When the Jewish press in the US writes that Jewish groups there are working to combat anti-Muslim sentiment, it’s hard to take it seriously. The amount of Zionist racism and violence directed at Palestinians and Arabs in general is largely ignored, if not supported, by the Zionist lobby.
Hypocrisy is their middle name.
Dhaka, in bustling Bangladesh, is a megacity growing at an incredible rate. And it’s part of a massive global shift:
The earth’s countryside is emptying out, more quickly all the time. It took about 10,000 years for the human population to become 3 percent urban — a period extending roughly from the dawn of human settlement until 1800. A century later, Earth was still just 14 percent urban. But in 2007, the United Nations announced we’d crossed a monumental threshold. For the first time, more than 50 percent of the world lived in cities rather than rural villages and farms. By 2030, some projections say more than 80 percent of humanity will be urban, with many inhabiting the slum-choked cities of the developing world.
The shift is “a watershed in human history, comparable to the Neolithic or Industrial revolutions,” urban theorist Mike Davis wrote in his book “Planet of Slums.”
In the simplest sense, this transformation has a dual cause: Masses of migrants are abandoning the countryside, and they keep having babies after coming to town. By some accounts, fertility is a larger slice of the pie.
“It’s roughly a 40/60 split,” said Deborah Balk, an urbanization specialist with the CUNY Institute for Demographic Research in New York City. “We have more large concentrations of people than we’ve ever had before. That is new. And those concentrations themselves, they have momentum.”
Atlantic reporter Jeffrey Goldberg – a man fond of war, Israel and conflict with Iran – is invited to Havana to meet and converse with Fidel Castro.
There is much to digest but this is especially interesting:
He said the Iranian government should understand the consequences of theological anti-Semitism. “This went on for maybe two thousand years,” he said. “I don’t think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything.” The Iranian government should understand that the Jews “were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God. In my judgment here’s what happened to them: Reverse selection. What’s reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation.” He continued: “The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust.” I asked him if he would tell Ahmadinejad what he was telling me. “I am saying this so you can communicate it,” he answered.
On the one hand, many of us are compassionate:
A third of the world’s population has given money to charity in the past month, the largest study ever carried out into global social conscience reveals today.
The “World Giving Index” used Gallup surveys of 195,000 people in 153 nations and asked people whether they had volunteered or given money or help in the last month. It also asked respondents to rank how happy they are with life.
It found that a fifth of the world’s population had volunteered, almost a third had given money to charity, and 45% had been “good samaritans” and helped a stranger.
The UK came eighth on the index overall and finished joint third, alongside Thailand, in terms of giving money, with 73% of the population having donated to charity. However Australia, New Zealand and the United States were far more charitable overall. In Europe, only Switzerland and Holland fared better than Britain.
Rich countries dominated the top positions – yet around half of the top 20 places were taken up by developing nations including Guinea, Guyana and Turkmenistan. Strikingly, India ranked at 134 and China at 147 – with Chinese people among the least likely on the planet to volunteer. Only 4% said they had done.
And yet here in Australia, demonising asylum seekers has become a national sport. What kind of country do we want to be?
They are unlikely to lay on a private jet to whisk him to the Med, but David Miliband has been given the seal of approval by the Murdoch empire after being invited to dinner next week by the media baron’s son James.
Rebekah Brooks, chief executive of News International, is also due to attend the dinner on 17 September.
Rupert Murdoch summoned David Cameron for talks on his yacht before the Tory leader became prime minister. A private jet owned by Matthew Freud, Murdoch’s son-in-law, flew him to Greece. Tony Blair flew to Australia for a private Murdoch conference in 1995. The Miliband dinner will be a more low key affair in London.
David Miliband has still not decided whether to attend because his violinist wife Louise Shackelton is playing that night. But a source said it was right for Miliband to sup with Murdoch: “That is what you do when you are trying to persuade people that Labour is a strong and effective opposition party.”
Ed is not being left out. He is to have lunch next Wednesday with Dominic Mohan, editor of the Sun, and possibly Brooks.
