensive and demeaning, treating Palestinians like children ordered to obey or be spanked.

It's little more than old wine in new bottles to deny statehood and keep Palestine oppressively occupied in perpetuity.

Ma'an News said Egypt's interim Foreign Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr said the Quartet's proposal represents "another failure."

Addressing the General Assembly on September 24, he said:

Egypt "was, and will remain, committed to the goal of achieving just and comprehensive (Middle East) peace."

However, the Quartet failed to make progress. Friday, "(w)e have witnessed....another failure....to come up with a balanced vision to achieve the goal that we all know and approve of yet differ on how to realize it."

On September 23, Abbas petitioned the Security Council for statehood and full UN membership. If implemented, the Quartet proposal will consign it to memory hole oblivion.

Rhetoric aside, Israel, Washington, key EU allies, and Ban Ki-moon aim to bury it this way. In other words - delay, delay until going, going gone and forgotten.

Early Reactions

On September 24, Haaretz writers Natasha Mozgovaya, Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff headlined, "Palestinian FM rejects Quartet proposal for not addressing settlements, Israeli withdrawal," saying:

On Saturday, PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki "rejected (the) Quartet's proposal to renew peace negotiations...."

On an unnamed Palestinian radio station, he said it doesn't "call for a settlement freeze and an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines, and therefore isn't sufficient."

An unnamed US official called the proposal "realistic and serious," saying it provides:

"a credible, serious alternative path and we believe that both sides, if they're true to their words, will find a way to respond favorably to this."

No matter that decades of "peace talks" failed, including:

-- Camp David I;

-- Madrid;

-- Oslo;

-- Oslo II;

-- a 1994 Protocol on Economic Relations;

-- a Cairo Agreement on Gaza and the Jericho Area the same year;

-- the 1994 Washington Declaration and Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities between the two parties;

-- the 1995 Protocol on Further Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities; it included an agreement to resume "permanent status" talks and discuss other elements of a peace plan relating to Israeli troops redeployments, land transfers, safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank, a Gaza seaport, prisoner releases, and various issues related to security, normal civilian activities, international donor aid, and a timetable for final status talks;

-- the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum;

-- Camp David II;

-- the "Road Map;"

-- Anapolis; and

-- the stalled September 2010 grand illusion fudged to look real like all previous failures.

In fact, on and off for decades, negotiations were stillborn from inception because Israel and Washington won't tolerate peace. They demand unconditional surrender and permanent occupation.

Only Israeli demands matter. Palestinians always got take it or leave it deals. As a result, they never had a legitimate peace partner and don't now, dealing with Israel's most extremist ever government under Netanyahu.

He deplores peace. He once called negotiations "a waste of time," and never does it in good faith. Moreover, Washington agrees to whatever Israel wants, making a mockery of serious talks.

Longtime Israeli analyst Gideon Levy agrees. On September 25, his Haaretz article headlined, "Netanyahu proved Israel doesn't want peace," saying:

His General Assembly address showed "Palestinians (and the world) can no longer expect anything from Israel. Nothing."

"Netanyahu, peddler of emotions, did not shrink from or forget anything (in reviewing) thousands of years of history to obscure reality...."

Those with him in New York "said it all, (a) cheerleading squad, (including) two kippa-wearers, two generals, two former Russians, three current beard-wearers - a depressing and threatening group portrait of Israel's extreme right, class of 2011."

Israel's true face leaves Palestinians on their own with no legitimate peace partner. In fact, Israel won't tolerate peace, Palestinian statehood, or ending its 44 year occupation.

On Saturday, nonetheless, Abbas again said he'll consider all "solution(s) that can last and end the conflict."

"We realize that the parties who suggest initiatives either seek to reach a solution quickly or to prevent any solution....We will see what the days bring, but expect good things....We are talking about weeks, not months."

Aboard his plane back home, he told reporters:

"When settlement expansion continues, and when Israel considers that an accomplished fact, we will not accept it because it will be a real threat to the presence of the Palestinian Authority. That is what I said, and here I say it again."

A Final Comment

On return to Ramallah, Haaretz said Abbas called Netanyahu Israel's most inflexible leader, saying:

"Benjamin Netanyahu's ideological positions do not allow him to advance forward," stopping short of saying negotiating with him is impossible.

It's also true of Foreign MInister and Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman, a longtime ultranationalist extremist.

On September 25, he told Israeli Army Radio that there will be unspecified "tough repercussions" if Palestine's statehood application is approved.

Specifically referring to possible General Assembly passage, he said:

"If the Palestinians will indeed pass a one-sided resolution if not in the Security Council then the General Assembly, that would bring us to an altogether new situation and this would have repercussions, tough repercussions. Any unilateral step will without a doubt bring an Israeli reaction."

At the same time, he and Netanyahu welcome the Quartet's proposal. They know it promises failure, again shattering Palestinian hopes.

In fact, smart money bets on it because neither side is serious about what Palestinians want and deserve but won't get.

Maybe next time, not now. It's for Palestinians on their own to prove them wrong.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

AIPAC's Ugly Agenda

Sun, 25 Sep 2011 07:43:02 +0000

AIPAC's Ugly Agenda: by Stephen Lendman

AIPAC is an unregistered foreign agent representing Israel. Edward Said once called it "the most powerful and feared lobby in Washington."

Calling itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," it's represented Israeli interests since founded in 1953. In 1963, it was incorporated as a division of the American Zionist Council (AZC), its precursor.

For decades, it's been very successful subverting opposition to Israel's agenda. Virtually no one in Congress confronts it. Doing so would be a career-ender.

Notably, it's had virtual veto power over war and peace, trade and investment, multi-billion dollar arms sales, enormous handouts to Israel, and all Middle East policies affecting the Jewish state under Democrat and Republican administrations alike.

Deferentially, politicians, presidents, their hangers-on, media scoundrels and others pay it due homage and the government it represents. As a result, everyone pays dearly.

On September 15, AIPAC published an anti-Palestinian broadside headlined, "PA's UN Statehood Bid Threatens Peace Efforts, Israel," saying:

"The Palestinian effort to secure recognition of statehood at the United Nations is a direct challenge to US interests and could have severe implications for the peace process."

Fact check

America represents Israeli interests. Israel wants Palestinians deprived of all rights under permanent occupation. There's no legitimate peace process because Israel and Washington won't tolerate it.

Yet AIPAC claims upgrading Palestine's status "could have serious implications for" Israel.

Fact check

Indeed so. Independent Palestine could ratify and have access to international conventions. As a result, it could sue Israeli war criminals in the International Criminal Court. AIPAC calls it "politicizing the court."

