CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Onward, Free Market Soldiers: Privatizing Public Diplomacy

Submitted by Diane Farsetta on Wed, 04/18/2007 - 09:48.

Long-time Bush confidante and U.S. public diplomacy chief Karen Hughes

U.S. Under Secretary of State Karen Hughes' remarks at the "Private Sector Summit on Public Diplomacy" opened on a militaristic note. "Looking around the room and seeing the quality and the scope of the talent represented here," she said, "I feel like reinforcements have arrived."

Given Hughes' membership in the White House Iraq Group, a key part of the Bush administration's Iraq War "sell job," perhaps her choice of imagery isn't surprising. But are her new corporate "troops" well suited for the job of public diplomacy?

The January 2007 public diplomacy summit was co-sponsored by the State Department and the PR Coalition, an "ad hoc partnership" of groups representing the public relations, investor relations, lobbying and other communications professions. Nearly 160 PR executives and government officials attended, engaging "in a dialogue over how the private sector can become more involved in and supportive of U.S. public diplomacy," in the words of PR Coalition chair and Accenture PR chief James Murphy.

The PR Coalition's recently released summit report (PDF file) contains the usual warnings about the United States' "image problem" overseas, while fretting that "anti-Americanism is bad for business." Not surprisingly, it skirts around the root causes. The opening page tersely notes that summit participants "were there to address the image problems, not create foreign policy." (While this admission is routine in public diplomacy circles, PR pros often say the opposite, insisting that their clients' new-found concern for human rights, the environment or other noble cause reflects a real change in policies and practices.)

More oblique references to fallout from the Bush administration's "war on terror" follow. "It's no secret that negative views of this country are most widespread in Muslim countries," states a summary of remarks by the State Department's Steve Shaffer, "but they also exist in sub-Saharan Africa" and "even among some long-term allies," with "much of the decline coming after 9/11." The Program on International Policy Attitudes' Steven Kull is paraphrased as saying, "There is also a fear in many countries that the U.S. will use force against them."

Wow. Even with all the high-powered PR flacks in the room -- including Burson-Marsteller founder Harold Burson and CEO Mark Penn, Edelman general manager Niel Flieger, EnviroComm chair E. Bruce Harrison, Fleishman-Hillard senior vice-president Jeff Weintraub, GolinHarris chair Al Golin, Ketchum CEO Raymond Kotcher, Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide CEO Paul Hicks, and Publicis chair Lou Capozzi -- it's difficult to imagine a lipstick garish enough to distract from that pig.

Condoleezza Rice at private sector public diplomacy summit

Secretary of State Rice addresses summit participants

Summit participants developed eleven "Models for Action that the private sector can use to support U.S. public diplomacy." Several are to increase international exchanges, a tried and true way to increase the global awareness of frequently-insular U.S. citizens, in addition to providing first-hand U.S. experiences for foreign visitors.

However, some suggestions are vague to the point of meaninglessness. For example: "Make U.S. business practices consistent with U.S. values." Would that mean providing living wages to workers employed overseas as contractors to U.S.-based companies? Somehow I think that Wal-Mart lobbyists Robert Lee Culpepper and Sarah Thorn, who were at the summit, might object to that. (Executives from Citibank, Pfizer, Wyeth, General Electric, the Washington Post, Newsweek and Reuters were also present.)

Other suggestions boil down to co-opting civil society groups (referred to as NGOs, for non-governmental organizations). These include "strategic philanthropy and greater engagement with responsible NGOs" (emphasis added), closely followed by the clarification, "Companies should partner with NGOs that 'fit' their business model." A similar suggestion is to "create 'circles of influence' through relationships with organizations, chambers of commerce, journalists and local business leaders."

Perhaps the most striking assumption is that promoting capitalism will somehow excuse, or lessen antagonism towards, U.S. foreign policy. Elizabeth Funk of the microcredit organization Unitus told summit attendees, "There is no better way to improve America's image abroad than to allow the people in those countries to bring themselves out of poverty, and experience the free enterprise system for themselves." David Chernow of JA (Junior Achievement) Worldwide explained, "Our model is driven largely by U.S.-based multinational companies. ... We are teaching young people about free market principles and how they can create opportunities for everyone."

