Compassionate Ethnic Cleansing

In the wake of the Gaza massacre and with a dangerous tilt to the right, some in Israel are now openly expressing the unthinkable--the mass expulsion of "Arabs" from its borders. Conn Hallinan at Jewish Peace News reports:

One of the more disturbing developments in the Middle East is a growing consensus among Israelis that it would acceptable to expel -- in the words of advocates "transfer" -- its Arab citizens to either a yet as unformed Palestinian state or the neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt.

More after the fold...

At one time relegated to extremists, the idea is gaining popular support among segements of Israel. And with the rise of ultra-nationalist Avigdor Liebermann, who has long called for the expulsion of "disloyal Arabs," in Israeli politics, what was once a fringe ideology is moving steadily into mainstream opinion--under the euphemism of "transfer." And even those who are accepting of an "independent" Palestinian state, are using such a plan to push an agenda of Arab expulsion. As Hallinan notes:

..."transfer" is no longer the exclusive policy of extremists, as it has increasingly become a part of mainstream political dialogue. "My solution for maintaining a Jewish and democratic state of Israel is to have two nation-states with certain concessions and with clear red lines," Kadima leader and Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told a group of Tel Aviv high school students last December, "and among other things, I will be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Israeli Arabs, and tell them, ' your national solution lies elsewhere.'"

This trend is accompanied by a strong anti-Arab/anti-Palestinian bias that is growing among Israelis. And, according to data Hallinan pulls from the Israeli Association for Civil Rights, anti-Arab incidents (what we would call "hate crimes") have risen sharply:

* Some 55 percent of Jewish Israelis say that the state should encourage Arab emigration;

* 78 percent of Jewish Israelis oppose including Arab parties in the government;

* 56 percent agree with the statement that "Arabs cannot attain the Jewish level of cultural development";

* 75 percent agree that Arabs are inclined to be violent. Among Arab-Israelis, 54 percent feel the same way about Jews.

* 75 percent of Israeli Jews say they would not live in the same building as Arabs.

And to think, Israel--along with the support of the US & Canada--is boycotting the Durban racism conference.

These numbers tend to support what many, like former President Jimmy Carter, have pointed out--that Israel is a de facto apartheid state. And though President Carter insisted this apartheid system only existed in the territories, it would seem it is now moving into the metropole of Israel as well. But comparing Israel's policies to minority-white rule South Africa garners a storm of criticism, as both President Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have learned. And Israel remains the only state that puts forth an ethnic manifesto that is accepted by the world polity, and fiercely supported by benefactors like the United States. So much so, that even President Carter is certain not to dispute the sanctity of Israel to remain a Jewish majority state--forever. Given the recent past, and the horrors endured by people of Jewish descent in Europe during WWII, the nature of this claim is understandable. That it remains however, outside the boundaries of even rational debate, seems to have allowed it to grow into something altogether disturbing.

Electronic Intifada cofounder Ali Abunimah has long pointed to this unwillingness to dialogue openly and fully about Israel as one of the key blocks to any form of lasting peace. And he has warned in the past the dangers inherent in a singular focus on a "two-state solution," if only because ethnic nationalism can so easily degenerate into something much more sinister. His book One Country: A Bold Proposal to the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse seeks another soution:

ONE COUNTRY revives an old and neglected idea of sharing the country. Although living together might seem impossible, Abunimah shows how Israelis and Palestinians are by now so intertwined -- geographically and economically -- that no kind of separation can lead to the security Israelis need or the rights Palestinians must have. He reveals the bankruptcy of the two-state approach, takes on the objections and taboos that stand in the way of a binational solution, demonstrates that sharing the territory will bring benefits for all, and asserts that the country can remain a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians.

Abunimah's ideas have been lampooned as implausible. And not even many Mid-East peace activists dare not touch or mention it. However the time may soon come when the world will have to at least finally *ask* the question of whether any state can remain an ethnically homogenous and still be a democracy, in a modern world that seeks to come together rather than drift apart.

Read full article by Conn Hallinan here.

Read More...

Summary only...

Israel Violates Geneva Conventions in Gaza (Graphic)

The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war.

The statement above was issued in response to Israel's attack in Gaza by Professor Richard Falk, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories. Below the fold are the rest of his words, as well as some images currently coming out of Gaza. Warning- they are graphic.





Israel Violates Geneva Conventions in Gaza

27 December 2008

The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war.