In addition, Israel's occupation would be threatened though not easily ended. The fate of settlers would be up for grabs. Notably, half are fed up and want to leave but can't for financial reasons.

Others would have a choice. Either become ex-pats in a foreign country under its laws, or leave. Moreover, settlement communities no longer could exclude non-Jews, besides other beneficial changes.

Israelis would have to learn to love or at least tolerate their new neighbors. Many, in fact, do now and would welcome them.

A century ago, Jews and Palestinians got along fine. Why not now. The problem isn't Judaism and Islam. It's repressive Israel and its Washington paymaster partner.

AIPAC rails against full Palestinian participation in UN agencies, including UNESCO, ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council), UNICEF (International Children's Emergency Fund), and others.

"The Palestinians would use these committees to isolate and delegitimize Israel for 'occupying' a recognized state."

Fact check

Israel illegally occupies Palestine. Moreover, Israel, not UN agencies, is very adept at isolating and delegitimizing itself. Balking at Palestinian statehood is its latest affront.

As a result and for other reasons, anti-Israeli sentiment is visceral in Cairo, Amman and elsewhere. Moreover, growing numbers of Jews are fed up and no longer support its repressive agenda with good reason.

Unilateral "Palestinian actions at the United Nations could increase the potential for violence by raising unrealistic expectations."

Fact check

Israel alone threatens violence. Palestinians demand the same rightful "expectations" Israeli Jews enjoy - no less.

"Successful efforts by the Palestinians at the United Nations also would embolden Israel's detractors and legitimize those who seek to isolate and question the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Boycotts of Israel could increase and be adopted more widely."

Fact check

Anti-Israeli sentiment is fueled by its contempt for non-Jews, its repressive occupation, its aggressive wars, its territorial ambitions, its desire to be the region's sole hegemon, and willingness to go to any extremes for it.

Israeli policies do more to "embolden" detractors than they alone or collectively could do on their own without ammunition Israel provides.

Abbas' "statehood....plan....and refusal to talk to Israel are severely undermining US peace efforts."

Fact check

It bears repeating. Neither Israel or Washington want peace. They need conflict to further their regional agenda and to claim Palestinians aren't ready for independence.

How many more than 63 years of trying are enough to be ready for it. AIPAC didn't say. Instead it claims Abbas won't meet with Netanhayu.

In fact, they do often. Moreover, Abbas said resuming peace talks depends on Israel halting settlement expansions, stealing Palestinian land, and dispossessing lawful residents in the process.

In addition, all Palestinian leaders will negotiate with a legitimate peace partner on an equal status basis - not master/slave.

Israel was never willing and isn't now - especially under a Netanyahu/Lieberman government, Israel's most extremist ever.

AIPAC accuses Abbas of "setting unrealistic conditions" and failing to follow Oslo mandates. Seeking statehood also "serves to undermine Israel's confidence in the PA as a legitimate partner for peace and could cause a breakdown in relations between the parties, making" future negotiation harder.

Fact check

AIPAC's extremist, racist agenda comes out in comments like these.

You can't make this stuff up. But there it is in direct quotes.

Only those ignorant of basic facts buy it. Others aware of what Palestinians endure condemn Israel and its supporters.

A previous article said Oslo promised final status talks in five years. It didn't happen and won't in 50 or 500 if left up to Israel. As a result, Palestinians and their supporters long ago lost confidence in Israel because of its contempt for doing the right thing.

AIPAC claims upgrading Palestine above its present status "may set back talks for years." It will also make it harder for Israel "to enter talks when unacceptable results are the baseline."

Fact check

The "baseline" is justice!

"The United States must continue to oppose Palestinian efforts at the United Nations and urge the Palestinians to return to the negotiation table."

Fact check

That's a direct order. Congress and Obama officials salute and obey, knowing what unacceptable alternative awaits objectors.

"The Palestinians should face consequences if they continue to defy the United States and press forward with their UN statehood bid."

Fact check

AIPAC calls asking for legitimate rights "Palestinian incitement."

No matter. If Palestinians pursue theirs, AIPAC wants them to "face consequences," including all aid cut off, their PLO Washington office closed, and maybe perhaps Cast Lead II against all Palestine, claiming self-defense against dangerous Palestinians only wanting trouble.

In fact, AIPAC will say anything, fabricate any threat, pressure and lie to get what it wants at the expense of peace-loving people wanting and deserving the same rights as Jews.

That's a real extremist agenda!

A Final Comment

On September 16, The New York Times published Anti-Defamation League (ADL) national director Abraham Foxman's anti-Palestinian broadside headlined, "The UN Vote on a Palestinian State," regurgitating a litany of racist lies about Palestine.

Calling its statehood pursuit a "mistake," he accused it of "refus(ing) to negotiate with Israel....sign(ing) a coalition agreement with terrorist Hamas and now....bring(ing) this counterproductive initiative to the United Nations once again....rais(ing) serious questions about Palestinian intentions."

As Foxman knows, they're crystal clear. Palestinians want and deserve the same rights as Jews. He wants them denied.

So does Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) president Morton Klein in a disgraceful September 14 press release, thanking Obama for saying he'll veto a Palestinian statehood bid in New York.

Calling it "wrong and strategically dangerous if (Abbas) obtain(s) statehood by circumventing negotiations and peace-making with Israel," he concluded with hateful, reprehensible comments, saying:

"We dare not establish a racist, anti-Semitic terrorist beggar state that this would surely be. This is especially so at a time when the PA continues to engage in incitement to hatred and murder in its media, mosques, schools and youth camps and has signed a unity government agreement with the 'kill the Jews' Hamas terrorist organization."

Established in 1897, ZOA is America's oldest Zionist organization. Whatever its early agenda, it's now an embarrassment and national disgrace, given hatemongers like Klein as leaders.

Hopefully growing numbers of Jews and others will repudiate his abhorrent ideology, opting instead for peace, reconciliation and justice for all.

Klein, Foxman, AIPAC officials, and others like them haven't a clue what they mean.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

No Peace or Justice in Our Time with Netanyahu

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:40:40 +0000

No Peace or Justice in Our Time with Netanyahu - by Stephen Lendman

Like his Washington paymaster/partner, Netanyahu deplores peace. Initiating talks never worked before and won't now.

Speaking privately at the Clinton Global Initiative conference in New York, Bill Clinton said Netanyahu lost interest because Palestine has a president he controls, and normalizing relations with the Arab world is within reach.