Of course, summit attendees hail from major U.S. corporations. It's not surprising that they see the free market system as a core American value. However, public diplomacy efforts emphasizing the wonders of capitalism are unlikely to play well in Palestine, Persia, Pakistan, or any other region where much of the population condemns the U.S. initiated conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and U.S. policy towards Israel and Palestine.

Members of the PR Coalition are skilled at portraying image-challenged clients -- like pharmaceutical companies, oil companies and the nuclear industry -- as responsible, commendable contributors to U.S. society. But applying the same PR tactics to issues of war, national sovereignty and global economic development risks increasing international resentment of the United States.

Diane Farsetta is the Center for Media and Democracy's senior researcher.

Many of the links in the above article are to articles on SourceWatch, the Center for Media and Democracy's collaborative online encyclopedia. SourceWatch volunteer editors can help update, expand and improve these or any of the other SourceWatch profiles of people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda. It's free to sign up, and we'd love to have you join us.

"I HOPE IT'S YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS THAT DIE" - US Representative Dana Rohrabacker

By US Army Reserves Colonel (Retired) Ann Wright

"I HOPE IT'S YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS THAT DIE" said US Representative Dana Rohrabacker to American citizens who questioned the Bush Administration’s unlawful extraordinary rendition policies.

Congressional hearings provide a deep insight into the inner spirit of our elected representatives-and sometimes, the insight is not pretty.

On April 17, we witnessed Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) unleash his unbridled anger onto members of the European Parliament’s committee on Human rights who were invited guests and witnesses in the House Foreign Affairs European subcommittee hearing. The European Parliamentary human rights committee had issued a report in January, 2007 sharply critical of the Bush administration’s extraordinary rendition program in which persons from all over the world were detained by either CIA or local police and then flown by CIA jet (torture taxi) to other countries where they were imprisoned (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Djibouti, Morocco, Yemen. The report was equally critical of European governments for allowing the unlawful flights to take place.

From 2001 through 2005, the governments of fourteen countries in Europe allowed at least 1,245 CIA flights with illegally abducted terrorist suspects to be flown through their airspace or to land on their territory. Germany, Britain, Ireland and Portugal allowed the highest numbers of covert flights. As well as at least 1,245 flights operated by the CIA, there were an unspecified number of US military flights for the same purpose.

The European Parliament report differeniated between lawful extradition of criminal suspects for trial in another country and the unlawful abduction, sending to a third country usually noted for torture of prisoners and imprisoning for years without trial persons suspected of criminal terrorist acts.

The report acknowledged that terrorism is a threat to European countries as well as to the United States, but the European Parlimentary committee said that terrorist acts must be handled lawfully by both European countries and by the United States. The report said: "After 11 September 2001, the so-called 'war on terror' - in its excesses - has produced a serious and dangerous erosion of human rights and fundamental freedoms." The extraordinary rendidition program undercuts the exact liberties we are defending, the rule of law, the right for a fair and speedy trial, the right to know the evidence on which one is held and prosecuted.

Some who were kidnapped ended up in Guantanamo. Others were flown to prisons in other countries for interrogation and torture. Many of those who were subjected to extraordinary rendition are still in Guantanano. Many have been there for over 5 years. Over 400 of the 770 persons who have been imprisoned in Guantanamo over the 5 years it has been opened, have been released. Only 380 are left imprisoned in Guantanamo. Only 3 have been charged by the Military Commission and only one tried in Guantanamo. After five years of being held prisoner, Australian citizen David Hicks was convicted in March, 2007 of material support to terrorism and sentenced to only seven months further imprisonment which he is serving in Australia. The Bush administration has said it will try only 50-70 of the 380 remaining in Guantanamo. That means that of 770 who have been in Guantanamo, on 50-70 will be tried. The others eventually will be freed due to lack of evidence of a crime. Many will have spent five years or more in imprisonment.