Those violations include:

Collective punishment – the entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants.

Targeting civilians – the airstrikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East.

Disproportionate military response – the airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students attempting to find transportation home from the university.

Earlier Israeli actions, specifically the complete sealing off of entry and exit to and from the Gaza Strip, have led to severe shortages of medicine and fuel (as well as food), resulting in the inability of ambulances to respond to the injured, the inability of hospitals to adequately provide medicine or necessary equipment for the injured, and the inability of Gaza's besieged doctors and other medical workers to sufficiently treat the victims.

Certainly the rocket attacks against civilian targets in Israel are unlawful. But that illegality does not give rise to any Israeli right, neither as the Occupying Power nor as a sovereign state, to violate international humanitarian law and commit war crimes or crimes against humanity in its response. I note that Israel's escalating military assaults have not made Israeli civilians safer; to the contrary, the one Israeli killed today after the upsurge of Israeli violence is the first in over a year.

Israel has also ignored recent Hamas' diplomatic initiatives to reestablish the truce or ceasefire since its expiration on 26 December.

The Israeli airstrikes today, and the catastrophic human toll that they caused, challenge those countries that have been and remain complicit, either directly or indirectly, in Israel's violations of international law. That complicity includes those countries knowingly providing the military equipment including warplanes and missiles used in these illegal attacks, as well as those countries who have supported and participated in the siege of Gaza that itself has caused a humanitarian catastrophe.

I remind all member states of the United Nations that the UN continues to be bound to an independent obligation to protect any civilian population facing massive violations of international humanitarian law – regardless of what country may be responsible for those violations. I call on all Member States, as well as officials and every relevant organ of the United Nations system, to move on an emergency basis not only to condemn Israel's serious violations, but to develop new approaches to providing real protection for the Palestinian people.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Other Human Rights

The 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will be rightly lauded as a landmark in international attempts to formalize the rights and responsibilities between governments and their citizens....however, we need only glance at a few statistics; almost three billion people live in poverty on less than US$2.50 a day, and the number of hungry actually increased this year to nearly one billion people. As the world reaped record levels of harvests in 2008, the most basic right to food is still denied to around 1 in 6 people on the planet.

Human Rights. Say the word and most of us think of numerous rights we celebrate as part of Western liberalism--freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, freedom of expression and other democratic principles. We judge other countries on how they meet these rights, and are quick to condemn them when they fall short. But those rights only make up a part of human rights. Another set of human rights, we rarely talk about or ignore altogether. These are the rights that men, women and children be afforded enough food to eat, clean water to drink, habitable shelter, freedom from want or poverty. Those rights we have decided are more so privileges, to be pitied or helped along with charity, but not the same as the democratic ideals we uphold. So we can spend all our time righteously condemning the jailing of one dissident, and somehow ignore millions suffering from malnutrition, disease and other maladies. That many of these lack of human rights also relate to our standard of living--from free trade imbalances to resource exploitation--probably pushes us into greater silence.

The article below by Robin Willoughby, a Research Officer at Share the World's Resources (STWR), points out this glaring discrepancy in our notions of human rights.



Human Rights... For Who?

Human rights are increasingly viewed through the rhetoric of military intervention, democracy and political freedom, whilst the UN's pivotal role in securing social and economic rights in the developing world continues to be marginalised, argues Robin Willoughby.

http://www.stwr.org/the-un-people-politics/human-rights-for-who.html

10th December 08 - Robin Willoughby - STWR

The 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights will be rightly lauded as a landmark in international attempts to formalize the rights and responsibilities between governments and their citizens. If we ask if the Declaration has proven a success, however, we need only glance at a few statistics; almost three billion people live in poverty on less than US$2.50 a day, and the number of hungry actually increased this year to nearly one billion people.[1] As the world reaped record levels of harvests in 2008, the most basic right to food is still denied to around 1 in 6 people on the planet.[2] But how did we get to this situation?

An answer to this can be simply put: on the international stage, the world's most powerful nations have prioritised those human rights associated with political freedom and peace and security, at the expense of those rights related to economic justice.