<blockquote>"The Israelis always wanted two things that once it turned out they had," he said, it didn't seem so appealing to Mr. Netanuahu."</blockquote>

<blockquote>Israel believes it has a reliable "Palestinian government, and there's no question - and the Netanyahu government has said - that this is the finest Palestinian government they've ever had in the West Bank."</blockquote>

In fact, President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad are longtime Israeli collaborationists, serving as Israeli enforcers against their own people.

Of course Netanyahu approves. He controls them both.

<blockquote>Clinton added that "cynics" think his "government's continued call for negotiations over borders and such means that he's just not going to give up the West Bank."</blockquote>

Of course he's not nor any other Israeli leader. For decades, they've stolen most valued parts dunam by dunam. They'll keep doing it until Palestinians have only worthless scrub land for a bantustan state Israel will agree to as long as it remains occupied or at least firmly controlled.

Clinton also believes Abbas would accept the deal Arafat rejected in 2000, adding:

<blockquote>"For reasons that even after all these years I still don't know for sure, Arafat turned down the deal I put together that (Ehud) Barak accepted. (And) they also had an Israeli government that was willing to give them East Jerusalem as the capital of the new state of Palestine."</blockquote>

Fact check

In 1947, UN Resolution 181 internationalized Jerusalem as a separate body (a corpus separatum), administered by a UN Trustee Council. Israel spurned a policy still binding.

In July 1980, Israel's Basic Law declared "Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel." Yet on June 30, 1980, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 476. America abstained.

<blockquote>It stipulated that "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant (Fourth Geneva) violation."</blockquote>

Following Israel's non-compliance, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 478, America again abstaining.

It "censur(ed Israel) in the strongest terms" for enacting the Jerusalem Basic Law, calling it a violation of international law. It also said the Council doesn't recognize it, and told member states to withdraw their diplomatic missions from the city.

At the time, the Security Council and General Assembly reaffirmed that East Jerusalem is occupied territory, that expropriating its land is illegal, and that all Israeli legislative and administrative measures altering the city's character and status are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith.

Israel never complied. Moreover, it continued land seizures, home demolitions, and dispossessions, flagrantly flouting its obligations under international law.

Camp David - July 2000

Bill Clinton hosted Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Clinton and America's major media called Israel's proposal "generous" and unprecedented," accusing Arafat of spurning peace for conflict by rejecting it.

Barak insisted Arafat sign a "final agreement," declare an "end of conflict," and give up any legal basis for additional Occupied Territory land. No written offer was made nor were documents or maps presented.

In fact, only a May 2000 West Bank map was used, dividing the area into four isolated cantons under Palestinian administration surrounded by expanding Israeli settlements and other Israeli-controlled land.

The cantons consisted of: Jericho, a southern canton to Abu Dis, a northern one including Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm, and a central one including Ramallah.

Gaza was left in limbo as a fifth canton to be resolved when Israel disengaged in August and September 2005, but kept effectively occupied to reenter or attack any time.

Barak's deal, if accepted, would have doomed real peace. It also offered no resolution of final status issues, including statehood, fixed borders, diaspora Palestinians right of return, East Jerusalem as Palestine's capital, and others.

Arafat understood and rejected it. Yet he was unfairly blamed. Clinton was party to a deal calling for unconditional surrender, not peace or a viable Palestinian state.

Eleven years later he wondered why Arafat turned it down. He might have been run out of town back home or worse if he accepted it. That's why.

Support for Palestinian Statehood

Despite his own cross to bear, Turkish Prime Minister Recept Tayyip Erdogan understands enough to support Palestinian statehood.

Addressing the General Assembly on September 22, he sharply criticized Israel for obstructing Middle East peace and refusing to apologize for murdering nine Turkish nationals aboard the Mavi Marmara humanitarian ship to Gaza, then added:

<blockquote>"What is more painful is that the UN has been incapable of taking the necessary steps to end the humanitarian tragedy that Palestinians have gone and are going through."</blockquote>

He also urged UN member states to recognize Palestinian sovereignty, saying, it was established but never formally implemented.

Ahead of his September 23 General Assembly address, Abbas said pressure won't deter him from submitting a Security Council bid, knowing it'll go nowhere because Washington will obstruct it.

Nonetheless, he formerly petitioned the UN, handing Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon an official application for membership. PA delegation member Husam Zomlot called it a "historic moment." He and others may rethink that view when Palestinians get nothing substantive, leaving them at square one.

Former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf said Obama stated "a clear US position and put himself squarely as a champion of the status quo," leaving Palestinian statehood unresolved in limbo.

Whether or not he meant it, Abbas added:

<blockquote>Peace "negotiations with Israel achieved nothing at all. All parties are demanding that we return to negotiations, but we say that if Netanyahu does not announce his recognition of the Palestinian state on the 1967 borders and the halt of settlement (construction), we will not return to negotiations."</blockquote>

On September 17, Hugo Chavez wrote UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, saying:

<blockquote>"I address these words to the United Nations General Assembly, to this great forum that represents all the people, to ratify, on this day and in this setting, Venezuela's full support of the recognition of the Palestinian state: of Palestine's right to become a free, sovereign and independent state."</blockquote>

<blockquote>"This represents an act of historic justice toward a people who carry with them, from time immemorial, all the pain and suffering of the world....Palestine will live and overcome! Long live free, sovereign and independent Palestine!"</blockquote>

The New York Times' Jihad Against Palestinian Statehood

On September 22, its latest editorial broadside headlined, "The Palestinians' Bid," saying:

<blockquote>In addressing the General Assembly, "Obama had no choice but to stand by Israel, this country's historic ally. And we agree that a negotiated deal is the only way to ensure the creation of a viable Palestinian state, guarantee Israel's security and build a lasting peace."</blockquote>

Fact check

Times correspondents, opinion writers, and editorials support wrong over right, especially on issues affecting Israel.

Obama indeed has choices but made the wrong one. Negotiations never produced peace or statehood and won't now. Israel hasn't faced security issues for almost 40 years, and doesn't today as the region's nuclear armed superpower.

Palestinians are denied justice and statehood because Israel and Washington won't tolerate either. Peace won't come until world leaders go around them for resolution enforced with teeth.

<blockquote>"There is no mystery to what a final deal would look like, just a lack of political courage to push it to the end. (It would) creat(e) a Palestinian state on territory equivalent to the pre-1967 West Bank Bank and Gaza Strip, with mutually agreed land swaps."</blockquote>

Fact check

In 1948, Israel stole 78% of historic Palestine. In 1967, it took the rest. Palestinians will settle for 22% returned. Land swaps won't work because Israel will demand all valued areas, leaving Palestinians isolated in cantons.

Moreover, what about East Jerusalem as Palestine's legitimate capital. The Times thought it unimportant to mention, let alone demand.