According to virtually every prisoner that has been released, they were tortured while imprisoned in countries such as Syria, Uzbekistan, Egypt, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Some prisoners say they were tortured by police or interrogators. Some say they heard American voices in the background while they were tortured. None were charged with any crimes. None went to trial. They were abducted by CIA or local authorities at the request of the United States. The United States did not present evidence of criminal actions nor request extradition from the country where the person was detained. Nor did a central approving authority look at the rationale for spiriting a person to the control of a third country for interrogation. Persons were “rendered” many times on the say-so of junior CIA officials.

Back to the Congressional hearing. With eyes narrowed and mouth in a contorted grimace, Congressman Rohrabacker attacked the two British and one Italian members of the European Parliament who testified before the committee. Reminding one of Joe McCarty in tone and substance, Rohrabacker demeaned and degraded the report and chastised, belittled and berated the Parliamentarians. Remarkably, Rohrabacker said the most of the CIA private flights that landed in Europe were to transport CIA agents all over the world, not to move prisoners. Yet the logs of the 1245 flights have been tied by date and location to the movement of specific individual prisoners from one location to another.

Rohrabacher railed against anyone who questioned the right of the Bush administration to do whatever it wanted, legal or illegal, to prevent terrorist acts and said that by not supporting the Bush policies was consigning their country to the terrorists. In particular he said that any Americans who questioned the extraordinary rendition were un-American.

Citing historic examples of other countries kidnapping persons, Rohrabacker said Israel had every right to kidnap Nazi official Adolph Eichmann from Argentina, bring him to Israel and execute him. Rohrabacher conveniently forgot to mention that the Israeli government did put Eichmann on trial, a trial which none of those who have been extraordinarily rendered have had. Rohrabacher then attacked and belittled the European Community for outlawing the death penalty saying that “You in the European community won’t stand up to evil people, you won’t execute them. Eichmann deserved to be executed, just like these terrorists must be executed.”

Rohrabacher never once mentioned due process, the rule of law, right to a trial for anyone picked up in the extraordinary rendition program. Merely because persons were “rendered” and imprisoned by the US meant to Rohrbacker they were guilty.

Rohrabacher said if European countries did not cooperate with the United States and go along with whatever the Bush administration wanted, they were condemning their countrymen to death by not using extralegal methods to imprison terrorist suspects. When citizens attending the hearing, including members of Codepink Women for Peace and Veterans for Peace, heard Rohrabacher’s statement, they collectively groaned. Then, much to the shock and disbelief of everyone in the hearing room, Rorhbacker said to those who had expressed displeasure at his statements: "I hope it’s your family members that die when terrorists strike."

At that point, I had had enough of Rohrabacher. I stood up and said "I did not serve 29 years in the US military and 16 years in the US diplomatic corps to see demise of the rule of law and violation of our own laws. Rohrback’s statements are outrageous. No wonder the world hates us!"

Chairman Delahunt gaveled for me to stop speaking and I was escorted by the police out of the committee room. I was not arrested.

Remarkably, I do agree with one thing Rohrabacker said. "They hate us."

Rohrabacker finished his sentence with "They hate us because they hate our way of life." Unfortunately, many people do hate us, but it’s not for our way of life.

Its for exactly the talk and actions that Rohrabacker and the Bush administration represent: illegal and unlawful actions, an arrogant attitude that America is always right and everyone else is wrong, that the world’s resources are for the exclusive use of the United States and we have the right to invade and occupy any country.”

Until we change the manner in which Presidential administrations and the Congress operate and the way we approach our membership in the community of nations, the world will continue to question what America stands for.

About the Author: Ann Wright retired as a Colonel after serving 13 years on active duty and 16 years in the US Army Reserves. After 16 years in the US diplomatic corps, she resigned in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq. She had been assigned in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She helped reopen the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December, 2001.

PBS=NEOCON TV

Related
Why we must tell truth about torture
Right Web | Profile | Frank Gaffney
---
The producer Frank Gaffney's message is, "Some Muslims aren't bad." You remember the neocons? Those rat basteds that lied Amerika into war.