In the sphere of peace and security, the richest nations have used their political and military clout to pursue a highly defined and specific human rights agenda, highlighting the importance of themes such as intervention, democracy and political freedom. This trend is illustrated by the creation of such bodies within the United Nations (UN) as the Peace Building Commission and Counter-Terrorism Committee, as well as by the growth in interventionist peacekeeping missions. At the same time, more human rights bodies have been created under the purview of the UN Security Council, such as ad hoc tribunals to address human rights abuse in places such as Rwanda and Yugoslavia.[3]

International discussions on human rights are invariably focused on such themes as the danger posed by terrorism, threats to democracy in Zimbabwe or the need to invade Iraq in the name of human rights. This constricted view has also led to the widespread incorporation of military terminology into human rights semantics. ‘Humanitarian intervention' can be used to describe a military invasion; ‘muscular humanitarianism'[4] has become a label for aid and reconstruction work; and US-based human rights advocates recently described the need for a ‘peace surge'[5] to solve complex political problems in Darfur.

New actors have moved into a combined human rights and humanitarian fold. The EU is developing a rapid reaction force as part of its human rights-based foreign policy, while NATO has incorporated a ‘structural intervention force' to intercede in countries that are perceived as ‘failed states', humanitarian emergencies or threats to peace and security. The World Bank has also entered into this new arena, incorporating a reconstruction and intervention arm into its operations, as witnessed in the aftermath of the South East Asian Tsunami in 2006.

The result of this prioritisation of democracy, peace and security and ‘humanitarian' causes can be seen in a split between those human rights laws most palatable to the Global North, and those most urgently needed by the majority world. Unlike the one-sided prioritisation of individual human rights and security issues by the largest powers, economic and social rights have been severely sidelined.

The largest financial powers, led by the US and EU, now channel economic policy and implementation through the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Through these bodies, their founding members are able to impose a vision of human rights and economic development that conforms to their own geo-strategic and political vision. According to this thinking, the removal of trade barriers, growth of capital accumulation and empowerment of business will lead to an inevitable ‘trickle-down' effect to the poor to secure human rights.

In contrast, the UN remains heavily marginalised as an actor within economic affairs. The UN agencies vested with the authority to ensure economic rights and freedoms have been downsized, marginalised or silenced as a voice in policy making. The UN Economic and Social Council - the UN body endowed with the authority to promote economic rights and full employment - has never been fully enabled to fulfil its mandate. Under pressure from the larger economic powers, much of its authority has passed to the preferred international institutions of the Global North: the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

A similar fate has befallen the UN Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD). During a series of conferences in the 1990s, the most powerful members of the UN - led by the US - threatened to cut funding to UNCTAD unless it conformed to the dominant ideological thinking of economic globalisation. Initially created in 1969 to offer a voice to the developing world and a negotiating forum on economic policy between rich and poor nations, the forum has now been sidelined and merely offers ‘technical advice' to poorer countries.[6]

Other UN agencies such as the UN Development Program (UNDP) are currently threatened with further funding cuts or marginalisation. Last year, under a barrage of criticism from the US media (described as ‘rising like Frankenstein's monster to challenge the power of the UN Secretariat'[7] and as ‘cavorting with a roster of thug governments'[8]) the US Congress cut its funding to the agency, diverting the money instead to UN bodies that fit with the US vision of development and human rights, namely the UN Entrepreneurship Initiative and UN Democracy Fund.

Such a marginalisation of the UN role in economic development has resulted in an almost complete lack of intellectual pluralism in discussions of our future direction to secure economic rights. The model of free-market economic growth and the ‘trickle down' theory of wealth to secure basic needs have been broadly accepted and institutionalised, at a time when poverty, inequality and hunger are increasing for the majority of the world according to the UN's own figures, in large part because of these very policies.

With human rights viewed through such a narrow prism, some analysts suggest that both the UN and other aid agencies could be perceived as a ‘Trojan Horse' for the economic and political interests of the most powerful nations.[9] Following from this logic, it is perhaps little surprise that there has been an increasing distrust of UN staff and humanitarian workers in the field.

Rather than a focussing on a narrowly imposed view of human rights, the anniversary of the UN Declaration gives us the opportunity to take stock of global priorities. An agenda that promotes peace, security and democracy has resulted in a form of ‘military humanitarianism' and security-based human rights that play into the hands of the most economically powerful. In addition, the promotion of the economic rights of the majority world has been institutionalised in the World Bank and IMF, leading to a highly ideological attempt to secure basic human rights.