Yet it called for a "bold and fair" proposal, as well as "help to sell it to the Israeli and Palestinian people - not just politicians." Otherwise a "diplomatic train wreck" may result.

In fact, Palestinians never got "bold and fair" proposals and won't now. Instead they've endured 63 "train wreck(ed)" years begging to be ended.

As a result, now's the time to go around Washington, Israel, their obstructionist allies, and collaborationist Abbas leadership for what they won't achieve otherwise.

It may not be now or never, but if left up to Washington, Israel, and its fifth column leaders, statehood and full UN membership won't ever come.

A Final Comment

On September 20, Gaza-based journalist and university lecturer Rami Almeghari headlined his Electronic Intifada article, "PA goes to UN without Palestinian consensus behind it," saying:

<blockquote>It's "clear that many Palestinians remain at best doubtful that the promised confrontation in New York will do anything to advance their rights and aspirations."</blockquote>

True enough, but he's wrong suggesting why bother given that likely outcome. Victories come incrementally, not all at once against long odds. Most important, they come by trying, knowing long sought goals are never achieved easily or quickly.

Moreover, committed leadership for what's right is key. Palestinians sorely lack it, assuring failure under a man who'll accept it, his rhetoric notwithstanding.

On September 20, London Independent writer Robert Fisk headlined, "Why the Middle East will never be the same again," saying:

"The Palestinians won't achieve statehood, but they will consign the 'peace process' to history." Of course, it was stillborn from inception, and indeed Washington and Israeli obstructionism prevents any possibility of statehood now or in the foreseeable future.

<blockquote>The Mossad-connected DEBKAfile agreed, saying expect no "diplomatic showdown....when the Palestinian bid for statehood is filed Friday, Sept. 23....Neither the Security Council or General Assembly will (make) any immediate decisions....(In fact, the) process (can drag on for) weeks if not months," and may end up dying from inaction.</blockquote>

"The game is lost," said Fisk. "America's political power in the Middle East will this week be neutered on behalf of Israel. Quite a sacrifice" for pyrrhic victories.

All the more reason why Palestinians should never quit trying for what one day's within reach by persisting. It's how all great struggles are won.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

PLM & Akbayan Youth (Philippines) Support Palestinian Bid For Statehood

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 02:28:20 +0000

The Party of the Laboring Masses (PLM) supports the Palestinian bid for statehood and its submission to the UN for an independent Palestinian state. We call on the Philippine government to vote in favor of this submission and campaign at the United Nations for its passage. We condemn the US government attempts to block and veto the resolution in favor of its hardened support for Israel.

The anarchist Stuart Christie and his extremely odd literary bedfellow, the U.S. neo-conservative weirdo Stephen Schwartz

Fri, 23 Sep 2011 21:55:09 +0000

A former "armed struggle" anarchist offers a long-time salaried fan of the U.S. National Security State as an "expert" on anarchism and the Spanish Civil War...

THE ANARCHISTS AND SPAIN: "COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA..."
In 1964, a courageous young Scottish anarchist named Stuart Christie was arrested in Spain for taking part in an effort to assasinate dictator Francisco Franco. If the attempt on Franco's life had succeeded it would have been one of the most emotionally satisfying political killings of the 20th century. But alas, like many earlier efforts against the Generalissmo this attempt failed, and Christie's role in this failure had several aspects. First, shortly before going to Spain, Christie participated in a television inteview where he made it clear he thought killing Franco would be desirable. Along with the obvious lack of discretion demonstrated by Christie, it later turned out the journalist interviewing Christie, Malcolm Muggeridge, had been involved with British intelligence services during World War Two. This compounded the fact that it was neither the time nor the place for Christie to voice his fiery sentiments.

Christie's second bad judgement call was that he tried to transport the explosives to be used in the anti-Franco effort while hitchhiking, and did some of his hitchhiking while wearing a kilt. Under the circumstances, hitchhiking might or might not have been a good way to transport explosives. The problem then becomes a sartorial one, so let's put this one in our live-and-learn file; if you are carrying high explosives to be used in an attempt on the life of a head of state, and you are male, and you decide to hitchhike, you may wish to refrain from wearing a plaid skirt while doing so, especially while crossing the rural regions of a socially reactionary Catholic police state.

These events took place in 1964. We all make mistakes. It would be churlish of me to bag on a man who is now in his sixties for mistakes made in a good effort in his long-ago youth. However, Stuart Christie's ability to look before he leaps has not noticibly improved in the years since the failed attempt to take the Generalissimo out of the box, and his lousy judgment-making skills are now on proud display in his choice of contributers for his literary journal 'Arena Two: Noir Fiction,' edited by Stuart Christie, and published by PM Press.

"Arena Two: Noir Fiction" features three pieces by a minor league neo-conservative war propagandist named Stephen Schwartz. (three, count 'em, three; Christie's cup runneth over a bit here.) A professional repentant former leftist turned fan of the Nicaraguan Contras, and more recently an apologist for Uzbek's murderous dictator Islam Karimov, Schwartz also styles himself as one of the world's leading authorities on the Spanish Revolution and Civil War. Schwartz's role in 'Arena Two: Noir Fiction" is touted in neutral terms as examining "the relationship between surrealism and anarchism." Indeed, "noir fiction" and "surreal" are words that easily attach themselves to the life and deeds of 'Arena Two: Noir Fiction' contributor Stephen Schwartz.

Schwartz was raised in San Francisco as a self-proclaimed "red diaper baby" in the milieu of the pro-Soviet Union Communist Party U.S.A. In his youth he experienced a suspiciously Oedipal-sounding rebellion against the C.P. and became a Trotskyist. Schwartz also styled himself as a later-day surrealist poet, did some heavy-duty hanging out in the late 1970's to early 1980's punk rock scene of San Francisco's North Beach neighborhood, and wrote articles in the SF punk newspaper 'Search and Destroy' under the name Nico Ordway. For several years he was also a one-man ultra-left Trotskyist organization with the grandiose name of 'Fomento Obrero Revolucionario Organizing Committee in the US.' In this context he published a sort of fanzine-to-himself called 'The Alarm.' Schwartz wrote in it under the names 'Comrade Sandalio' and 'S.Solsona,' perhaps attempting to cloak himself in a dashing air of mystery and adventure that was otherwise out of reach for an obnoxious, overweight, foul-mouthed cafe habitué who couldn't get dates with hot young punk rock chicks.