PBS programming that old Adolf would approve of.
---
MEDIA-US:
Public Broadcaster Pulls TV Documentary on Islamism

Khody Akhavi

WASHINGTON, Apr 18 (IPS) - The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has dropped a documentary film purporting to show the struggles of U.S. "moderate" Muslims against Islamic extremists from a television series airing this week on more than 300 U.S. public television stations.

No sooner had PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) excluded "Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Centre" from the series "America at a Crossroads" than the film's producers accused the station of suppressing their views as part of "an ideological vendetta."

"This is a well-documented, textbook case of the abuse of taxpayer funding by elements in the public broadcasting system to advocate their agenda and ensure that people who have a different agenda don't get on the air," said Frank Gaffney, one of the film's producers, as quoted in the conservative Washington Times. "The public ought to be allowed to see a film which PBS doesn't want them to see."

"Islam vs. Islamists" was one of 21 documentaries commissioned by the CPB, a private, congressionally charted agency that administers federal money for public radio and television. The effort provided 20 million dollars in grants for independent filmmakers to develop films about the "challenges and opportunities America faces in the wake of the September 11 attacks," according to CPB website.

The film was not selected because of what PBS executives described as editorial deficiencies.

"In fairness to Mr. Gaffney, we recognise that he believes his film is completed," CPB spokeswoman Louise Filkins told IPS. "Public broadcasting officials have expressed concerns that the film may not comply with established PBS standards."

Executives at WETA, the Washington D.C. TV station overseeing the series for PBS, say the documentary was cut because its agenda was irresponsible and lacked the obligation of fairness.

"The writing is alarmist and overreaching without adequate context and specific information to justify the tone and degree of generalisation," wrote Crossroads series producer Leo Eaton to Gaffney in an evaluation of the documentary's final cut. "There are awkwardly phrased assertions, convoluted reasoning, and implications of connections between subjects without evidence."

A series of written exchanges between PBS and Gaffney, posted on the right-wing website familysecuritymatters.org, underscores the fundamental conflict between the station and the film's producers. According to Gaffney, the problem is not that his film has "a point of view."

"Rather, it is that mine is perceived to be other than a left-wing one," he wrote in a memo to Michael Pack, senior vice president of television programming at CPB.

Aminah Beverly McCloud, the director of the Islamic Studies program at DePaul University in Chicago, who advised WETA on the Crossroads Initiative, told IPS that "Islam vs. Islamists" touched on a topic little explored in the media, but that the film lacked coherence and ultimately did not fit with Crossroads main theme.

"It's not about America, and it's not about the war on terror. It's basically the experiences of individuals, with no real explanation of what the topic is," McCloud said.

"It's not about a left bias or a right bias, or else Richard Perle's film wouldn't have been there," she added, referring to "The Case for War: In Defence of Freedom," a film by Bush administration official Perle, that advocates neoconservative policies and was one of those selected by CPB.

The Crossroads initiative developed amidst Republican efforts to diversify the voices in public television by financing more conservative programming to balance a schedule that former CPB chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson saw as overly liberal. Tomlinson resigned in November 2005 after the agency's inspector general released a report critical of his leadership, including evidence that he had violated the organisation's ethical code by using "political tests" in the hiring of high-level candidates.

Gaffney, who is also the president of the hawkish Centre for Security Policy, and his co-producer Alex Alexiev, CSP's vice president, approached Canadian novelist and filmmaker Martyn Burke to make the film with 675,000 dollars in U.S. taxpayer funds.

The right-wing Washington-based think tank seeks to "undermine the ideological foundations of totalitarianism and Islamist extremism," according to its website. CSP's advisory council also includes current and former high-level aides in the George W. Bush administration, such as Eliot Abrams and Douglas Feith.

The think tank's initiatives include "The Islamist Project," which aims to research and raise awareness about "the threat of Islamofascism." CSP views "non-Islamist Muslims" as natural allies in the fight against "the repressive, totalitarian ideology of Islamists," according to its website.

In an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Burke argued that his film became the target of "almost hysterical critiques" from WETA.