To respond to these challenges, international governments should equally prioritise all of the rights and responsibilities in the UN Declaration to include those on economic justice, such as the right to adequate living and social protection, fair remuneration, and the right to adequate food and shelter. Such a holistic approach would help government and international bodies to tackle other complex human rights problems such as peace and security, terrorism and gender relations.

A rejuvenated UN has a key role to play in such a prioritisation of basic human rights. To achieve this aim, the UN should regain its independence as a forum for economic policy making. The organisation can only play a central role in global governance if it can act independently and incorporate different visions of economic development, rather than follow the ideological constraints of the World Bank and IMF. A much needed rethink on the future world economic direction would aid the UN's image in the eyes of those countries most in need of its help.

The recent coordinated bailout of the global banking system shows that if international governments feel there is sufficient cause then they can coordinate and act with remarkable speed. The ‘bottom billion' excluded from the benefits of economic globalisation are now waiting for their own government bailout. It is through these policies that we can achieve the wishes of the original drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: political pluralism, peace and security and true economic and social justice for all.




Robin Willoughby is Research Officer at Share the World's Resources (STWR), an NGO advocating for essential resources such as food, water and energy to be shared internationally. He can be contacted at: robin(at)stwr.org.

References

[1] Shaohua Chen and Martin Ravallion. ‘The Developing World Is Poorer Than We Thought, But No Less Successful in the Fight against Poverty', The World Bank Development Research Group, August 2008. See also Adam W. Parsons, 'Do the Poor Count? ', Share the World's Resources, 15 September 2008.

[2] FAO, ‘Number of Hungry People Rises to 963 Million', Press Release, 9 December 2008.

[3] See Aurelio Viotti, ‘In Search of Symbiosis: The Security Council in the Humanitarian Domain,' International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 865, March 2007.

[4] Walden Bello, ‘The Rise of the Relief-and-Reconstruction Complex', Journal of International Affairs, Spring/Summer 2006, Vol. 59, No.2.

[5] Enough Project, ‘US Activists Call on Obama to Lead a ‘Peace Surge' in Darfur', 6 November 2008, retrieved 9 December 2008,

[6] See Boutros Boutros-Ghali, ‘Reinventing UNCTAD,' South Centre, 20 February 2006.

[7] Claudia Rossett, ‘Ban the Old Ways: UN Ethics Test,' in UN Lives on the Dark Side, IO Watch Note 2007.

[8] Claudia Rossett, ‘Ban the Old Ways: UN Ethics Test,' in UN Lives on the Dark Side, IO Watch Note 2007.

[9] Amii Omara-Otunnu, ‘Western Humanitarianism or Neo-Slavery?', Black Star News, 7 November 2007, see also Alex de Waal, ‘No Such Thing as Humanitarian Intervention,' Harvard International Review, 21 March 2007 and Noam Chomsky, ‘Humanitarian Imperialism: The New Doctrine of Imperial Right', Monthly Review, September 2008.

Read More...

Summary only...

Malcolm X 2007- What If...

And we will know him then for what he was and is—a prince—our own black shining prince!—who didn’t hesitate to die, because he loved us so. --the late Ossie Davis, Eulogy for Malcolm X, 1965.

Today is the birthday of El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, known to most of the world as Malcolm X, who had he lived would have been 82. The fiery activist achieved something akin to sainthood upon his tragic death on Feb. 21st 1965, and saw a revival of his presence especially within the Hip Hop cultural and political “Golden Age” of the late 1980s to early 1990s, culminating in the Spike Lee biopic bearing his name. There are still streets which memoralize him, along with grassroots organizations that seek to carry on his legacy and his movement. But gone today are the Malcolm X buttons, clothing and assorted paraphernalia that defined half a decade of black cultural expression, and influenced members of my generation. Last time I saw someone wearing an X cap, it was on an undocumented Mexican immigrant worker who had gotten it from a free clothing store—which seemed, oddly enough, fitting.

Still, on his birth and death Malcolm X and his politics tend to come alive again. The head of Harlem’s Schomburg Center Howard Dodson noted as much to Amsterdam News:

Each year on those 2 dates - his birthday, May 19th, and the anniversary of his assassination, February 21st - we try to bring to the public some consciousness of his place and role in the making of our history, our heritage and communicate to the world, especially the young people, the meaning of his life and the lessons that can be learned from it.