Only Al-Jazeera English would host a discussion on the Middle East that actually tells things how they are. Unafraid to discuss the power of the Zionist lobby, Israeli colonisation and Greater Israel:
TomDispatch reminds us of the faces we constantly see in our media, pontificating about the glories of war:
Pentagon foreign policy is regularly seconded by a growing cadre of what might be called military intellectuals at think tanks scattered around Washington. Such figures, many of them qualifying as “warrior pundits” and “warrior journalists,” include: Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; retired Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl, president of the Center for a New American Security and Petraeus adviser; former U.S. Army officer Andrew Exum, fellow at the Center for a New American Security, founder of the Abu Muqawama website, and a McChrystal advisor; former Australian infantry officer and Petraeus adviser David Kilcullen, non-resident senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security;Thomas Ricks, formerly of the Washington Post, author of the bestselling Iraq War books Fiasco and The Gamble, Petraeus admirer, and senior fellow at the same center; Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, the man Gates credits with turning around his thinking on Afghanistan and a recent Petraeus hireein Afghanistan; Kimberley Kagan of the Institute for the Study of War, an adviser to both Petraeus and McChrystal; Kenneth Pollack, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution; and Stephen Biddle, senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and another Petraeus as well as McChrystal adviser. These figures, and numerous others like them, are repeatedly invited to U.S. war zones by the military, flattered, toured, given face time with commanders, sometimes hired by them, and sometimes even given the sense that they are the ones planning our wars. They then return to Washington to offer sophisticated, “objective” versions of the military line.
Toss into this mix the former neocons who caused so much of the damage in the early Bush years and who regularly return at key moments as esteemed media “experts” (not the fools and knaves they were), including former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) L. Paul Bremer III, and former senior advisor to the CPA Noah Feldman, among others. For them, being wrong means never having to say you’re sorry. And, of course, they and their thoughts are dealt with remarkably respectfully, while those who were against the Iraq War from the beginning remain scarce commodities on op-ed pages, as sources in news articles, and on the national radio and TV news.
A cracking story and an important warning against the privatisation of the most delicate of tasks:
Fears about bioterrorism have prompted new efforts by corporations and governments worldwide to build defenses against germ attacks. But some of these arrangements themselves raise security issues.
Consider the spirited global contest to corner the franchise on providing halal inoculations against anthrax and other deadly pathogens to the world’s 1.7 billion Muslims.
Devout Muslims have an understandable aversion to being injected with vaccines grown in pig cells or alcohol, the methods traditionally used by the world’s leading pharmaceutical firms to manufacture such drugs. The reluctance of Muslims to accept non-halal polio injections has been linked to the re-emergence of polio in 27 countries that had been free of the debilitating disease, including Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Enter Emergent BioSolutions, a Rockville, Md., firm with expanding multinational operations that sells a vaccine against anthrax to the U.S. government.
In January 2008, in a little-noticed deal, Emergent, or EBS, announced a joint venture with a firm funded by the Malaysian Health Ministry to build 52,000 square feet of “vaccine development and manufacturing infrastructure” on a 62-acre site in an industrial park just outside of Kuala Lumpur.
Ahmad Wali Masoud, former Afghan Ambassador to Britai, and one of the six brothers of the slain Afghan legend Ahmad Shah Massoud, tells the Daily Beast that American backing for Hamid Karzai is leading to possible revolution:
Why did they pump billions of dollars into this country through one man, but do not promote political parties? If they’d done that, by now we would have political parties to deal with, not one man.
When the “moderate” Zionist lobby takes on the far-right Zionist lobby:
I just signed this statement:
The US Palestinian Community Network calls upon all organizations, associations, and Palestinian and Arab community groups, as well as solidarity organizations, and individuals, to sign on to the below statement rejecting the resumption of direct negotiations, in the midst of ongoing Israeli structural racism and violence inflicted upon Palestinians, to take place between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu on September 2, 2010:
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, declare our commitment to the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people – one land, one people, one cause. Our people, in the West Bank and Gaza, suffering and steadfast under siege and occupation; our people in Palestine 1948, confronting racism, ethnic cleansing and political repression; and our people in the refugee camps and in diaspora around the world, struggling to return home and liberate their homeland, deserve a leadership that defends their inalienable rights, takes its legitimacy from its popular support, and upholds the liberation of its land and its people as the highest national goal. We deserve a leadership that defends our collective rights. As such, we reject the direct negotiations taking place in Washington, DC on September 2, 2010, which shield Israel as it continues its colonial and apartheid project. Negotiations in these current conditions without necessary pressure and any terms of reference amount to the barter of Palestinian cities as opposed to the defense of collective rights and to that we say: Palestine is not for sale!
These direct negotiations have not served the interests of Palestinians, who, under the conditions of the peace process have been forced into further policing of our own people already suffering under the yoke of occupation, in exchange only for worsening conditions.