"What PBS/WETA attacked us on was they wanted us, in our opinion, to become virtually apologists for the Islamists, those who are the fundamentalists in this world," he said. "They demanded I fire my two partners (Frank Gaffney an Alex Alexiev), who brought me into this film, because my partners were conservative."

Crossroads series producer Leo Eaton called Burke's claims that he was asked to fire Gaffney and Alexiev because of their political opinions "totally misleading." In a letter to the editor published in the Washington Times, Eaton wrote that both PBS and CPB expressed initial concerns that the editorial focus of the film "too closely echoed" the opinions of the producers, who hold official positions at the Centre for Security Policy.

"It is how Messrs. Gaffney and Burke choose to frame and structure their characters and stories that hasn't yet met PBS standards," Eaton wrote. "[They] have chosen to 'attack the messenger' rather than trying to correct the message."

In an op-ed in Tuesday's Washington Times, Gaffney reiterated his complaint that "Islam vs. Islamists" was being suppressed and went on to equate PBS's refusal to air the film with the recent repression by government riot police of Russian protesters in Moscow's Pushkin Square. More than 200 protesters, including former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, were arrested during the clashes.

"I have watched with horror as techniques out of Mr. [Vladimir] Putin's playbook have been applied to prevent the telling of the story of freedom-loving Muslims who -- like the Kasparovs of Russia -- warn about the ominous rise of totalitarian ideologies in their communities, and what that portends for the rest of us," said Gaffney.

Government has list of anti-depressant users!: Virginia Tech killer NOT on it

"Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government's files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search."

From

Killer's Note: 'You Caused Me to Do This'

Seung-Hui Cho, 23-Year-Old Shooter, Wrote 'Disturbing' Note and Violent Plays

By NED POTTER, DAVID SCHOETZ, RICHARD ESPOSITO, PIERRE THOMAS and the staff of ABC News

April 17, 2007

A Thousand Words

--well, you know what they say about pictures, don't you ?

The Word According to Kos

Put forth on April 17, 2007 by XicanoPwr

We all know the meaning when someone mentions liquid courage - those who consume it “gain” confidence and lose discretion. Well, I prefer to think Internet courage is where an individual who enjoys the benefit of hiding behind the Internet and because like liquid courage, a person tends to “gain” confidence and lose discretion whenever they are on the Internet and will oftentimes take advantage of it by using it as a bully pulpit. Once they muster up their “Internet courage” the answer for them is just a few taps of the keyboard and suddenly the fantasy world is set right. Make no mistake, it is a fantasy world because rarely do they ever accept any responsibility for what they promote. That is exactly what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, better known as Kos of Daily Kos, has done again.

This time around, Markos thinks that if a blogger were to get a death threat, we should suck it up because “most of the time” they “don’t even exist.” Or, as Kalifornia’s Govnator, Arnold Schwarzenegger, would say, “Don’t be a girlie man.” For Kos, courage is used to taunt people into doing something stupid. Sure it is easy to say suck it up if your only threat is that someone tells you “I hope you catch AIDS” but it is another, when you get comments or emails that say “we’re moving to send your sorry asses back over the border” or “hope you enjoy your stay in Gitmo” for speaking truth to power. It is not that easy to “suck it up.” Especially for many people across the country who have already been assaulted and even killed by some psychopath cyber-stalker they did not take seriously.

However, Kos’ behavior isn’t really new really. Sadly, this Berkeley faux liberal whose ideology better matches that of Reich wingers has duped a large majority over at the Big Orange Mothership Daily Kos and the Democratic Party into thinking he is a true Dem. Kos has and will always be a pompous asshole beyond compare, a fraud, a phony and a seasoned snake oil salesman. All anybody has to do is just go over to Marisacat’s blog. She has been warning people long before this consequence. The irony, she has been harassed and is considered to be a pariah among some of the B-listers who are now complaining about King Koz.

Very interesting, as wilfred and I had been banned the last weekend of August (Madman was personally banned by Kos, October 2005, for complaining about tired Red State Dems run as effing heroes before they do anything, yes that is Tester, Webb and Casey and others)… we were banned as individuals, not as part of a purge. I still to this day have never read the Hunter FP piece on the banning..