Schwartz was widely derided by those who encountered him in the flesh. Anarchist writer Bob Black dissed him in a 1982 leaflet as a "tendentious pedant" and "an after hours militant with nothing to say in six languages." After meeting him in person, his ostensible comrades in France and Spain declared that they had "broke all relations" ("...rompemos toda relacion con ellos.") with his one-person "group" in the May 1982 issue of their publication 'Alarma.' (1) Another acquaintance from that time, John Zerzan, has said of Schwartz: "...he always struck me as a pretty ridiculous character. He went from Stalinist to Trot to `Surrealist Trot' to what he called `very close to classical anarchist,' and given his flakiness it didn't seem to matter nor did it seem like it would surprise me whatever turn he would take. Now I know this sounds like a claim to omniscience, but he always struck me as an unstable case who could end up anywhere!...he made himself a joke by trying to recruit San Francisco punks - who all laughed at him while spending his money..." (2)

THE POETASTER'S DISHONOR...
By the end of Ronald Reagan's first term Schwartz stopped publishing 'The Alarm' and quickly became a neo-conservative. This coincided with a massive improvement in his job prospects. Schwartz went from being a guy who had recently made a living driving a cab to employment as an editor at a San Francisco-based, Reagan Adminstration-affiliated think tank called the Institute for Contemporary Studies. This was a rare charitable indulgence on the part of the Reagan right, since at the time of his hiring Schwartz didn't have an undergraduate degree and had never been involved in anything more politically consequential than sharing his opinions about anarchism, Trotskyism and the Spanish Civil War in a loud voice in bars.

``...ICS (the Institute for Contemporary Studies) was launched in 1974, during the waning days of Governor Ronald Reagan's Administration, by Edwin Meese III and other close Reagan associates...Defending America, a 1977 ICS title with an introduction by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, built an early case that the Soviets had opened a `window of vulnerability' in U.S. nuclear defenses...ICS, which receives the bulk of its funding from corporations such as Bechtel, Chevron, IBM and Chase Manhattan Bank (also Alcoa, Union Carbide, Coors, Exxon, and the Hearst Corporation, at that time the owner of the San Francisco Examiner) and from key right-wing fundraisers like Richard Mellon Scaife, has been called `Reagan's favorite think tank.''' (3)

In his role as an editor at the Institute for Contemporary Studies, the newly-minted-former "Comrade Sandalio" of the 'Fomento Obrero Revolucionario Organizing Committee' worked enthusiastically to help create a favorable public relations climate for US-backed counterinsurgency efforts in Central America. Among tasks he performed in this vein was to help organize materials for a book published by ICS Press titled 'The Grenada Papers.' Published shortly before the 1984 US elections, 'The Grenada Papers' was a collection of internal documents of the 'New Jewel Movement,' the leftist regime that had governed the Carribean island of Grenada and self-destructed shortly before the 1983 American invasion and occupation of Grenada. The documents had been seized and analyzed by the CIA and Air Force Intelligence in the wake of the US invasion and then forwarded to the Institute for Contemporary Studies. Edited by University of California-Berkeley Professors Paul Seabury and Walter McDougall, the book extolled the US invasion as the first time a so-called Communist regime had been overthrown by democratic forces, and the book was structured to justify the invasion of Grenada to an audience mostly made up of the staffers of stupid American congressmen. 'The Grenada Papers' demonized by association the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and leftist guerrilla movements in El Salvador and Guatemala. The editors' key point was that leftist insurgencies in the Caribbean and Central America were pawns of Soviet foreign policy and a dire strategic threat to the United States (we should have been so lucky). Events in Grenada were presented as an argument for increased aggression by the US government in Central America.

Schwartz wrote introductions to sections of the book in which the ``Left-wing'' West German Social Democrats were taken to task for not being sufficiently supportive of US defense goals.

'The Grenada Papers' was published in the fall of 1984. In the Fall 1984 issue of the ICS's 'Journal of Contemporary Studies,' Schwartz called attention to his participation in a presentation based on the materials in 'The Grenada Papers' before an "Outreach group on Central America" at the Reagan White House on Oct. 31, 1984.

In the same period, in a letter to the contemporary version of the Industrial Workers of the World dated October 24, 1984, Schwartz eulogized a recently deceased Marxist member of the current-day version of the IWW, Ed Spira, saluting Spira as a ``working class warrior.'' Schwartz signed his letter by name and by his IWW membership number, X333361.

Schwartz was also available for perfomances as an "expert" on Central America extolling the upside of a possible US invasion of Nicaragua at neo-conservative conferences.

An article by Sara Diamond in the March 5, 1985 issue of The Daily Californian, a University of California campus-oriented newspaper in Berkeley, reported that the Institute for Contemporary Studies hosted a $165-a-seat public policy conference early in 1985 at the Mark Hopkins Hotel in San Francisco. About 80 academics, business leaders and intelligence analysts attended this gathering. Reagan's attorney general, champion of the death penalty and W.C. Fields look-alike Edwin Meese delivered a speech lauding the virtues of the Reagan economic program. Other topics at this conference included education, Grenada, Nicaragua, and ``The Future of the Soviet Empire.''

Quoting from The Daily Californian article: ```I think...Nicaragua could easily become Grenada Two,' said Stephen Schwartz...The `lesson of Grenada,' he said, is that in `certain of the Soviet satellites...there are gigantic possibilities of internal instability and collapse.'
``U.C. Berkeley political science professor Paul Seabury, who edited The Grenada Papers along with Schwartz and U.C. Berkeley history professor Walter McDougall, said the documents provide analysts with a rare opportunity to study Soviet `proxy operations'.

``While he said he's not advocating any particular action, Seabury said that `as a scholar, I would just love to see the Managua documents.'''

Participating in this conference didn't prevent Schwartz from taking out an ad calling attention to his membership in the current-day version of the IWW on page 11 of the May 1985 issue of the IWW newspaper, 'Industrial Worker.'

On the editorial page of the San Francisco Examiner, April 11, 1986, an opinion piece by Schwartz was published under the title ``Support Contras:"'

``We helped bring down Somoza, and we donated more aid to the Sandinista regime, at first, than we gave Somoza in 20 years. But the new regime from the beginning treated us as `the Yankees, enemies of humanity'....'' Schwartz used the plural-possessive-"we" form almost once for every sentence here, and claimed that if ``we'' of the United States government didn't aid the Nicaraguan Contras, the Sandinistas would overrun Guatemala and Mexico and threaten the United States the way the Germans did to France in 1940.

PEEK-A-BOO, I-SEE-YOU...
The following year, Schwartz bragged on a television news broadcast that he used his insider knowledge as a former long-time leftist to spy on opponents of US policies in Central America, and feed information on them to the Feds.

On Thursday November 10, 1987, San Francisco's KRON-TV Channel 4, broadcast a report titled ``Private Spies,'' on its 6pm ``Evening Edition.''

The following is from a transcript:
Sylvia Chase (anchor on set): People and groups who speak out against Reagan administration policies put themselves in jeopardy of surveillance by private intelligence gathering organizations.

Target 4 has learned it's a kind of private spying network: conservative groups, with close ties to the White House. Members say they pass on the information that they collect to federal agencies, like the Justice Department. And on occasion to the White House itself...
...When Congress blocked aid to the Contras, the White House got around the law by turning to a private network to raise the money. That triggered the Iran-Contra scandal...
...Now, there's evidence of another private network. This one spies on the President's political opponents...
...Here's how it works. Around the country, people gather information on left-wing activities and funnel it to private conservative groups...like the Council for Inter-American security, the Capital Research Center, the Young America's Foundation, and the Institute for Contemporary Studies.

All have close ties to the Reagan Administration.

Stephen Schwartz (Institute for Contemporary Studies): We'll be seeing all of the NSC (National Security Council) people, I'm sure. I'll be seeing all of the NSC people.
Sylvia Chase: Stephen Schwartz is a member of what he calls the commie-watching network.
He works at the Institute for Contemporary Studies, a San Francisco think-tank founded by top Reagan aids like Ed Meese.
Schwartz says he addressed a White House meeting attended by Oliver North and even met former CIA director, William Casey. Schwartz says there are lots of ways to get information.
Schwartz: When a left-wing group publishes, say a list of its state committee and throws it in the garbage and somebody finds it in the garbage and brings it to me, then I know the names of all those people and sometimes there will be more information, too.
Chase: What techniques are being used today...going through the garbage. That's one way.
Schwartz: Going through garbage.
Chase: Lifting things off the desk when no one's looking.
Schwartz: Now, that's something which is something that I don't believe in. But that's not fair.
Chase: But you know that it happens?
Schwartz: Yeah. I do know that it happens.
Chase: What other techniques would people use?
Schwartz: Well, if any leftist group has an open office where there are a lot of people around, you know you can walk in and if there's something lying on a desk, you don't have to filch it. You might just write down what's on it...see a list of names or something like that.
Chase: Are there other people like you around the country keeping track?
Schwartz: There are people that are collecting information. Yes.
Chase: And are they able to get it to people in government?
Schwartz: Yes. But the people in the government are not, frankly, able to do anything more with it than simply collect the information and keep track of the information..."

Schwartz's tenure with the Institute for Contemporary Studies hinged on his ability to pontificate soulfully about the evils of Communism. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union this extremely narrow field of specialization was past its sell-by date. Without Stalinism, Schwartz was left without anything to not believe in. His bosses were probably tired of Schwartz running around their offices hollering about the latest developments in the feud between Trotsky and Stalin, anyway, so the ICS fobbed off the now otherwise unemployable Schwartz on an accomdating San Francisco Chronicle, wher he was assigned the lowly task of helping to write obituaries.

Imagine the letdown. He'd gone from huffing and puffing in the pages of 'The Alarm' about the left communist critique of labor unions, which he didn't have the intellectual chops to grasp in the first place, to shaking hands with the famous Oliver North and CIA Chief William Casey in President Reagan's White House. Punk rockers, anarchists and ultra-leftists had all "laughed at him while spending his money," but with the sinister and cynical neo-cons the porcine pedant had finally found a place at the table. Now he was marooned scribbling obits at the 'Chron,' a sarcastic tribute to his previous pencil-pushing efforts to help keep Nicaraguan cemeteries abundantly supplied with the corpses of the working poor. He'd even become the butt of humorous derisive local news coverage when he was ticketed by police for writing graffiti claiming that he was not the philosophical whore of North Beach. (4) His life must have seemed like a great gaping vacuity, now that this guy with a Trotsky fixation no longer had great and sanguinary events to attach himself to and powerful men to fawn over.

TO THE BALKANS..."AT LEAST IN SARAJEVO THEY CAN'T CALL ME 'THE PHILOSOPHICAL WHORE OF NORTH BEACH' -- IN SARAJEVO THERE'S NO BEACH..."
In the 1990's the former Yugoslavia became a focus of US national security concerns. Weary of his sinecure at the Chronicle, and drawn irresistibly to the smell of human blood being shed in copious quantities, Steve Schwartz now remade himself as an "expert" on the Balkans. As a part of this Schwartz gave himself a complete fashion makeover. He grew a long beard, started sporting a skull-cap, and relocated to Sarajevo, Bosnia, where he converted to the Sufi branch of Islam and changed his name -- at least for the duration of direct U.S. military intervention in the Balkans -- to Suleyman Ahmad Stephen Schwartz.

The newly-minted Suleyman Ahmad Schwartz appiled the cheerleading moves he'd honed on behalf of the Nicaraguan Contras to the Bosnian Muslim President Alija Izetbegovic, describing him as "an authentic warrior in a legitimate jihad," and on return to the U.S. Schwartz was a militant propagandist for U.S. miltary involvement in the war in Bosnia and Kosovo.

The September 11th 2001 blowback from former Presidents Carter and Reagan's foreign policy antics in Afghanistan gave Ahmad Suleyman Schwartz new opportunities to exercise his brand of journalism, penning pompous pro-war pronunciamentos in such venues as William Kristol's 'The Weekly Standard' and the 'Wall Street Journal.' Hired in July 2001 and fired in June 2002 from a job as a journalist with the Voice of America, Schwartz found a more suitable and secure position as a "Senior Policy Analyst" at a small, Washington DC-based pro-war lobby called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

In his role as an apparent convert to Islam, Schwartz wrote a book titled (without apparent conscious ironic intent) 'The Two Faces of Islam.' Schwartz and his 'Two Faces' elicited a brief, scathing and dismissive review from leading U.S. anthropologist Clifford Geertz in the July 3, 2003 isue of 'The New York Review of Books:'

"Stephen Schwartz, who has also run into political difficulties in the capital, and stirred thereby a teacup-storm on the right, is a strange and outlandish figure. He grew up in San Francisco as part of the City Lights literary crowd around Lawrence Ferlinghetti, whom his father had published; he became a so-far-left-he's-right Trotskyist-anarchist under the nom de guerre "Comrade Sandallo," (sic) worked for a while as an obituary writer and street reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, shifted his affections and his energies to Reagan during the micro-war in Grenada, and ultimately made his way as a freelance journalist to Sarajevo in the 1990s, where he converted to Islam and joined a Naqshabandi Sufi order. He changed his name again, at least for some purposes, to Suleyman Abmad, (sic) and found the Medusa's head every conspiratorialist needs: "Wahabism."

Geertz notes of Schwartz, "whose rhetoric has survived his allegiances," that in his "Two Faces:"

"His book consists in a monomaniacal tracing out, laborious and repetitive (the word "wahhabi" or "wahabbism" appears in almost every paragraph), of the thousands of ways, ingenious, insidious, and implacably relentless, in which the machinations of the House of Saud in the service of this mad creed reaches out to poison the souls of Muslims, turn them against one another, against us, against everybody. Mobilizing their petro-dollars to found religious schools all over the world, set up popular-front-type propaganda foundations, finance lobbying efforts, bribe the powerful, infiltrate legitimate organizations, recruit supporters, eliminate enemies, and most especially to finance jihad, terrorism, and the destruction of Israel, the Saudis work tirelessly to turn Islam, in its essence a peaceful, mystical, unifying force "preaching love and healing," into a world-dividing, world-destroying "two-faced" one.

"There is, of course, more than a grain of truth in this, as there is in any comprehensive indictment of faction-ridden politics, and the Saudi factions, like the Ayatollahs, Hamas, Syria, and Mubarak are, surely, playing for keeps. But Schwartz's discussion (he has virtually nothing to say about the concrete details of intra-Islamic conflict and, except for the Koran, he does without source references) is a prime example of how to transform an arguable argument into an obsessional fantasy:

(Schwartz:) "With the collapse of the Soviet State, Wahhabism effectively replaced the Communist movement as the main sponsor of ideological aggression against the democratic West.... The ideological division of humanity into "two worlds" has been promulgated on different bases: Wahhabism applied a religious distinction, Communism a class standard, and Nazism a racial criterion.... Wahhabism, like the other totalitarian ideologies... compelled members of the new middle classes in the Saudi kingdom and the Gulf states to eagerly kill and die, rather than to procreate and live.... The conduct of the Saudis was devious. They assured the West of profound affection, while fomenting worldwide adventurism and seeking to bring every Sunni Muslim on the face of the earth under their control.... The Wahhabi-Saudi regime...embodies a program for the ruthless conquest of power and a war of extermination.... [Its] face...is a great deal uglier than that of a general Islamism, or radical Arab nationalism,...or even of Soviet Communism, and its threat to the peace of the world is immensely greater..." (5)

Geertz gets some of the chronology regarding Schwartz's gyrations wrong, but his insight into the intellectually hollow core of a man of 'ressentiment' is on target.

As someone else has noted elsewhere:

"While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is "outside," what is "different," what is "not itself: and this No is its creative deed. This inversion of the value-positing eye -- this need to direct one's view outward instead of back to oneself -- is of the essence of 'ressentiment:' in order to exist, slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs, phisiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act -- its action is fundamentally reaction." (6)

THE FOUNDATION FOR THE DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES THAT BOIL PEOPLE TO DEATH...
In his job at the Foundation, Schwartz went to bat for the torturer tyrant of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov. Karimov is a former Soviet apparatchik reborn in the post-USSR era as a love child of the Israeli and United States National Security establishments. This ex-Stalinist thug turned pro-US thug's contribution to the annals of early 21st century human rights abuses is a penchant for having prisoners killed by scalding them to death.

Right-wing libertarian Justin Raimondo of 'Antiwar.com' noted:

"Uzbekistan, land of torture, where opponents of the barbaric regime are routinely jailed, beaten and murdered -- you woudn't think that Uzbek "President" Islam Karimov would have any Western defenders. But, then, you probably weren't taking ex-leftist-turned-Muslim Stephen Schwartz into account.

"The fifty-something "senior policy analyst" for the ironically-named Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a rabid war bird formerly with the Voice of America, doesn't have much of a problem with Uzbekistan's estimated 600 political arrests per year and some 6,500 political prisoners -- many of whom face death by torture.

Praising Uzbekistan in a speech as "a new, young, transitional democracy,' Schwartz explained:
"I cannot claim to provide a full endorsement of the Uzbek regime without going there. Obviously, as in any country, there have been abuses. However, I note that much of the discussion of Uzbekistan and the claims of Islamic figures in that country to being victims of repression, rests on extremely vague terminology. For example, the latest U.S. State Department report on human rights abuses around the world was released on March 4. It includes numerous allegations against Uzbekistan, many involving the government's struggle to suppress Hizb-ut-Tahrir - a clandestine subversive movement originating in Arab countries. This is a battle in which the United States should probably be cheering Karimov on, rather than condeming him."

Raimondo went on to write:
"According to a forensic report compiled last summer by the British embassy in Uzbekistan, two prisoners of this 'transistional democracy' were boiled to death. Their screams were not too audible in the West, drowned out, perhaps, by Schwartz's cheers and the support of the U.S. government. American taxpayers sheleld out $500 million in direct aid to Uzbekistan, $79 million of which went directly into the pockets of the torturers, i.e. the police and intelligence apparatus.

"Apologizing for torture, murder and the parboiling of human beings -- for the man they call "the philosophical whore of North Beach," it's all in a day's work..." (7)

Another useful source on Uzbekistan and its US-backed despot is found on the blog of Craig Murray, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004.

An article of June 2005 says of Islam Karimov:

"...This dictator simply tolerates no opposition. And he expresses his lust for blood quite openly. Of political opponents, Karimov has said, “Such people must be shot in the forehead.” And more: “If necessary, I’ll shoot them myself.” On another occasion, he averred: “I’m prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic…. If my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head.”

"...Uzbekistan currently serves Washington in a more sinister way: it is believed to be one of the destination countries for the highly secretive “renditions program,” in which the CIA ships suspected terrorists to third-party countries where abusive interrogation methods are employed that are illegal in the United States. Essentially, the “renditions program” is the conscious and deliberate outsourcing of torture...As the London Times put it: “The CIA would not shop anywhere else, which is why a mysterious Gulfstream 5 executive jet routinely delivers terrorist subjects from Afghanistan [to Uzbekistan] for interrogation and, perhaps, percolation.”

"...Perhaps the greatest American apologist for Uzbekistan’s tyrant has been Stephen Schwartz, a onetime member of the neocon Foundation for the Defense of Democracies who is most celebrated for his purple prose advocating regime change in Saudi Arabia...As he wrote in the neocon journal The Weekly Standard in 2002, the situation in Uzbekistan was about as good as it could get.