Each year around this time I tend to ponder Malcolm as well, and may end up spending a few hours reliving some of his speeches. Whenever I do so, I always look at our contemporary world and wonder what if...that fateful day in Feb. of 1965 had never happened? What if...Malcolm was still alive today? How would the 1960s icon have existed in our times? I tend to call it, WWMD--What Would Malcolm Do? Here are just a random sample of 20.

· What would Malcolm make of Hip Hop? Would he find art and expression and politics in it, or condemn it as detrimental and debilitating to black America?

· What would Malcolm make of the “new black conservatism” found in the likes of Bill Cosby? Would a former street hustler still believe the lowest among us could yet be redeemed?

· How would Malcolm’s preaching of “self-determination” co-exist in the black era of “prosperity preachers” and ideologies of “pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps?” Would he blame the poverty of the poor on their own shortcomings, or the system behind it?

· What would Malcolm make of the moral majority and religious right in America? What would he make of gay marriage or gay rights?

· Would Malcolm ever step on the set of FOX News?

· How would 82 year-old Muslim Malcolm have reacted when cameras and microphones were thrust in his face to demand an explanation on where he stood on Islamic radicalism?

· What would Malcolm have said of the Iraq War, Abu Gharib and the continued occupation?

· After September 11th would Malcolm have been caught up in the large sweeps, surveillance and imprisonment that affected thousands of Muslims in the U.S.? Would an 82 year-old man have been placed in an orange jump suit in Guantanomo?

· Would Malcolm have attended the Million Man March? Would he have spoken? How would he get along with his former protégé, Minister Louis Farrakhan? The Nation of Islam?

· Would Malcolm have cheered on all those (mostly) white kids at the Battle of Seattle and spoken out forcefully about neoliberalism, unfair trade and the global political economy?

· How would Malcolm have felt to watch the implosion of Somalia, the genocide of Rwanda or the devastation of the Democratic Republic of Congo?

· Would Malcolm speak out about Darfur and before that the conflict in South Sudan?

· How vocal would Malcolm be about the AIDS epidemic?

· What would Malcolm have made about the present state of Africa and its marginalizing in global affairs? Would he be out fighting for debt cancellation and condemning the IMF and World Bank? Or would Malcolm just have taken up Bono’s invitation to attend Live 8 and put on a ONE band?

· When supermodel Iman asked Malcolm to smear some paint on his face and pose in an ad declaring, I AM AFRICAN to fight AIDS, what would have been his reply?

· Would Malcolm think The Boondocks or Dave Chappelle was “revolutionary?”

· Would Malcolm sill have a U.S. postage stamp in his honor?

· Would Malcolm still have lived in the U.S., or would he have by now been forced to flee to Cuba?

· Would he have marketed his own brand of baseball caps, buttons and t-shirts bearing his likeness, and sued anyone for unlawfully using the patented trademark of his Bill Gates funded corporation Malcolm Inc.?

· Would Malcolm ever get to appear on Oprah?

Just some thoughts that run through my head is all. Can’t say I know many of the answers. But they are interesting to ponder while I listen to The Ballot or the Bullet and try to reflect on if Malcolm's ideologies were meant only for his era, or whether they would have fit--and evolved--in our own. At any rate, Happy birthday Malcolm.

Take all the action that's going on this earth right now that he's [the white world] involved in--tell me where he's winning. Nowhere.

Why some rice farmers--some rice farmers...ran him out of Korea. Yes, they ran him out of Korea. Rice eaters with nothing but gym shoes, and a rifle, and a bowl of rice took him and his tanks and his napalm, and all that other action he's supposed to have and ran him across the Yalu. Why? 'Cause the day that he can win on the ground has passed. Up in French Indo-China those little peasants, rice growers took on the might of the French army and ran all the Frenchmen -- you remember Dien Bien Phu. No.

The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa--they didn't have anything but a rifle. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare, but they put some guerilla action on, and a--and a--and a white man can't fight a guerilla warfare. Guerilla action takes heart, takes nerve, and he doesn't have that. He's brave when he's got tanks. He's brave when he's got planes. He's brave when he's got bombs. He's brave when he's got a whole lot of company along with him, but you take that little man from Africa and Asia, turn him loose in the woods with a blade, with a blade--that's all he needs, all he needs is a blade--and when the sun comes down--goes down...and it's dark, it's even-steven!

---El Hajj Malik El Shabazz, Malcolm X, on the end of western imperialism and empire in his 1964 speech The Ballot or the Bullet.

Read More...

Summary only...