The Boyz, or whatever they are, have been slamming me and a lot of other people for years now.

People saying what they think that does not conform to what they want said, well, it really pisses them off. And their Box Car Site Minions and others on the Treats and Sweets Rez….

Who FP intellectually dishonest, numbers grabbing bullshit (Outing Bloggers, “Marisacat”, Paparazzi at the Box Car Site, BMT), lectures and drooling “erotica” attended by Maryscott with her tongue hanging out… Voyeurs, original and Maryscott’s reconstruction among other FP slams at MLW. In a sad, public loss of any grip on reality, METAmorphosis at MLW. Not to forget this gem. Eugene and Armando with others, did stand up routines at MLW thru 2005/06, parsing my banning over and over for the little hordes. In case you think there is something new in BlahgTown.

(Oh and as a chocolate on the pillow or extra vodka in your OJ: don’t miss the BMT proprietaire being cute with his hints.)

I won’t be stopping. And I am so amused at the lately landed stress and anger, sturm and drang, directed at Kos. Sure did ramp up after the BlogRoll trim…

However, if your inner-kindergarten self still insist she has cuddies and anybody else who associates with her has cuddies, then all one has to do is do a simple Google search on “banned by Kos” to see what Kos is all about. I genuinely understand when people have an agenda of trying to find a common ground among the more conservative wing (AKA centrist) of the Democratic Party. However, the deal with Markos, there are those who continue believing he is Dem. The reality is, he started off as Republican and changed sides roughly around the same time when other Republicans switched sides because they realized the Religious Right successfully infiltrated their Republican Party and were able to exert considerable influence on policy and lawmaking. Instead of fight them off; they have opted to take over the Democratic Party. That is why we are the big tent party. The central problem is this: there are those in the progressive blogosphere who believe it is wrong to criticize. Nevertheless, if the progressive blogosphere is NOT the place to criticize and rail against Markos and DailyKos, then what is the proper arena? By keeping things inside it will only fester for so long before it finally explodes.

However, there is a double standard. Markos consistently criticizes whomever he elects to criticize, including Democratic politicians and other progressives. For him to try to use his muscle and personal connections to squelch criticism of himself and his opinions is very Orwellian - “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” It is not surprising that the chickens came, home to roost. The more Markos and his followers stopped others from challenging his opinions throughout the blogosphere, it was inevitable that revolt against the authoritarian and totalitarian impulses are taking place. Just look below this post on the number of people who are speaking out (courtesy of Wampum).

Regardless of whether it is coming from the left or right, totalitarianism is just as brutal and will repeatedly have to have a need to justify its so-called “goodness” to the world. Even worse is when mindless followers are complied to remain mindless in the face of over whelming evidence. Terror is used to keep the faithful from straying and indoctrination to imprison the mind. Fear of change, the outside world, of not having a strong ruler are amplified to increase their need on the totalitarian regime.

Given the state that we are in, we have voluntarily surrendered our freedoms that we once held to be essential. Do we even care that homes are being bugged, our emails being read, our letters being opened? Where we have feared the ominous presence of Big Brother constantly gazing through the multiple security cameras around us, we are have now become oblivious to them and worse, we have become a voyeuristic society while our constant need to check a person’s background has become second nature. As we continue to be force-fed shadows on the wall of Plato’s Cave, people are disappearing right before our very eyes, vanished without a trace in the name of the “border security.” Is all this just an Orwellian dress rehearsal in preparation for the larger scale version?

Instead of running away from living in the world Orwell feared, the modern world celebrates it. When we hear Bush and our war hawk Democrats begging people to give war a chance, are these signs we are embracing the language of doublespeak and newspeak, “War is Peace?” If so, then it should not come as a shock that Markos Moulitsas Zúniga is the poster boy for “progressive is conservatism.”

People who have spoken out
brownfemipower at Woman of Color Blog
Zuzu at Feministe
Jessica at Feministing
Belledame at Fetch Me My Axe
Echnide of the Snakes
Mark at Norwegienty
Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast
Bitch PhD
Chris at Creek Running North and Pandagon
Kip at Long Story, Short Pier
Bruce at Crablaw
Melissa at Shakesville
Jeff at Blog of the Moderate Left
Interrobang
Stephen at The Thinkery
Amp at Alas, A Blog
Amanda at Pandagon
Lindsey at Majikthise
Dan at Fitness for the Occasion
Nezua at The Unapologetic Mexican
Natasha, at Pacific Views
Kevin at Slant Truth
Aaron at Faithfully Liberal
Ntodd at Dohiyi Mir
Trifecta at New PairODimes
Steven D at Booman Tribune
Sheelzebub at Pinko Feminist Hellcat
Myra at Reno and Its Discontents
twoluvcats at a wealth of semi-useless information!
Scott at Lawyers, Guns and Money
PZ at Pharyngula
skippy the bush kangaroo
Mickle at The True Confessions of an Hourly Bookseller
WebWeaver’s World
Renee at the Independent Bloggers’ Alliance
Terrance at The Republic of T
Vox Aemeliae

Technorati Tags: Kos, Markos, Marisacat, Republican, Democratic Party, progressive blogosphere

The Perils of Pragmatism

Remi Kanazi, The Electronic Intifada, 19 April 2007

The latest back and forth between Israel and the Palestinian unity government (and its regional interlocutors) will not bring peace to fruition. Many respected commentators in the Middle East have accused Israel of rejecting peace, primarily due to its refusal to fully embrace the Arab peace initiative. Yet this initiative, when entered into the international community's trash compactor of "pragmatism," will leave the Palestinian people with nothing more than an old, albeit neatly packaged, version of the Oslo Accords. These commentators' near-sighted, almost desperate view, which is predicated on the notion that anything is better than what the Palestinians are currently enduring, will only further devastate the Palestinian people. It is one thing to compromise on the implementation of the rights of Palestinians, but it is quite another to diverge from one's principles based on "new realities" imposed on the conflict by one's adversary. We must never forget the lessons of the Oslo period, nor can we forget that after 40 years of compromise and conciliatory action, Palestinian suffering has been exponentially magnified. The professed pragmatist line only diminishes the rights of the oppressed, strengthens the oppressor's position, and makes a mockery of institutions (i.e. the United Nations) whose many functions ostensibly include the protection of persecuted peoples.

Many proponents of Palestinian rights naively argue, as is laid out in the Arab peace initiative, that all will be well once there is a full withdrawal from the occupied territories. But territorially, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and yet the conditions inside Gaza reflect how autonomy alone does not mean independence. Israel continues to control Gaza's imports and exports, its territorial waters, and its airspace -- leaving 1.4 million people to suffocate in an open-air prison. Compounded by the sanctions slapped on 3.8 million occupied people, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem continue to economically wither away, while the world sits idly by. It is not enough to demand autonomy, the preservation of the right to self-determination, and the right of return. Policy must be put in place by Israel and the West that ensures the economic sustainability for the Palestinian people. No people should be expected to recover after 40 years of imposed suffering without eventual restitution.

Assuming that full withdrawal is deemed unrealistic, what would semi-withdrawal mean for Palestinians? If Israel were to keep parts of the West Bank settlements (supposing the Apartheid wall was torn down), Israel would claim it to be "necessary," as it did at Camp David in 2000, to effectively control half of the West Bank. If even one settlement were to remain, Israel, for "security" purposes, would not give up control of the Jordan Valley, and surely would maintain the "need" for Jewish-only roads, checkpoints, and a complete army apparatus that would further subjugate the Palestinian people to the oppressive measures of occupation. Israel is right on one point: a long-term hudna (cease-fire), as proposed by various Hamas officials, is insufficient, because the two peoples will never get passed a hudna if there is not an end to Israel's matrix of control.

Detractors of the Palestinian plight have continued the tired policy of blaming the victim. Capitalizing on US President George W. Bush's "war on terror" and the fight against "Islamic fundamentalism," a multitude of pro-Israel commentators have criticized the rising religiosity in Palestinian society. Yet this rush to conservatism emanated from the failure of Fatah, which led a corrupt secular government that had done little for its people or the political establishment. Furthermore, the significant alternative forces within Palestinian society, which preach non-violence, an end to corruption, and a democratic environment that ensures the rights of all its citizens (socially, religiously and economically), have been silenced and stunted by their compatriots (namely Fatah during the Oslo years). Disturbingly, these alternative voices remain purposely ignored by Israel and the West. The impetus for this outright rejection stems from the fact that recognition of the Palestinian people, under the tenets of equality, is seen as a cancer for Israel's "Jewish democracy." For far too long, Yasser Arafat and his corrupt thugs in the Palestinian Authority, toed the line for Israel and cowered to the demands of the West, squandering the social energy and political capital of the first Intifada.

There is a direct correlation between the rise of conservatism in Palestinian society and Israel's heightened policy of starvation and collective punishment, a policy that intensified during the Oslo years. During this period, like Ariel Sharon's subsequent policy of "disengagement," Israel passed off its actions to the international community as "peaceful" and "propitiative" measures that gave Palestinians autonomy. The separateness policy of Oslo, however, further ghettoized the Palestinian economy. A concerted effort was made to hinder Palestinian exports, stunt their labor force, increase travel restrictions, and back a corrupt Fatah force, which effectively operated as a proxy police force for Israel. The post-Oslo period, which was followed by economic instability and communal anger due to the "peace process" being exposed as a hoax, saw conservative groups continue to gain popular support within Palestinian society. Furthermore, the Fatah led government became evermore corrupt, while Israel and the West increasingly cultivated a hard-line approach to the conflict.

This leads back to the Arab peace initiative. There are already signs of Hamas being corrupted by the pragmatist line to ensure its power in the occupied territories. This is not to say that negotiations can't and shouldn't take place, but at this point, on all five sides (Hamas, Fatah, Israel, the US, and the Quartet), intention substantively matters more than words and action. The "disengagement" of Gaza led to widespread suffering, settlements doubled during the Oslo years, and after free and fair democratic elections, sanctions were placed on the Palestinian government. This goes to show how seemingly positive actions, when combined with sinister ulterior motives, can be even more damaging than the status quo. If steps are taken to improve the lives of Palestinians on a permanent basis, it should be welcomed, but neither Hamas nor Fatah should be tempted by calls for negotiations in return for, what would be, short-term political capitalization.

The Palestinian government will be facing some tough decisions in the coming months. While Olmert has rejected the totality of the Arab peace initiative, he has embraced its concept and seems willing to engage with the region diplomatically. Nonetheless, why would Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the strongman who rationalized the devastating bombing campaign of Lebanon, want to engage in any kind of peace process with the Palestinians and its regional partners? Simply put, this is Israeli politics par excellence -- if hard-line policy fails, champion supposed "peacenik" politics; if "dovish" policy fails, champion hard-line politics. Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz is an apt example. The once "peacenik" turned hard-liner is feverishly trying to revert back to his "dovish ways."

While the world craves a quick resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is just not realistic. Without reconciliation based on justice for both peoples, peace will just be an idea pushed for by so-called pragmatists and the politically weak: both groups who have done more damage to the conflict than hard-liners on either side.

Edward Said wrote in his book, Peace and its Discontents: "[W]e must restore Palestine to its place not simply as a small piece of territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River but as an idea that for years galvanized the Arab world into thinking about and fighting for social justice, democracy, and a different kind of future than the one that has been imposed on it by force and by an absence of Arab will." His words, eleven years later, still ring true, yet they do not apply only to the people of Palestine, but rather for both peoples, Israeli and Palestinians: for if we are to see this conflict resolved, it must be based on mutual understanding and acceptance as well as a breakdown of racism and supremacy in all its forms.

Remi Kanazi is a Palestinian-American poet and writer based in New York City. He is the co-founder of www.PoeticInjustice.net and the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets for Palestine. He can be contacted at Remi@PoeticInjustice.net