"Explaining away the grisly record of the Karimov regime, Schwartz asserted that “before freedom can be established, the enemies of freedom must be defeated. The fate of democracies that do not defeat the enemies of democracy is illustrated by the histories of Germany and Italy after the First World War. Democracies can grant mercy to their enemies only from a position of unchallengeable strength...Since September 11, the United States no longer accepts the claim that the free exercise of terrorist agitation, incitement, and organization outweighs the benefits of legal sanction,” Schwartz wrote.

(Schwartz, quoted in Murray,) "The United States, which has entered into a military alliance with Uzbekistan, must support the Uzbeks in their internal as well as their external combat, and must repudiate the blandishments of the human rights industry.” (8)

As Justin Raimondo has noted in a number of grim, humorous and on-target columns about the sordid and clownish Suleyman/Sandalio/Schwartz:

"Here is someone whose long march through the ideologies started out on the far-left fringe of Trotskyism -- as "Comrade Sandalio," he was the leader (and sole member) of the 'Fomento Obrero Revolucionario' of the United States (FOCUS) -- and who wound up on the opposite shore, where he became "Suleyman Ahmad," the Jewish convert to Islam and a self-described "New Age rightist."

"No matter what sort of idelogical drag he turns up in, however, Schwartz always sings essentially the same song. During his travels through the Balkans, he teamed up with Albania Catholics, whom he claimed were "Threated by Christian Orthodox Imperialism -- 'Yugoslav,' Macedonian, Greek." Clinton had barely begun bombing some of the oldest cities in Europe when Schwartz popped up on Bay Area television cheerleading the Kosovo war. Now the enemy is Wahabism, instead of Orthodoxy, but it's the same old story: the US must conduct a religious war to suit Schwartz's latest persona -- whatever that is...

"...From the sectarian politics of the left-communist fringe to the halls of the Institute for Contemporary Studies and on to the Voice of America, this chameleon has changed his spots several times over, but always, you'll note, in search of a job. The only problem is that he has to blot out half his resume in search of the next one.

"Aside from opportunism, however, there is an ideological theme to Schwartz's recent career: Wherever there is a war, there is Stephen Schwartz, hovering vulture-like, demanding an escalation of the conflict. From the class war, to the Kosovo war, to the "war on terrorism," the war-bird Schwartz pops up on every battlefield, like some macabre jack-in-the-box..." (9)

And in "Portrait of a War Bird..."

"...Busy, busy, busy, and always in the service of conflict...there is Stephen Schwartz, circling over the battlefield and feeding off the carnage. Caw! Caw! Caw!" (10)

TO BE CONTINUED...

Arena Two: Noir Fiction. Stuart Christie, editor. Publisher: PM Press.
Publication Date: 2/1/2011 ISBN: 9781604862140

Footnotes to Part One:

(1) "Vista la actitud del unico militante de FOCUS que concemos y que es plenamente apoyado por otros miembro (hasta ahora desconocides) de este grupo rompemos toda relacion con ellos."
("In view of the attitude of the only militant of FOCUS that we know of and who is plainly supported by the other members of this group (who we know nothing about) we totally break all reletions with them.")
ALARMA #13, May 1982.

"This group has never contained (till our break up with it) anyone but Sandalio, as far as we know."
(Correspondance of FOR with Morgan Miller of Portland, Oregon, dated 9-12-83.

ALARME: (write without mentioning the name)
BP 329
75624 Paris Cedex 13 FRANCE

FOR is, or was, a small left communist tendency in France and Spain, founded in 1958 by a group including Benjamin Peret and Grandizo Munis. The FOR originated in the Trotskyist movement after World War Two. For more on ther origins, see footnote #3 in my article 'From Munis to Meese,...' cited below.

Copies of FOR materials available from me, at proletaire2003@yahoo.com

(2) Letter of John Zerzan to the Detroit, Michigan anarchist newspaper the 'Fifth Estate', Nov.12, 1985

(3) ``Buttoned-Down Bohemians - Welcome to San Francisco's New Age Right.'' 'Image' magazine, San Francisco Examiner, Sunday August 3, 1986

(4) "When “New Age Rightist” Stephen Schwartz discovered graffiti calling him “the philosophical whore of North Beach,” the former Trotskyite turned red with rage.
He uncapped his felt-tipped pen and was printing a reply to the scurrilous scribblings when he was busted by Mayor Feinstein's anti-graffiti police squad on a charge of malicious mischief, defacing the wall of a Vallejo Street construction site.
Schwartz...has demanded a trial to exonerate his exercise of free speech.

“I was just going to answer that I was not the philosophical whore of North Beach,” said Schwartz, 37.

If he wants a trial, he can have it, said Assistant District Attorney Joseph Hoffman, who believes citizens have the right to speak out under the First Amendment — but with limits.

“The remedy is that he can stand on a street corner and yell all he wants that he's not the philosophical whore of North Beach,” Hoffman said. “But he can't go around defacing other people's property.”

('A Battle Over Right to Write.' He wanted to rebut graffiti with graffiti
by Dennis J. Opatrny, of the Examiner staff. 'San Francisco Examiner', May 7, 1987.)

(5) Clifford Geertz, "Which Way to Mecca." 'New York Review of Books,' Volume 50, Number 11, July 3, 2003

(6) Frederich Nietzsche. "On the Geneology of Morals," Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale. Vintage Books/Random House, 1967. 36.

(7) Justin Raimondo, "Wackos, Weirdos and Wingdings. The War Party -- a scary, ugly lot." 'Antiwar.com,' June 2, 2003. http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j060203.html

(8) Stephen J. Snikgoski, "Idealistic democracy, total hypocrisy, and Israel: America's man in Uzbekistan." June 22, 2005. http://craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2005/06/idealistic_demo_1/
Posted on the blog of Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan.

Quote of tough guy Schwartz dismissing "the blandishments of the human rights industry" regarding systematic police rapes, torture, and boiling people to death is from, Schwartz, "Defending Freedom from Islamist Terror," 'Weekly Standard,' July 19, 2003.

(9) Justin Raimondo, "The VOA Folies -- 'Voice of America' loses a writer -- and the War Party gains a martyr." 'Antiwar.com,' July 5, 2002.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j070502.html

(10) Justin Raimondo, "Portrait of a War Bird -- 10 questions for 'the philosophical whore of North Beach." 'Antiwar.com,' Dec.6, 2002.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j120602.html

See also my article, 'From Munis to Meese: Left Communism or State Department Surrealism',
(http://www.infoshop.org/myep/munis_meese.html) based on my encounters with Steve Schwartz in the final stages of his 'Comrade Sandalio' song and dance routine in the summer and fall of 1984.

Kevin Keating
San Francisco USA
e-mail: proletaire2003@yahoo.com
Homepage: http://www.infoshop.org/myep/love_index.html