Indeed, the past 17 years of the Oslo accords have witnessed the ongoing imprisonment of people of conscience, settlement-expansion, ethnic cleansing and racism against our people, while our national institutions and liberation movement have been systematically dismantled and replaced with an Authority whose primary goal is to respond to the demands of the Occupier in a Quixotic attempt to build a state without sovereignty. The Palestinian Authority should join the mounting voices and the growing movement that condemns Netanyahu’s instransigent rebuff of international law. While the international solidarity movement with Palestine is growing steadily; while reports of the international isolation of Israel, including the rising movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, multiply daily; while the conscience of the world demands justice, accountability and international prosecution of Israeli war crimes, the Palestinian Authority has chosen instead to provide cover to the Israeli occupation and its intolerable, bitter, racism, abandoning even the pretext of a “settlement freeze,” and going to direct negotiations while the occupier daily commits crimes against the Palestinian people.
Sadly, the Palestinian Authority is itself a creature of such negotiations. The vast majority of the Palestinian people, in Palestine and in exile, demand full recognition of our national rights, particularly the refugees’ right to return to their original homes, lands and properties. When the Palestinian Authority bargains our inalienable rights and puts them on the table to be carved up by the occupier, we must be heard, loudly and clearly, to say that this Authority does not represent Palestinians and will not be allowed to sell our cause and our people in our name.
As Palestinians in the United States, it is also clear that the Obama administration offers nothing new to the Palestinian people. The U.S. administration continues to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and threaten the region with further war and occupation. It provides aid and has ongoing trade relations with despotic Arab regimes who, with U.S. support, can afford to repress the collective rights of their Arab populations. Additionally, it provides billions of dollars in military and economic aid to Israel on an annual basis, and unlimited political and diplomatic support to the occupier irrespective of its contravention of international law and announced U.S. foreign policy. We are not convinced by U.S. “assurances,” when the actions of the United States government have assured nothing for the Palestinian people to date but ongoing occupation and impunity for Israeli war crimes.
Today, we say – these direct negotiations pose only a threat to our people. As Palestinians in the United States, we find no voice being heard here – not the U.S. administration and not the Palestinian Authority – that represents our people, our rights, our dreams and our cause. These negotiations are a farce and doomed to failure – but worse than that, they are a cover for ongoing crimes. They discard any and all pretense of international legitimacy, relying on the goodwill of the U.S./Israeli alliance, and place our fundamental rights – particularly the right to return – up for sale. We will not allow this to happen. The Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas do not represent us, and these negotiations are illegitimate and unacceptable.
Instead, we call for international support of our people, not a “peace process” that perpetuates our dispossession and displacement and provides cover for the occupier. International isolation of Israel, boycott, divestment and sanctions, international prosecution of Israeli war criminals are necessary, as is clear support for our rights, including the right to resist occupation, the right to self-determination, and the right to return home – the key to our cause. As with all unjust and illegitimate regimes that have acted to liquidate the Palestinian cause, these negotiations and the Authority that comes to them will fail in the face of steadfast commitment to justice. Our voices must be heard now to ensure this is the case.
The first step to fixing racism in Australia is acknowledging it exists.
A fine piece by Emily Howie in today’s Melbourne Age.
Who’s afraid of the Murdoch press? Most political leaders in the West seem incapable and unwilling to take on the old man’s institution, a collection of bigotry, contradictions and pro-war sentiment. Such nobility in great wealth.
Every day brings new gory details in the News of the World scandal:
The Home Office abandoned plans to establish an independent inquiry into the News of the World phone-hacking scandal last year after a senior official warned that the Metropolitan police would “deeply resent” any interference in their investigation, according to a leaked government document.
As Alan Johnson came close today to accusing Scotland Yard of having misled him over the scandal, a leaked Home Office memo shows that the last government decided against calling in Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary after intense internal lobbying.
Stephen Rimmer, the Home Office director general for crime and policing, warned that Scotland Yard would “deeply resent” a review of its investigation by the inspectorate and that it would send a message that “we do not have full confidence” in the Met.
The leaked document emerged on one of the most dramatic days of the phone-hacking scandal which saw pressure mount on Andy Coulson, David Cameron’s director of communications and former editor of the News of the World, and on Scotland Yard.
The London Independent issues an important and timely editorial:
A remarkable transformation has taken place in the senior ranks of the Labour Party. When the News of the World phone-hacking scandal broke last year, few in the party took much of an interest. Yet now fresh allegations have resurrected the scandal and senior Labour figures are taking a very close interest indeed.
The former culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, revealed to this newspaper last week that her phone had been hacked 28 times. All of the Labour leadership candidates have called for a thorough investigation. And Alan Johnson, who was home secretary when the allegations were made, asked some pointed questions of his predecessor, Theresa May, in the Commons yesterday on this matter.
All this activity raises the question: why did all these former ministers not pursue this matter when they were in office and in a position to ensure that the matter was investigated properly? None of them raised a squeak when Scotland Yard came to its odd decision last year not to follow up the claims of widespread hacking by the newspaper. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a fear of crossing Rupert Murdoch’s mighty media empire in the year before a general election got the better of them.
Still, political interest in this affair comes better late than never. The Metropolitan Police yesterday announced that it will reopen its investigation in the light of allegations that the paper’s former editor, Andy Coulson, not only knew about the phone-hacking, but actively encouraged the practice. Mr Coulson, who is now Downing Street’s director of communications, is apparently willing to be interviewed by the police.
But those allegations about Mr Coulson’s behaviour are not the only ones to have emerged. It has also been suggested that the Metropolitan Police soft-pedalled its investigation into hacking because of its close links with the newspaper under suspicion. It is therefore of enormous importance that the force understands its behaviour will be closely scrutinised now.
There are grounds for some optimism. As well as the awakening of Labour politicians to the seriousness of the issue, Keith Vaz, the Home Affairs Select Committee chairman, has said that he will press Assistant Commissioner John Yates about this matter today. We should remember that it is not just the conduct of Mr Coulson which is at issue here. This business has also raised serious questions about the independence of the Metropolitan Police. This tawdry affair has already been swept under the establishment carpet once. The same thing must, on no account, be allowed to happen again.
The failing of the UN towards the Tamils in Sri Lanka is both shameful and predictable. This is a conflict that continues to receive virtually no global media coverage despite up to 40,000 Tamils being massacred last year:
During the Vietnam conflict, the US military developed some creative ways to increase the numbers of Viet Cong insurgents it claimed to have killed. “If they’re dead, they’re Viet Cong,” meant that any Vietnamese killed by American soldiers would automatically count as enemy fighters.
Sri Lanka’s defence secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, has taken such creative accounting to new heights. The United Nations reported that at least 7,000 civilians were killed and tens of thousands wounded during the final months of the brutal conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which ended in May 2009. But Gotabhaya has repeatedly cast aspersions on the idea that there were any civilian casualties.
In his recent statement before a Sri Lankan commission looking at lessons learned from the war, Gotabhaya claimed that injured Tigers “changed their uniforms into civilian clothes” and that the Tigers must have suffered at least 6,000 dead and 30,000 injured – suggesting those counted as civilian casualties were really just Tamil Tiger fighters who had shed their uniforms.
As for the widespread war crimes and human rights abuses by both sides reported both during and after the conflict by various UN agencies, the US state department and human rights organisations, the defence secretary seems to be suffering from severe amnesia. He told the Lessons Learned Commission: “No complaints about human rights violations or abuses by the army were brought to my notice. None at all.”
A handy PowerPoint guide to the currently fruitless Middle East “peace” talks.
Sixty four percent of Israeli teens aged 15 to 18 say that Arab Israelis do not enjoy full equal rights in Israel, and from that group, 59 percent believe that they should not have full equal rights, according to a special survey prepared for the “Education in the Digital Age” conference held in Haifa on Monday.
The survey also revealed that 96 percent of the respondents want Israel to be a Jewish and democratic state, but 27 percent believe that those who object should be tried in court, and 41 percent support stripping them of their citizenship.
In answer to a question if they would be willing to learn in a classroom with one or more students with special needs, 32 percent answered in the negative. When the question was asked regarding Arab students, 50 percent of respondents answered in the negative. In addition, 23 percent said that they wouldn’t want gays or lesbians in their class.
The survey was conducted by Professor Camil Fuchs from the Statistics Department of Tel Aviv University, in cooperation with the company Sample Project. The poll included about 500 people between the ages of 15 and 18. The conference has been sponsored by “Reshet Shocken,” in cooperation with Haifa City Council.
The poll also revealed that 40 percent of Jewish youth have never been a part of a youth group, and 45 percent have never volunteered in any capacity.
In regard to motivation to serve in the IDF, 83 percent said that they don’t doubt that they will serve, but about half said that they have friends that do not plan on enlisting.
More than half of the survey’s respondents, 59 percent, said that they did not want to serve in combat units of the army. In response to a question of whether they would refuse to serve in the territories, 24 percent said they would refuse, 47 percent said that they would not refuse, and the remainder had not yet decided.
The latest estimate by Joseph E. Stiglitz and Linda J. Bilmes is that the Iraq war has cost US$3 trillion and beyond.
What kind of state only allows a right of return for one religion and people and not another indigenous population?
How to speak to your ruler and master: