Updating Yassin Aref's Struggle for Justice

Updating Yassin Aref's Struggle for Justice - by Stephen Lendman

Yassin Aref is an Iraqi Kurd and political prisoner in Police State America. A full account of his ordeal can be found at the following link:

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2008/03/yassin-arefs-struggle-for-justice-in.html.

In the post-9/11 climate of fear, Aref was targeted for his faith and ethnicity and victimized by a willful FBI frame. It began as a sting to entrap him. Charges against him were baseless. No evidence supports them. Yet he was falsely arrested, accused, indicted, tried and convicted in October 2006. It was on 10 of 30 fraudulent counts in a kangaroo court proceeding. They included money laundering, conspiracy to provide material support for a terrorist plot, terrorism, and making false statements in February 2002 and August 2004.

Aref was then sentenced in March 2007 and is now serving 15 years hard time at Terre Haute, Indiana's secret federal prison Communications Management Unit (CMU). It's for "high-security risk" Muslim and Middle Eastern prisoners and was established to limit or cut them off entirely from outside contact. The unit violates federal law as well as Prison Bureau regulations. They stipulate that "staff shall not discriminate against inmates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political belief (including) administrative decisions (involving) access to work, housing and programs." The Federal Administrative Procedures Act requires that all prison regulations comply with this law.

In addition, the Supreme Court ruled in Johnson v. California (May 3, 2004) that segregating prisoners by race, ethnicity or language is illegal. Bush administration officials disdain the law and ignore whatever High or other court rulings go against them. There aren't many. Congress is complicit. It makes no effort to stop them, so nothing deters them from mocking the rule of law and erasing the last remnants of democracy in America. The result is victims like Aref and many others like him.

Here's a brief account of his ordeal and how events unfolded in his case:

-- he's from Iraqi Kurdistan;

-- he came to America in 1999, worked as a hospital janitor, ambulance driver and later became the Masjid As Salam Mosque's imam;

-- the FBI targeted him and his friend, Mohammed Mosharref Hossain (a Bangladesh immigrant); it was in a 2003 sting that became a frame; it involved Aref's courtesy for Hossain - agreeing to witness his loan transaction according to Muslim custom; it was at a time he spoke poor English, believed the transaction was legitimate, was unaware of any law violations, let alone a scheme to frame him;

-- he was arrested in August 2004 and convicted in October 2006; charges against him were baseless and were from illegally obtained NSA warrantless wiretaps;

-- he's now at Terre Haute's CMU, a victim of police state justice, separated from his wife and small children, and hoping for an appeals court verdict in his favor.

On March 24, 2008, Aref's appeal was held before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. His status now awaits the outcome from a court that may be sympathetic. In an all too familiar post-9/11 pattern, they're hearing other cases like his. It's hoped that may arouse their judicial outrage over such extreme injustice to a growing number of Bush administration victims.

Aref's Trial Lawyer's Assessment of the Appeals Court Hearing

Here's an account of the proceedings from one of his pro bono trial lawyers, Stephen Downs. He attended the hearing and recounted what happened. Forty-seven supporters were there from Aref's home city of Albany. They filled a bus, traveled to Manhattan, split evenly between Muslims and other faiths, and were all united for Aref.

Downs begins by explaining that predicting the appeals outcome is uncertain at best and perhaps foolish at worst. Separate attorneys represented Aref and Hossain and each used "very different legal arguments."

Kevin Luibrand argued for Hossain on illegal entrapment. In addition, he claimed that "since the transaction was always presented as a loan, there was no attempt to conceal the source of the money, and hence no crime of Money Laundering occurred...." If the court agrees with either claim, Hossain's charges may be dismissed. Further, if it accepts the Money Laundering argument, some or all of Aref's counts may also be dropped.

Downs strikes a hopeful note that: "The Court seemed most interested in these two strong sharply focused arguments, and (assistant US attorney William Pericak) seemed to have the most difficulty with them."

Terry Kindlon argued for Aref. He mainly claimed that insufficient evidence was presented at trial to justify his conviction. In addition, there were numerous erroneous "evidence" claims to the jury.

Downs is less upbeat about this strategy. While the argument may be strong, it's hard to present orally "because it is impossible in just (the few minutes alloted) to go through all of the evidence" to show adequate proof. As a result, the Court seemed disinclined to spend a lot of time on this, even though one justice "seemed to have a very detailed understanding of the evidence (and) seemed to understand what the defense was saying." But he didn't indicate either way if he agreed or disagreed.

In Down's opinion, however, the lack of time spent doesn't indicate how the court will rule. It chose instead to review all evidence in briefs rather than discuss them in detail in open court.

The remainder of Aref's case involved procedural errors. If they're accepted, it would result in a new trial but not dismissal of charges against him.

Cory Stoughton of the New York Civil Liberties Union also argued briefly for Aref and Hossain. He focused on how the trial judge handled classified material but withheld it from the defense. He also addressed the illegal NSA wiretapping issue. Downs again thinks this tact is "awkward" because the DOJ kept information secret so defense has no idea what it is or if it's relevant. Even so, the short amount of time on this matter is no indication of its importance to the Court.

In a separate March 21 pre-hearing press release, the ACLU commented on the case. Executive Director Donna Lieberman said: "The courts must not be complicit in President Bush's campaign of secrecy. NSA spying is unconstitutional, and secret opinions only aid the government's effort to keep the illegal campaign hidden away from public scrutiny and outrage."

Before the March 24 hearing, Cory Stoughton added: "Secret court opinions are antithetical to the American system of justice. Especially when there are allegations of unlawful government surveillance and abuse of executive power at play, the public has a right to understand the government's arguments and the courts' justifications for their decisions." The ACLU firmly supports the public's First Amendment right to understand what happens in the judicial process and abhors the government's use of secret information.

Finally, Downs above noted how hard it is predicting the appeal's outcome, but he tries anyway and is upbeat. He felt "listening to oral argument that the defense, the Court and the prosecution were all quietly agreeing that Hossain was simply the patsy here." He (and Aref) were part of an FBI sting cum frame, "but nobody ever believed that he (or Aref were) a danger to anyone."

It means there's a good chance the Court will rule favorably on the entrapment defense. The justices spent a lot of time on this argument. The DOJ had a lot of trouble explaining its side, and Downs thinks attorney Pericak did a poor job of it. His conclusion leaves this writer breathless and likely Aref and Hossain supporters as well: "The facts are there," in Downs judgment, "to support a dismissal and so is the legal theory, and so is the sense that this man (and Aref are) not dangerous." The Court may agree and either dismiss Hossain's charges or grant him a new trial.

As for Aref, Downs thinks the outcome is harder to predict based on his lawyer's oral argument. Questions posed centered on evidentiary issues and a detailed knowledge of the record. The Court seemed to be looking for procedural errors that would justify a new trial as the "best way to clear the air."

Down's also believes the Court's view of Aref's character is important. If it thinks the DOJ unfairly targeted him as a "jihadist, at least he may get a new trial. His lawyer stressed the "character" issue so it may be key to the outcome.

On the issue of so-called "classified evidence," Downs has no idea how the Court will view it or if it will affect the decision. Without knowing what it is, it's impossible to gauge its importance, or, in the current climate, how the Court will react.

The New York Times on Aref's Appeal

On March 25, the NYT wrote about the previous day's hearing in an article titled "Convicted Imam Seeks Evidence of Wiretapping." The article's tone was racist by emphasizing the term "imam" to highlight Aref's Islamic faith. In addition, it stressed use of NSA wiretaps, ignored the more important defense arguments, and also left out the most pertinent facts about Aref's case. Nonetheless, Times writer Alan Feuer included some key ones:

-- that Aref was "convicted of supporting terrorism in an FBI sting operation;" (no mention was made of a willful frame);

-- that he may have been "spied on improperly by the National Security Agency;" (in fact, he was);

-- that if the Court agrees, his conviction may be "reverse(d);"

-- that the FBI's "sting" involved a "fictitious plot involving shoulder-launched missiles (to be used for) the assassination of a Pakistani diplomat in New York;" (the idea on its face is preposterous, and the Court may see it that way);

-- that secret DOJ evidence was withheld from defense lawyers with security clearances to see it; (it casts doubt on its relevance, authenticity or even existence);

-- that the New York Civil Liberties Union testified on behalf of the defense for both men; and The Times concluded by saying:

"As it now stands, the case may be the best chance to obtain an appellate ruling on the (NSA's wiretapping) program (that persists) without court approval." Aref's case (and Hossain's draw) "directly on the substantial constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants."

The Times continued that last year a Cincinnati federal appeals court "dismissed a case challenging the agency's program, saying that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue." However, in November, "a federal district judge in Virginia told the government that if it did not allow lawyers for an Islamic scholar sentenced to life in prison for inciting followers to commit acts of terrorism to review classified material on possible wiretapping, she might order a new trial."

A Personal Note

I first learned about Aref last March, wrote about him on March 13, and was encouraged that many web editors picked up the article. I also wrote to Aref, and he responded with a considerable delay because of the difficulty communicating with a federal prisoner, especially one called a "terrorist."

Aref's letter was glorious. He wanted me to have his book, and I now do. It's a poignant memoir/autobiography titled "Son of Mountains: My Life as a Kurd and a Terror Suspect." It was written at Troy, New York's Rensselaer County Jail after his wrongful October 2006 conviction and before his transfer to Terre Haute's CMU. It's a courageous man's story, and imagine his achievement. He wrote it in jail, barely spoke English when he arrived, has now improved it measurably, but he's still learning.

I don't think he'll mind if I share some of his comments. He began hoping I'm fine, in good health, and then said: "Thank you very much for all you (did) and what you are doing to bring peace and justice for this nation and all over.

I read your article about my case (and) wanted to send you a letter and say thank you....I am glad you have (my) book, this means I will going to hear from you what you think of it, and I will be happy to receive many notes and advices from you....feel free to 'critisice' any part of any thing in the book."

Aref's book is glorious. It deserves praise and admiration, not criticism, and it's strongly recommended to readers. It's also easily available through Amazon, the site has three 5-star reviews on it, it's going into second printing after a limited first run, and book proceeds are for Aref's four young children through his Children's Fund.

Aref wrote much more, enclosed portions of his other writings, and he ended his letter saying: "You honored me by writing to me. I am sorry this is my best in writing English. Take care my 'brother.' Peace, salam. Yassin"

Yassin is now my "brother," a political prisoner and victim of injustice. Yet, his spirit seems high, he dreams of reunion with his family, and he continues to write. A recent article was on April 19. He called it "Bread for the Baker and Meat for the Butcher (Nan Bo Nanawa Goshtish Bo Qasab)." It's five paragraphs long and says (from the Kurdish experience) "there is no possibility (in Iraq) for development, and we won't see any stability til they let our bakers bake bread and our butchers prepare meat. If this doesn't happen, we will see more corruption and our lives will become more and more miserable. Especially when:

Fools are ruling
The blind are leading
The ignorant are teaching
The racists are preaching"

....and a brutal occupation continues its ugly oppression. At his article's end, Aref cites two proverbs and asks that they be understood to "have a better sense of (one's) self-respect and recognition of (one's) own capacity." He wishes this for "many of our leaders and politicians (and) will be glad to see many of them honoring themselves by resigning from office." Millions around the world share that view and then some. Many also know about Yassin and how a brutish regime mistreated him.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendman@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are also archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9118

Disturbing 2008 Global Peace Index Report

Disturbing 2008 Global Peace Index Report - by Stephen Lendman

The Global Peace Index (GPI) was launched in May 2007 and claims to be the first study of its kind ranking nations according to their peacefulness. Last year's report covered 121 countries. The latest increased it to 140. Australian entrepreneur Steve Killelea conceived the idea and won some dubious endorsements. Among them, the Dalai Lama.

He served as a CIA asset from the late 1950s until 1974 and may again be in tow if the Bush administration's awarding him a Congressional Gold Medal last year and closeness to him now is an indication. Other endorsers include Jordan's Queen Noor; another member of her royal family; four members of the British House of Lords; Ted Turner; Virgin Group's Richard Branson; other business and community leaders; Australia's former Prime Minister JM Fraser; other former high-ranking government officials; academics; a former BBC war correspondent and MP; plus six Nobel Laureates, including Jimmy Carter. In fairness, a few distinguished names join them, including Helen Caldicott and economics professor James Galbraith.

These organizations prepare GPI's report - The Economist Intelligence Unit, an international panel of peace experts from peace institutes and think tanks, and the University of Sydney's Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies. Their stated purpose is to "highlight the relationship between Global Peace and Sustainability (stressing that) unless we can achieve" a peaceful world, humanity's major challenges won't be solved. No argument there, but does GPI's statement belie its real interest?

GPI uses 24 indicators to rank nations according to their relative internal and external peacefulness. They include their:

-- military expenditures as a percent of GDP and number of armed service personnel per 100,000 population;

-- relations with other countries;

-- respect for human rights;

-- potential for terrorist acts;

-- number of homicides per 100,000 population, including infanticide;

-- level of violent crime;

-- aggregate number of heavy weapons per 100,000 population and ease of access to small arms and light weapons;

-- number of jailed population per 100,000 population; and

-- number of internal security officers and police per 100,000 population.

Conspicuously absent is a measure of outside influence causing internal violence, instability and/or disruption. Venezuela ranked an implausible 123rd behind America at 97th. Something is amiss, and the above rating raises suspicions that angered Venezuelan National Assemblyman Jose Albornos. He stated:

"Sometimes things tip over into irrationality just like they're doing just now....(it's) part of a plan....there are sectors who decide that they want to get rid of Chavez, who have seen that they cannot (do it by) coup d'etat and are trying to penalize the whole country in a campaign of attrition."

He then added that the 2008 GPI "doesn't correspond with the truth," and plenty of evidence backs him. It's examined below.

By GPI's criteria, scoring Venezuela high and America lowest should be no-brainers. The US hands down is the world's most violent nation and primary reason for Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel's bottom rankings. The same holds for Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Colombia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uganda, the Philippines and a host of other nations.

By comparison, Venezuela is placid and tranquil but GPI's criteria don't show it. It certainly ranks above Rwanda, Albania, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Turkmenistan, Ethiopia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, China, Jordan, and other countries outscoring it. Why not is the question? Think politics for an answer in spite of America's low ranking and Israel near the bottom. It's not low enough. It should be last hands down.

The US alone endangers global stability, world peace and the planet's survival. It alone wages permanent war, targets peaceful nations, and claims a unilateral right to use first strike nuclear weapons preemptively. It also has over 800 military bases (perhaps 1000 or more with secret ones) in 130 or more countries, hundreds more at home, and still more troops deployed in other countries throughout the world. It further spends more on its military than all other nations combined. It uses it aggressively, supports Israeli repression against Palestinians, assassinates foreign leaders, installs more "friendly" ones, and backs despots like Colombia's Uribe, Egypt's Mubarak, the Saudi royal family, Mexico's Calderon, and various installed stooges like Afghanistan's Karzai and Iraq's al-Maliki.

America ranks lowest on peace. It keeps sinking lower. It alone threatens planetary survival. Failure to register that in a "peace index" is unimaginable. It makes the entire project suspect.

Under Chavez in contrast, Venezuela's record is envious. It embraces its neighbors, offers no-strings aid, and engages in mutually beneficial trade, political relations, and other alliances; it also:

-- assassinates no other leaders;

-- doesn't seek regime changes abroad;

-- has no nuclear weapons and seeks none; and

-- spends less than one-half of one percent of the Pentagon's (grossly understated) military budget (around $1 to $2 billion) and less half of that, in fact, of America's total defense spending - in FY 2008: a conservatively estimated $1.1 trillion with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and miscellaneous related allocations included; according to Chalmers Johnson, it's not only "morally obscene," it's "fiscally unsustainable" and is heading the nation for probable "insolvency and (the world for) a long depression," or potentially worse.

-- In addition, Venezuela doesn't export weapons to neighbors or incite conflict; in contrast, America is the world's leading arms and munitions supplier by far - and to many belligerent states with disturbing records of using them internally and/or against neighbors; Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Israel to cite five;

-- Chavez is socially responsible at home;

-- doesn't practice torture;

-- has no secret prisons;

-- threatens no other nation;

-- wages no wars;

-- is a model democracy;

-- governs peacefully;

-- supports human rights and social justice;

-- affirms free speech;

-- bans discrimination; and

-- uses his resources responsibly - for his people, yet is friendly to business as well. He's earned world class stature and immense popularity at home as a result. Under George Bush in contrast, America is feared and hated worldwide. Growing numbers don't trust him at home either, and it shows in his poll ratings - some of the lowest ever for a US president with vice-president Cheney and Congress scraping rock bottom.

A stunning (but long known) fact came out as well. It's in a US Justice Department Inspector General's 370 page report. It revealed that the FBI opened a "War Crimes" file documenting witnessed systemic Guantanamo Bay torture. It's so inflammatory that the administration suppressed it. It asserts that orders came from the top, including the White House, Pentagon, DOJ and NSC. It implies but doesn't state that this practice goes on in all US military prisons plus ones outsourced to in rogue states for some of the most barbaric treatment anywhere - and mostly to innocent victims.

Some GPI-Reported Comparisons - America v. Venezuela

Prisons everywhere are harsh, and Venezuela's are no exception. But consider America. It has the largest prison population in the world by far at 2.3 million, greater than in China with four times the population. It also adds over a 1000 new prisoners a week. It's justifiably called a gulag, so imagine what goes on offshore. No remediating efforts are planned. Reforms are off the table. America's prison-industrial complex is burgeoning. Prisons are being privatized. Profiting on human beings is big business, and consider who they are. Most are black, hispanic, poor, unempowered, nonviolent, and imprisoned for offenses like drugs possession.

In contrast, Venezuela is humanizing its prisons. It's no simple task, and no miracle cures are expected. Nonetheless, positive steps are being taken for a prison population numbering 20,000 that's down from its 1992 31,400 high. The National Assembly is "committed to giv(ing) priority to (revising) the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code." It's to make it more just and improve prison conditions in health care, food, access to education and more. Reducing incarceration lengths is also planned as well as tackling root causes of crime such as poverty and lack of opportunity. Doing this in America is impossible. Things keep worsening. The nation is uncaring. It shows across the board. That highlights the problem, but GPI didn't notice.

Number of homicides per 100,000 population is another category. GPI ranks America low (in number) and Venezuela high. It's unjustified. From it's beginning, America has been violent at home and abroad. It's been at war with one or more adversaries every year in its history without exception. It's called a "gun" and "rape culture" and has the highest homicide rate among all western nations. Violence is endemic, pacifism sinful, legal and illegal drug use out of control, young children introduced to violence through films, television and video games that should be outlawed. They're exported everywhere to make all societies like America. Venezuela is no exception but nowhere near to matching the US.

Implausibly, America also scores well on the following:

-- its number of internal security officers and police; it refers to "civil police" only; omitted are National Guard forces, Coast Guard, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA,16 spy agencies, drug enforcement, and since October 2002 the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) that preempts Posse Comitatus limitations that no longer apply; no nation on earth has more internal (or external) security, spends more for it, and no country uses it more aggressively;

-- ease of access to "weapons of minor destruction;" Venezuela ranks below America; impossible as guns in the US are as accessible as chewing gum even in cities where they're banned; the Second Amendment (on right to bear arms) practically equates it with religion even though the law's original intent bears no relation to its current interpretation that's promoted by the gun lobby;

-- "likelihood of violent demonstrations;" Venezuela scores high; unconsidered is why any take place and who's behind them - America, not Venezuelans except for those recruited and well-paid to cause trouble to destabilize an otherwise peaceful country;

-- violent crime; Venezuela scores high again and America low; wrong as violence in the US is endemic; GPI understates it;

-- political instability; Venezuela scores moderately high; again no mention why there's any or who instigates it;

-- human rights; America and Venezuela get equal scores; preposterous again and insulting to Venezuelans; America's disdain for human rights is unmatched; Venezuela's is excellent by comparison; the Constitution mandates it; GPI ignores it;

-- political democracy; America outranking Venezuela is impossible; the US's democracy is illusory; in Venezuela it's real and should be highest rated relative to other countries;

-- the electoral process; America besting Venezuela is false and insulting; Venezuela has a model participatory democracy; all Venezuelans are enfranchised; the Constitution's Article 56 mandates it; it affirms that "All persons have the right to be registered free of charge....after birth, and to obtain public documents" so stating;

-- US elections, in contrast, are deeply corrupted; big money runs them; candidates are pre-selected; machines do our voting; no recounts are possible; losers are declared winners; independent candidates are shut out; the media ignore them; they keep people uninformed; issues aren't addressed; just "horserace" theater ad nauseam; voter disenfranchisement is rife; election theft common; mountains of evidence document it; none reported in the mainstream; it's why half or more of the electorate opts out; it mocks democracy in a nation having little; it's exemplary in Venezuela; not according to GPI;

-- "functioning of government" defined to mean freely electing representatives and effective checks and balances; the US wins again completely belying the facts; America's democratic governance is a sham; Venezuela's is real; GPI has things backwards;

-- civil liberties; America on top here, too; it's outrageous in a growing police state climate; post-9/11 repressive laws, executive and military orders, directives and other measures are in force that would make any despot proud; presidential authority is unchallenged; Congress is mere rubber-stamp; Homeland Security is a national Gestapo; FBI and CIA also; internal spying is pervasive; dissent stifled; human rights disdained; and the rule of law is now consigned to the dustbin of history; Venezuelan society is mirror opposite; GPI failed to notice;

-- "corruption perceptions;" America scores high and Venezuela low, and indeed there is a problem; yet it's minor compared to the US's all-pervasive kind - in government, business and throughout high levels in society; it involves trillions of dollars; again it didn't register;

-- Reporters Without Borders (RWB) is the source for GPI's comparative "freedom of the press" assessment; RWB no longer publishes an index with assigned country rankings; instead it rates them: No. 1 good, No. 2 satisfactory, No. 3 noticeable problems, No. 4 difficult situation, and No. 5 very noticeable problems;

-- RSW's reputation is tainted; it lacks credibility; it disgraced itself last year by baselessly criticizing Chavez's justifiable decision not to renew RCTV's VHF license and accusing him of violating free speech and press standards; not surprisingly, it showed in its 2007 survey with rankings still used; it rated America somewhat low at 48th but Venezuela far lower at 114th - below Chad, Morocco, Uganda, Indonesia, Albania, Congo, Liberia, Kuwait, the Central African Republic and numerous other questionable higher-ranked choices; in 2008, Venezuela jumped considerably; GPI scored it 36.9 (an apparent 37th in the world); the US fared much better at 14.5; tops were Iceland and Norway at 0.8;

-- GPI and RSW should be embarrassed; consider the facts; no country outranks Venezuela in press freedom; outlandish dissent is tolerated; censorship banned, and the law affirms it; RCTV lost its VHF license for backing insurrection against the government; its officials avoided prison for their lawlessness; they were merely slapped on the wrist instead;

-- America is mirror opposite; RCTV type broadcasting would be illegal, an act of sedition or treason; those responsible would be prosecuted; but it's not how major media operate in the US; they "filter" news; one-sidedly support a state and corporate agenda; shut out opposition to it; keep the electorate uninformed by operating no differently than a state-controlled ministry of information and propaganda; RSW approves; so does GPI;

Its data is suspect throughout. Adult literacy (unrelated to violence) is another example. It scores America at 99%. It's laughable. Even the US Department of Education estimates it at 80% tops, and their number way overstates it. It's far lower based on inner-city math and English test scores plus painfully low computer literacy levels.

Other Questionable Rankings

GPI isn't alone in targeting Venezuela. Transparency International (TI) does as well. It calls itself "politically non-partisan" and a "global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption (with a) mission....to create change toward a world free of corruption." Consider its 2007 "Corruption Perceptions Index." To achieve its aim, it better tighten its standards that fall far short of "transparency."

America easily outscores other nations in corruption. It's broad, deep and extends throughout government, business, and high levels of society in the trillions of dollars. But it's not how TI sees it. It ranks the US No. 20, just behind France and ahead of Chile. In contrast, Venezuela scrapes bottom at 162nd - behind Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Kazakhstan, Congo, Pakistan and dozens of other dubious choices. Venezuela (like all countries) has corruption problems. But nowhere to the degree TI suggests. Its April 2008 report is rife with errors and why not. According to Calvin Tucker in a May 22 article, it was prepared by "an anti-Chavez activist who backed the 2002 military coup against democracy." His full account can be accessed by the following link: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/calvin_tucker/2008/05/seeing_through_transparency_in.html
 
The Fraser Institute is a right wing, business-backed, Canadian-based think tank. It prepares an annual Economic Freedom of the World Index that has nothing to do with freedom. It's not kind to Venezuela and sidesteps facts in its assessment. Following the country's 2002-03 oil management lockout, growth has been impressive and remains so. Business has profited hugely. All economic measures are strong and improving except for inflation. It remains stubbornly high, but efforts are being made to curb it.

Nonetheless, Fraser reports with blinders. It ranked Venezuela practically at the bottom - 126th out of 130 nations, only besting Congo, Zimbabwe and two other countries. It's the sixth consecutive bottom-scraping rating and mirror opposite those for pre-Chavez years. Since then, Venezuela prospered. Chavez is friendly to business. Fraser turns a blind eye. It's part of a corporate-led conspiracy to crush democracy and reempower capital. It raises questions on whether GPI, RWB, TI, Fraser and others are part of a larger scheme.

Iran is America's top target. Venezuela is next. Both countries are nominated for regime change. Continued efforts work toward it. It's no secret why. Each is oil rich, their leaders independent, and they refuse to be US clients. For Washington, that's sinful and unforgivable. The media are on board. They relentlessly bash both countries and report fiction as fact. Destabilization efforts continue. Anything may erupt anytime. GPI and the others may be helping.

Their low Venezuelan rankings are suspect. Washington may be behind them. Corporate backers as well. They get what they pay for. In this case, vilifying Chavez. GPI's facts are bogus. So are RWB's, TI's and Fraser's. It discredits their Venezuela v. America's rankings. Their entire reports as well. View them with caution. Understand what's likely going on. Part of a greater scheme to destabilize Venezuela and end its model democracy. Exposing them is the best way to prevent it.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour Mondays on Republic Broadcasting.org from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9059

Plan Colombia Heads for Mexico

Plan Colombia Heads for Mexico - Stephen Lendman

It's called "Plan Mexico," or more formally the "Merida Initiative," and here's the scheme. It's to do for Mexicans what Plan Colombia has done to that nation since 1999, and, in fact, much earlier. Since then, billions have gone for the following:

-- to establish a US military foothold in the country;

-- mostly to fund US weapons, chemical and other corporate profiteers; it's a long-standing practice; in fact, a 1997 Pentagon document affirms that America's military will "protect US interests and investments;" in Colombia, it's to control its valuable resources; most importantly oil and natural gas but also coal, iron ore, nickel, gold, silver, emeralds, copper and more; it's also to crush worker resistance, eliminate unions, target human rights and peasant opposition groups, and make the country a "free market" paradise inhospitable to people;

-- it funds a brutish military as well; already, over 10,000 of its soldiers have been trained at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) - aka the School of the Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; its graduates are infamous as human rights abusers, drugs traffickers, and death squad practitioners; they were well schooled in their "arts" by the nation most skilled in them;

-- it lets Colombia arm and support paramilitary death squads; they're known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC); for more than a decade, they've terrorized Colombians and are responsible for most killings and massacres in support of powerful western and local business interests;

-- it funds drug eradication efforts, but only in FARC-EP and ELN areas; government-controlled ones are exempt; trafficking is big business; laundering drugs money reaps huge profits for major US and regional banks; the CIA has also been linked to the trade for decades, especially since the 1980s; after Afghanistan's invasion and occupation, opium harvests set records - mostly from areas controlled by US-allied "warlords;" the Taliban's drug eradication program was one reason it was targeted; Colombia's drug eradication is horrific; it causes ecological devastation; crop and forest destruction; lives and livelihoods lost; large areas chemically contaminated; bottom line of the program - record amounts of Colombian cocaine reach US and world markets; trafficking is more profitable than ever; so is big business thanks to paramilitary terror;

-- it's to topple the FARC-EP and ELN resistance groups; Latin American expert James Petras calls the former the "longest standing (since 1964), largest peasant-based guerrilla (resistance) movement in the world;" it's also to weaken Hugo Chavez, other regional populist leaders and groups, and destabilize their countries; and

-- it supports the "Uribe doctrine;" it's in lockstep with Washington; its policies are hard right, corporate-friendly and militarized for enforcement.

Plan Colombia turned the country into a dependable, profitable narco-state. Business is better than ever. Violence is out of control and human rights abuses are appalling.

It gets worse. Two-thirds of Columbians are impoverished. Over 2.5 million peasant and urban slum dwellers have been displaced. Thousands of trade unionists have been murdered (more than anywhere else in the world), and many more thousands of peasants, rural teachers, and peasant and indigenous leaders have as well. Paramilitary land seizures are commonplace. Colombian latifundistas profit hugely. Wealth concentration is extreme and growing. Corruption infests the government. Many thousands in desperation are leaving. Colombia's "democracy" is a sham. So is Mexico's. Plan Mexico will make it worse. That's the whole idea, and it's part of the secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership - aka the North American Union.

It's planned behind closed doors - to militarize and annex the continent. Corporate giants are in charge, mostly US ones. The idea is for an unregulated open field for profit. The Bush administration, Canada and Mexico support it. Things are moving toward implementation. Three nations will become one. National sovereignty eliminated. Worker rights as well. Opposition is building, but moves are planned to quash it. That's the militarization part.

Business intends to win this one. People are to be exploited, not helped. That's why it's kept secret. The idea is to agree on plans, inform legislatures minimally about them, get SPP passed, then implement it with as few of its disturbing details known in hopes once they are they'll be too late to reverse.

SPP is ugly, ominous and hugely people destructive. Hundreds of millions in three countries will be affected. Others in the region as well. Plan Mexico is a contribution to the scheme. Below is what we know about it.

Plan Mexico - Exploitation Writ Large

The plan was first announced in October 2007 as a "regional security cooperation initiative." It's to provide $1.4 billion in aid (over three years) for Mexico and Central America on the pretext of fighting drugs trafficking and organized crime linked to it. FY 2008 calls for $550 million for starters with about 10% of it for Central America.

In fact, Plan Mexico is part of SPP's grand scheme to militarize the continent, let corporate predators exploit it, and keep people from three countries none the wiser. Most aid will go to Mexico's military and police forces with its major portion earmarked back to US defense contractors for equipment, training and maintenance. It's how these schemes always work.

This one includes a menu of security allocations, administrative functions, and special needs like software, forensics equipment, database compilations, plus plenty more for friendly pockets to keep our Mexican cohorts on board.

After failing on May 15, House passage will likely follow the Senate's approval on May 22 - below the radar. It's one of many appropriations tucked into the latest Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental funding request, and its purpose is just as outlandish. It will militarize Mexico without deploying US troops. It will also open the country for plunder, privatize everything including state-owned oil company PEMEX, give Washington a greater foothold there, and get around the touchy military issue by allowing in Blackwater paramilitaries instead to work with Mexican security forces.

Only privatizing PEMEX is in doubt thanks to immense citizen opposition. Thousands of "brigadistas" were in the streets, protesting outside the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, as lawmakers considered ending PEMEX state-control. They paralyzed debate and brought it to a halt - temporarily putting off a final resolution of this very contentious issue. Big Oil wants it. Most Mexicans don't. The battle continues. Mexico's military may get involved.

The US State Department describes them as follows:

-- ...."impunity and corruption (in Mexico's security forces are) problems, particularly at the state and local levels. The following human rights problems were reported: unlawful killings; kidnappings; physical abuse; poor and overcrowded prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detention; corruption, inefficiency, and lack of transparency in the judicial system; (coerced) confessions....permitted as evidence in trials; criminal intimidation of journalists leading to self-censorship; corruption at all levels of government; domestic violence against women (often with impunity); violence, including killings, against women; trafficking in persons; social and economic discrimination against indigenous people; and child labor."

Mexico's military fares little better with promises Plan Mexico will worsen it. President Calderon now deploys troops around the country. People fear them when they come. They're purportedly against drugs traffickers, but that's mostly cover. Their real purpose may be sinister - a possible dress rehearsal for martial law when SPP is implemented.

Mexican soldiers are hard line. Their reputation is unsavory. People justifiably fear them. They commit flagrant human rights abuses and get away with them. The major media even report them. The New York Times, CNN, BBC, USA Today and others cite evidence of rape, torture, killings, other human rights abuses, corruption, extortion, and ties to drugs traffickers. Little is done to stop it. Government and military spokespersons often aren't available for comment. They're part of the problem, not the solution. Plan Mexico promises more of the same and then some. Billions from Washington back it.

Social protests in the country already are criminalized. Hundreds are filling prisons. Many languish there for years. Labor and social activists are most vulnerable. Injustice and grinding poverty motivate them. Plan Mexico ups the ante. Things are about to get worse.

Militarizing society is toxic. Police state enforcement follows. Accountability disappears. The rule of law no longer applies. Plan Mexico assures it. So does SPP for the continent. In classic doublespeak, the White House claims it will "advance the productivity and competitiveness of our nations and help to protect our health, safety and environment." Its real purpose is to annex a continent, destroy its democratic remnants, lock in hard line enforcement, and secure it for capital.

SPP Backdrop of Plan Mexico

A detailed SPP explanation can be found on the 2007 article link. It's titled The Militarization and Annexation of North America - http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6359

Plan Mexico is part of SPP. It will militarize and annex the continent. It was formerly launched at a March 23, 2005 meeting in Waco, Texas attended by George Bush, Mexico's President Vincente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. They forged a tripartite partnership for greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social and security integration. Secretive working groups were formed to accomplish it - to devise non-negotiable agreements to be binding on all three nations.

Details are hidden. No public input is permitted. Pro forma legislative voting is approaching. It will try to avoid a NAFTA-type battle. Legislatures aren't being fully informed. The worst of SPP is secret. It's not a treaty, and the idea is to pass it below the radar and avoid a protracted public debate.

What's known so far is disturbing, and considerable opposition has arisen but thus far too inadequate to matter. SPP, Plan Mexico, and a final continent-wide plan amount to a corporate coup d'etat against three sovereign states and hundreds of millions of people. It's to erase national borders, merge three nations into one under US control, and remove all barriers to trade and capital flows. It's also to militarize the continent, create a fortress-North America security zone, and have in place police state laws for enforcement. Billions will fund it. All for corporate gain. Nothing for public welfare.

SPP takes NAFTA and the "war on terrorism" to the next level en route to extending it further for more corporate plunder. It's based on outlandish notions - that doing business, protecting national security, and securing "public welfare" require tough new measures in a very threatening world.

SPP bolsters US control. It enhances corporate power, quashes civil liberties, erases public welfare, and creates an open field for plunder free from regulatory restraints. It's being plotted behind closed doors. A series of summits and secret meetings continue with the latest one in New Orleans from April 22 to 24.

Three presidents attended and were met by vocal street protests. They convened a "People's Summit" and also held workshops to:

-- inform people how destructive SPP is;

-- strengthen networking and organizational ties against it;

-- maintain online information about their activities;

-- promote their efforts and build added support; and

-- affirm their determination to continue resisting a hugely repressive corporate-sponsored agenda. Opponents call it Nafta on steroids.

Business-friendly opposition also exists. Prominent is a "Coalition to Block the North American Union." The Conservative Caucus backs it. It has a "NAU War Room." It's the "headquarters of THE national campaign to expose and halt America's absorption into a 'North American Union (NAU)' with Canada and Mexico." It opposes building "a massive, continental 'NAFTA Superhighway.' "

It has congressional allies, and on January 2007 Rep. Virgil Goode and six co-sponsors introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40. It expresses "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in (building a NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

The April summit reaffirmed SPP's intentions - to create a borderless North America, dissolve national sovereignty, put corporate giants in control, and assure big US ones get most of it. Militarism is part of it. It's the reason for fortress-North America under US command. The US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) was established in October 2002 to do it. It has air, land and sea responsibility for the continent regardless of Posse Comitatus limitations that no longer apply or sovereign borders easily erased.

Homeland Security (DHS) and its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also have a large role. So does the FBI, CIA, all US spy agencies, militarized state and local police, National Guard forces, and paramilitary mercenaries like Blackwater USA. They're headed anywhere on the continent with license to operate as freely here as in Iraq and New Orleans post-Katrina. They'll be able to turn hemispheric streets into versions of Baghdad and make them unfit to live on if things come to that.

SPP maintains a web site. It's "key accomplishments" since August 2007 are updated on it as of April 22, 2008. Its details can be accessed from the following link:
http://www.spp.gov/pdf/key_accomplishments_since_august_2007.pdf
It lists principles agreed to; bilateral deals struck; negotiations concluded; study assessments released; agreements on the "Free Flow of Information;" law enforcement activities; efforts related to intellectual property, border and long-haul trucking enforcement; import licensing procedures; food and product safety issues; energy (with special focus on oil); water as well; infrastructure development; emergency management; and much more. It's all laid out in deceptively understated tones to hide its continental aim - enhanced corporate exploitation with as little public knowledge as possible.

Militarization will assure it, and consider one development up North. On February 14, 2008, the US and Canada agreed to allow American troops inside Canada. Canadians were told nothing or that the agreement was reached in 2002. Neither was it discussed in Congress or the Canadian House of Commons. It's for "bilateral integration" of military command structures in areas of immigration, law enforcement, intelligence, or whatever else the Pentagon or Washington wishes. Overall, it's part of the "war on terror" and militarizing the continent to make it "safer" for business and be prepared for any civilian opposition.

Congress may soon pass SPP, but with no knowledge of its worst provisions kept secret. It's to assure enough congressional support makes it law. Nonetheless, federal, state and local opposition is building. It ranges from private activism to vocal lawmakers. In 2008, a dozen or more states passed resolutions against SPP. Around 20 others did it in 2007. Congress began debating it last year with opposition raised on various grounds - open borders, unchecked immigration, a NAFTA Superhighway System, and the idea of giving unregulated Mexican trucks free access to US roads and cities.

There's also talk of replacing three national currencies with an "Amero." Unfortunately, little is heard about trashing the Constitution or giving corporate bosses free reign. There's even less talk about a militarized continent against dissent. SPP is a "new world order." Companies are plotting to get it. People better hope they don't. Disruptive opposition might derail them. It's building but needs more resonance to matter. Time is short and slipping away. These schemers mean business. They want our future. We can't afford to lose it.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening any time.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9059

"Immoral Hazard"

"Immoral Hazard" - by Stephen Lendman

So says Jeremy Grantham, co-founder of Boston-based investment firm Grantham, Mayo and Van Otterloo, now known as GMO. Some call him the philosopher king of Wall Street because of his highly insightful views on markets and the economy, usually with a longer-term perspective. In a profession of touts, fast-buck and scam artists, Grantham's commentaries are notably refreshing. They're detailed, scholarly, sober, clear and especially important at a time of unparalleled excesses, great economic uncertainty, voices ranging from gloom and doom to blue skies and all clear ahead, so who knows what to believe. Few people sort things out better than he, and whether right or wrong, he makes consummate sense and should be taken seriously.

He calls his latest commentary "Immoral Hazard" and takes straight aim at the perpetrators. It's not the first time, and with good reason. Bad policy yields bad results with former Fed Chairman Greenspan Exhibit A.

Grantham notes: "It's not that the former Fed boss...was incompetent that is remarkable. (It's that even now) so many people (still) don't seem to get it." Do they "just believe high-quality, self-justifying blarney?" Or do they think top jobs ipso facto "attract great talent by divine right?" Often, the most important jobs get "mediocrities" like Greenspan and the current White House occupant. Even worse, Washington is infested with them.

Grantham first learned of Greenspan in the late 1960s when he headed economic consulting firm Townsend-Greenspan & Co. Even then, his assessment was unsparing: "To be brutally honest, he was considered run of the mill by anyone I knew then or have met later who knew" of his work. Consider his "famous" January 1973 call that "it is rare that you can be as unqualifiedly bullish as you now can." It was right at the start of a punishing recession and 60% two-year market decline in real terms, second only at the time to the 1929 crash.

Never one to equivocate, Grantham cuts to the chase and draws blood: Greenspan's call "was one of the first of a long line of terrible prognostications for which he has remarkably 'not' been remembered," except by a few historians and analysts like Grantham. He seemed to pop out of nowhere to become Fed Chairman in 1987, not for his professional skills but for plenty of political ones. The Greenspan years and what's so far followed haven't been "our finest hour in the US."

A smattering of skilled leaders handled things way back compared to the "rudderless" kind under Greenspan and today. Moments (far too few) showed "vision, leadership and backbone." They then gave way to political opportunism and "easy paths taken" for short-term gains - most notably since the Reagan era. Referring to when Greenspan became Fed Chairman, Grantham continued saying we're "get(ting) ready to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Great Moral Hazard." Asset bubbles are tolerated because of who wins and loses. If managed well, speculators and Wall Street profit hugely, bail out at tops (the old pump and dump scheme), then let the public take the pain. No problem though if they miscalculate. Fed Chairmen like Greenspan and the current maestro step in with bailouts.

It's called "moral hazard," and the term goes way back - to the 1600s. English insurance companies then used it in the late 17th century. In the modern era, it got more study in the 1960s, but at the time didn't imply fraud, immoral behavior or outsized excess. Economists used the term to describe market inefficiencies when risks are displaced. It was before what became known as the "Greenspan put," or the idea that Fed Chairmen provide insurance - to bail out investors who take imprudent risks, so take even greater ones since winning is always guaranteed. But only for high-rollers.

Moral Hazard 101 - A Brief Case Study

Take Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), for example, and its dream team management:

-- a former highly respected Salomon Brothers fixed income chief who became tainted by the firm's auction-rigging scandal; no matter, he remained highly regarded by Wall Street;

-- a former Fed Vice-Chairman; and

-- two economics Nobel laureates.

They played high-stakes poker with little regulatory oversight and used their good names to do very risky things - like putting on interest rate swaps at market rates for no initial margin; borrowing 100% of value of top-grade collateral held; using that cash to buy more securities, then using them as collateral for more borrowing. In other words, it was a scheme to theoretically leverage to infinity, LTCM practically did it, and for a while it worked.

Things began unravelling in 1998. It started in July when Salomon Smith Barney announced it was liquidating its dollar interest arbitrage positions. LTCM took a hit, then things got worse when in August Russia declared a moratorium on its rouble and domestic dollar debt. Panic ensued, it spread to other markets, risky investments fled to high quality ones, then they were sold to raise cash.

LTCM was one of many large investors affected. By September, it dropped 52% in value and needed new capital to avoid a dilemma that could impact all of Wall Street if not addressed. LTCM's balance sheet assets were leverage thirtyfold to $125 billion, then tenfold more by off-balance sheet transactions for a total valuation of around $1 trillion - or too big to fail. If they folded, a financial panic could ensue, so the situation was critical. Enter the Fed after some initial high-stakes maneuvering failed. It engineered a multi-billion dollar bailout to avoid a greater financial market collapse.

It worked, but it's no way to run an economy. Bad examples keep getting repeated and each time show up worse. That's precisely today's dilemma. The stakes are enormous. No one for sure knows to what degree, and there's even less assurance how things will play out.

Minsky on Markets

He's passed but surely smiling and saying I warned you. His economic writings were mostly ignored in the prosperous 1980s and 1990s, but current market turbulence proved him right. He constructed a "financial instability hypothesis" building on the work of John Maynard Keynes. It showed how speculative bubbles grow out of outsized greed. Finally, asset values collapse in the end-game part of a seven-stage up-then-reverse journey downward. It's a "Minsky Moment" when euphoria turns to panic, investors bail out, and meltdown ensues.

That's how markets reacted to the Greenspan-caused tech bubble. They sold off hugely, then reinflated from outsized monetary and fiscal stimulus. Last summer, they peaked, dropped sharply, stabilized in April after a lesser Minsky reversal, but there's no way to know if it's over. Grantham doesn't think so. Neither do others. More on that below.

Economist Michael Hudson Cuts Through the Clutter

Hudson is an economist and President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET). He's also a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics, a former Wall Street financial analyst, and a no-nonsense critic of the current economic environment. He notes how recent events show that "economic royalists" and "money changers" run things and have "mismanage(d) our economy into dire straights of unprecendented risk - (a combination of reckless) debt creation, euphemized as 'leveraging' and 'wealth creation.' "

Few regulatory checks remain, and anything goes "under the guise of 'saving the system.' " If money manipulators hadn't endangered it, no fix would be needed. Now with systemic trouble of undetermined proportions, trillions of dollars are being misdirected. They're going for wars and bailouts instead of helping beleaguered homeowners who were manipulated for profit, face possible foreclosure, job loss, and likely hard times ahead.

Hudson says what's going on is "an economy-wide Ponzi scheme (for) creditors to lend debtors enough money (for their) interest costs so as to keep current on their loans." The idea was for various asset prices (stocks, bonds, real estate) to be inflated enough so debtors could pledge them as collateral at higher market valuations for more loans.

It worked as long as valuations rose. When they fell, all bets were off, and here's how trouble started and spread:

-- cracks in the multi-trillion dollar US securitization markets showed up last summer; they created liquidity crises for two Bear Stearns hedge funds; they were heavily into sub-prime mortgages; Bear Stearns was a Wall Street outlier; it was much unloved on the street, notorious for taking outsized risks, and that made it very vulnerable for a run on its assets when the opportunity came; it happened in March and forced the firm to sell out for pennies on the dollar after 85 years in business;

-- the initial damage spread to a little-known German bank, IKB; it forced the European Central Bank (ECB) to provide large amounts of liquidity to stem the damage;

-- it became apparent that trouble was systemic; it could touch down anywhere and likely hardest where greatest risks were taken - in America; and

-- intervention wasn't working; panic didn't stop; reserve hoarding took hold instead; and a run on commercial paper began - the kinds international banks issued in Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs).

The bottom began to fall out, and the problem was how to stop a growing debacle from becoming catastrophic. The solution, of course, was "immoral hazard" by bailing out transgressors, and the bigger they are, the greater the bailout amounts. Hudson calls it a "trillion-dollar bailout of bad mortgage debt" while homeowners go begging.

It began in March with heaps of hyperbole selling it. Multi-billions poured out. Money supply growth exploded. It now averages a near-monthly 18%. Deficits are mounting, and fiscal spending is just as outsized, but not much of it reaches households even with the so-called "rebate." In the meantime, real wages keep falling. Oil and food prices are skyrocketing. Real unemployment tops 12%. Consumer inflation is nearly as high, and real GDP (not the phony official number) hovers around -2%. Most other economic numbers are just as worrisome, so manipulating magic fixes them.

We're in uncharted territory, problems are huge, they're systemic and structural, and Hudson says "the Fed and Treasury officials seem to be making up new rules on a daily basis - that receive only....perfunctory" congressional oversight. Speculation is being rewarded, anything goes, and bailing out Wall Street and big banks takes top priority.

It gets worse. It costs trillions. No one knows where it will end or if it will work, and there's nothing left over for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all other essential social and national infrastructure needs.

Hudson puts it this way: "The historic road to serfdom is that of debt peonage to a financial oligarchy concentrating wealth in its own hands....The problem for society....is that finance finds its major gains to lie not in raising living standards, but in promoting a free lunch for its customers -- while turning corporate profits, monopoly rent-seeking and real estate price gains into a flow of interest to itself, by advancing the credit to finance the purchase of these assets and privileges."

The only way out is to "scale back existing mortgages (especially ones with negative equity) to reflect the plunge in property values today." Once principal is "reduced to realistic levels," fixed rate mortgages would replace ARMs.

Financial institutions won't accept this or whatever other ways it costs them, and therein lies the problem. Blaming victims is much simpler along with bailing out culprits - when they're too big to fail. Hudson calls for some high-octane populism to change things. Unfortunately, not a hint of it is in sight, and debt levels are so high they "cannot be paid....given the nation's heavy military and trade deficits." It's hammered the dollar and "rais(ed) dollarized prices for oil and other raw materials."

It gets worse. Foreign central banks and investors keep funding our excesses, and US spending, of course, depends on them. The more they lend us, the more we need in a never-ending dependency cycle. It bankrupted Medici bankers in the Renaissance era and got Adam Smith to conclude that governments don't repay outsized debts. They either default, declare a moratorium, or repudiate them. Not fit subjects for discussion, but you can bet foreign debt holders weigh them as they debate whether to keep the daisy chain going.

It's got plenty of US investors concerned as well, and a notable one is bond guru Bill Gross. In an April commentary he wrote: In his judgment, "the private credit markets have forfeited their privileged right to operate relatively autonomously because of incompetence, excessive greed, and (at times) fraudulent activities."

In an earlier Financial Times interview he also criticized government quick fix schemes. He further blasted hedge funds as "unregulated bank(s)" and a "con" and said complicated financial instruments "exacerbated" credit problems, and over-leveraging "lead(s) to an implosion at the edges....of this new financial marketplace."

He's also very worried about declining home prices that many on Wall Street publicly pooh-pooh. He calls a 20% valuation decline "much more" of an economic shock than falling equities "because the amount of homeowner leverage is so much greater. A 20% negative adjustment not only wipes out all ownership equity for millions of Americans, it turns their homes 'upside down' - incentivizing them to let their gardens grow weeds instead of lettuce." He believes systemic crisis is possible if the decline isn't stopped. He's not alone in that judgment, but few agreeing get heard.

Consider damage already done. The current Case-Schiller Index shows home prices declining at a 32% annual rate. A year ago, it was 8%. The risk is a huge 4.6 million home inventory or nearly double the 2.6 million past 20 year average. Even more worrisome is that 2.27 million homes sit empty and that's besides all the others banks own from foreclosures. It's double the year ago number.

If these properties keep deflating and hit the dangerous 20% level Gross mentions, millions will lose their equity, consumption and credit will be hit, and banks will keep writing-off greater amounts no one wants to contemplate. Robert Shiller believes home prices may equal or exceed the 30% drop of the 1930s. That's $6 trillion in today's dollars, or $80,000 for every US homeowner. The Fed can keep injecting liquidity but only for so long, and it may not work. If bank losses are great enough, they'll need all they can get to stay afloat, but for some it may not be enough. Not a pretty picture and no way to know how bad things may get.

Placing Blame Where It's Due According to Grantham

Grantham looks back at 2007 and awarded three prizes for "odd prognostications." They're named in Greenspan's honor. First prize went to Citicorp's CEO Chuck Prince for enthusiastically taking on more credit at a time markets were over-extended and peaking. He subsequently wrote off billions of worthless assets, $17 billion in first quarter 2008 alone, risked the bank's solvency, and got himself replaced by a new CEO.

Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke took second prize for "incomprehensible misreading of obvious data by an apparently well-informed source." In late 2006, he said what he now regrets (or should) - that "US housing prices merely reflect a strong US economy." His cohort at Treasury, Hank Paulson, got third prize for his spring 2007 comment that subprime problems were "contained."

Not if you own one or too many of those junk assets written down to a fraction of their original value. Grantham calls the crisis the most important one since World War II. It's more global than others. Its tentacles are everywhere. Speculative greed and broad asset overpricing caused it. Loose regulatory and irresponsible Fed policies allowed it. Perpetrators point fingers elsewhere, and no one's got backbone enough to fess up to their to their own mistakes and transgressions.

Before this ends, according to Grantham, it's "likely to make the S & L crisis look contained." As a per cent of GDP, write-downs this time are on the order of two to three times greater now than then. But there's no precise way to know their full impact or to what degree monetary and fiscal stimulus will contain the damage or delay its final resolution. They won't be papered over, and writer/economist William Engdahl puts it this way:

Greenspan was a tool of the monied interests who gave him his job. He "knew who buttered his bread" and returned their favors manyfold. He engineered many crises and used them all to "advance and consolidate the influence of US-centered finance over the global economy, almost always to the severe detriment of the economy and broad general welfare of the population." His 18 year tenure was undistinguished to say the least. "It can be described as rolling the financial markets from successive crises into ever larger ones..."

It remains to be seen if his "securitization revolution was a 'bridge too far,' " spelling the beginning of the end of US dominance as an economic power. The "true significance" of today's crisis (nowhere near resolved) lies right in his lap. Engdahl lists his menu of malpractice in serving the "Money Trust," meaning Wall Street and big banks. In each case, it yielded big short-term gains, greater long-term losses, and successively greater crises. A new Fed Chairmen has to solve them. Bailout is his strategy. It may help in the short-term. The jury is still out. The policy is flawed. It assures greater crises ahead, and at some point the music stops.

Bernanke may end up being too smart by half. We're awash in problems that one analyst calls three simultaneous imploding bubbles:

-- a property, mainly housing, price one;

-- a mortgage finance one; and

-- an alphabet soup of CDOs, SIVs, SPVs, and a whole menu of levered-up, high-risk securitized assets amounting to financial alchemy.

Grantham also takes aim at them and sees lots more write-downs and defaults ahead before it ends. He cites a longer-term problem as well - "that all debt standards fell so that losses will accumulate right across the entire credit system." Even worse, it came at a time equities were overpriced, still are, and particularly higher-risk ones. Further, "profit margins are spectacularly above average" in some sectors, margins are being squeezed, and markets finally caught on that "all risk is dangerous."

Grantham's research shows that all markets eventually revert to their means and for months have been "well into a massive repricing of both risk and asset prices" to get there. Before it started last July, we reached "the lowest risk premium, by far, ever recorded." It needs lots of heaving lifting to return it to more normal levels. And, of course, it's a painful process, a drag on the economy, and will likely take years to fix. In Grantham's judgment, through 2010 "to clean house completely," and when it ends "the amount of write-downs (may likely) start with a 'T.' "

Blame it on a Fed Chairman whose name starts with "G," and Grantham has been unsparing on him before. Referring to the 1990s dot.com and tech excess, he blamed him for engineering the largest ever stock market bubble and bust in history through incompetence, timidity, dereliction of duty or a combination of all three. It didn't matter because Wall Street types made fortunes, then got plenty of early warning to exit to let small investors take the pain.

Undeterred, Greenspan was at it again in the current cycle that's now being unwound. But this time, multiple bubbles were created, with housing and mortgage ones most affecting households. Grantham (like Gross) calls them "much rarer and more dangerous than stock bubbles" because they affect so many people. Even worse, with over half of all housing wealth borrowed and "on much less credit-worthy terms," it's very much "more dangerous than normal."

It's the Fed's job to watch over:

-- mortgage quality;

-- the soundness of repackaging mortgages; and

-- off balance sheet commercial banking that should have been stopped or curtailed.

"And what did Alan Greenspan do this time? Absolutely nothing" except whine about a little excess in housing when it was already out of hand. Even then he implied not to worry because "the housing boom will soon simmer down." And Bernanke is even more feckless with comments like "The housing market merely reflects a strong US economy." Grantham portrays him as a Greenspan clone, just as incompetent, and someone having "extraordinary faith in efficiency to the point of denial." Above all, like Greenspan, he's there to serve the "Money Trust" that appointed him.

And he's done it since taking over. First, by "stimulat(ing) at all costs" and repeating the same mistakes as his predecessor. Grantham calls 2008 "the year of Santayana: we ignored history and (are) condemned to repeat it." Housing price deflation is its most notable feature. It's what affects households most, and that, in turn, reverberates through the economy. Greenspan and Bernanke paid it no heed. Each now accepts no blame, and Grantham calls it "shameful." It's far worse than that at a time people are suffering, and the current Fed Chairman gets accolades for bailing out bankers while paying only lip service to homeowners.

By creating asset bubbles, Fed policy caused their dilemma, and Grantham believes their deflating may be the greatest of all threats to financial and economic stability. It stands to reason that efforts must be made to avoid the worst possible outcome. That means curbing speculation is key. Minsky was right that short of that financial crises are inevitable and excess is always the cause.

Grantham sums it up saying: it's important or even vital "to our financial well-being that the Fed recognizes a responsibility to move against" this behavior that comes with a huge price. Greenspan's response: "I have no regrets on any of the Federal Reserve's policies that we initiated...." Grantham calls that "chutzpah that even Paul Bremer would have to admire."

Engdahl calls it a "financial tsunami." It triggered a "crisis of confidence." High-risk securities were most affected. So were sub-prime mortgages. Then the whole "edifice of securitized debt" began unravelling, triggered by its weakest link collapse. Its effect is global and "a crisis not even comparable to the 1930s Great Depression."

High-quality municipal debt got hit. Interest rates on them "rose to the highest ever relative to Treasuries." It makes financing unaffordable and caused states and local agencies to "pull out of the $330 billion floating (auction-rate) market where costs have doubled since January." New York and London bond fund managers say it's the worst they ever saw. High interest rates aggravate fiscal crises even with the Fed cutting fed funds and discount rates. Some call it pushing on a string. Time will tell if it'll work. Engdahl is dubious. He sees depression spreading. It creates "a self-reinforcing downward spiral. The process is in its early stages...."

With market turbulence somewhat quieted after a sharp April rebound after months of declines, unanswered questions remain. Is it a lull, a turnaround, or the eye of the storm before its harshest side hits? Grantham and Engdahl see trouble. Bernanke's fingers are crossed. European central bankers as well, while Americans fear losing their homes and jobs the longer the crisis goes on and deeper it gets.

Direst forecasts have it in its early innings with the worst of things ahead. Only in the fullness of time will we know, but some things are clear. None of this happened by chance. Nor should it have in the first place. A combination of financial malpractice, outright fraud, and greed are to blame. The same mistakes keep getting repeated. The costs keep going higher. Sooner or later they matter, and some day it'll be too late to fix them. Some day may be closer than smart money folks think. Stay tuned, be cautious, and ignore Fed Chairmen and politicians promising miracles. If things were sound and improving, they wouldn't have to keep reminding us.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are also archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8983

Spinning the News - The FARC-EP Files, Venezuela and Interpol

Spinning the News - The FARC-EP Files, Venezuela and Interpol - by Stephen Lendman

First some background. On March 1, the Colombian military (with US Special Forces help) illegally attacked a FARC-EP rebel camp inside Ecuador. US satellite telephone tracking located the site. Washington signed off on the mission. Over 20 people were killed, including 16 or more FARC-EP members while they slept. Key among them was Paul Reyes, the FARC-EP's second-in-command, key peace negotiator and public voice, and lead figure in the Chavez-led hostage negotiations with Colombia.

The action was a clear act of aggression and premeditated murder. It's not how the dominant media played it. Hostile verbal exchanges took place between Hugo Chavez and Ecuador's Raphael Correa on the one hand and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe and George Bush on the other. US presidential candidates, as expected, supported the White House and Bogota.

Tensions heightened further when Colombia's vice-president, Francisco Santos Calderon, revealed his nation's army recovered three laptops and other material at the FARC-EP camp with provocative evidence on their hard drives. He claimed it showed Chavez and Correa have links to the FARC-EP, and Venezuela provided weapons, munitions, and $300 million or so to the rebel group. In addition, the FARC-EP was accused of acquiring 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of uranium, that it wishes to sell it for a radioactive dirty bomb, it also sold 700 kilograms of cocaine for about $1.5 million, and more.

The story is preposterous, but the media grabbed hold of it. No evidence exists, so they invent it. In March, Colombian authorities asked Interpol to examine the computer files for authenticity. The organization released its report on May 15. On its web site, it states that Secretary General Ronald Noble "advised senior Colombian law enforcement officials that INTERPOL's team of forensic experts discovered 'no evidence of modification, alteration, addition or deletion' in the user files of any of the three laptop computers, three USB thumb drives and two external hard disks seized during a Colombian anti-narcotics and anti-terrorist operation on a FARC camp on 1 March 2008."

But Interpol admitted that lacking evidence doesn't prove "there was no tampering." In fact, some files had future date stamps and other indications of data alteration. It questions their authenticity, and Interpol (deep in its report) acknowledged that Columbia likely manipulated the contents - with an explanation needing close reading to understand. It delegitimizes Colombian claims and would get an international court to dismiss them out of hand. Reporters doing their job should as well. Data accuracy can't be verified or worse - they may be entirely fraudulent, and made-in-Washington mischief may be behind it.

Interpol's report continued saying "between 1 and 3 March, direct access to the seized computer exhibits....did not follow internationally recognized principles in the handling of electronic evidence under ordinary circumstance." Its experts "verified that this....had no effect" on file contents, but other report evidence contradicts that statement. Interpol, in fact, stated that "Direct access may complicate validating this evidence for purposes of its introduction in a judicial proceeding because law enforcement is then required to demonstrate or prove that the direct access did not have a material impact on the purpose for which the evidence is intended."

In short, hard drive data prove nothing and may, in fact, be fake. With US involvement clear, it wouldn't be the first time, and Washington is rich in talent to do it.

Independent computer experts are also troubled. They believe that failure to follow standard evidence handling procedures seriously jeopardizes its reliability. With care, forensic specialists or computer professionals can add, delete or alter hard drive material without leaving a footprint.

Dominant media reports ignored this and more. They passed over or played down key findings, including Interpol's statement: that its experts didn't "evaluate the accuracy or the source of the exhibits' content." How could they? The volume was enormous amounting to the equivalent of "39.5 million pages in Microsoft Word...." At the rate of 100 pages a day, "it would take more than 1000 years to read" it.

That alone begs the question. In a few days or even weeks, how were Colombian authorities able to analyze the data to discover provocative information therein. That notion also got no attention in the dominant media. Neither did most other parts of the truth.

Spinning the News - How Big Media Does It

Here's how Murdoch's Wall Street Journal's played it on May 16. Its editorial page said Interpol's May 15 report "won't make Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's day." It reported Interpol's claim about no evidence of file tampering, but ignored the issues of authenticity, accuracy, manipulation, or impossible "speed-reading" skills of Colombian verifiers. It concluded that "Interpol's certification proves that Mr. Chavez is trying to destabilize a US ally (and that he's a) proven supporter of terrorism in our own hemisphere."

The New York Times' Simon Romero was little better. His May 16 article was headlined: "Files Tying Venezuela to Rebels Not Altered, Report Says." He called Interpol's report "a setback for Venezuela, which had claimed that the computer files....were fabrications...." It "may advance efforts under way in the Congress to add Venezuela to the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism...."

Well down in his report, Romero admitted that "Interpol could not vouch for the accuracy of the files" and that "a Colombian antiterrorism unit (seized them improperly and) in violation of internationally recognized rules on handling electronic evidence...." No further comment was added.

In contrast, Romero played up State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, saying these "are serious allegations about Venezuela supplying arms and support to a terrorist organization....that has deep implications for the people of the region." He had to acknowledge, however, what credible experts agree on. Given the importance of US and Venezuelan relations, chances of declaring the country a state sponsor of terrorism is highly remote - "particularly without more evidence (read any evidence) of the country's support of the FARC..."

Latin American history professor Greg Grandin goes further. He believes "Almost all of Latin America and most of the world would take Venezuela's side in this dispute. Any move (against the Chavez government) would further isolate the United States in a region where it has been hemorrhaging influence."

That doesn't phase Romero. Piling on is his specialty. Truth isn't. He returned on May 18 with a provocative feature story headlined: "Chavez Seizes Greater Economic Power." Some key points in it are:

-- "Chavez is intensifying state control of the Venezuelan economy through a wave of takeovers of private companies and creation of government-controlled ventures with allies like Cuba and Iran; fears are intensifying (over) more nationalizations;"

-- it's happening "just months after voters rejected a referendum to give the president sweeping constitutional power (leading critics to accuse him of being) more interested in consolidating power than in fixing Venezuela's problems;"

-- "while he has argued that (he aims) to correct social injustices and fight soaring inflation, his critics say his moves are instead compounding these troubles;" no supporter voices in sight;

-- to avoid "outright confiscation (he's) offering 'some' compensation;" unmentioned is it's fair market value and nothing was, is or will be "confiscated;"

-- Romero stresses Venezuela's ties to Iran and China with joint ventures and infrastructure projects; also that Chavez will "export more oil to China in exchange for more Chinese investment in Venezuela;" implied, of course, are his relations with US rivals, and, in the case of Iran, a country George Bush calls "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism;"

-- he ignores Venezuela's successes; along with Argentina, it's the fastest growing regional economy and one of the fastest in the world at a time of economic weakness; its impressive employment growth with most of it coming in the private sector; that Chavez is friendly to business and boosts the private economy; the country's huge social gains; and Chavez's immense popularity and growing world stature; instead he lists problems - high inflation, less foreign investment, food shortages, capital flight, and more that are only mitigated by "high oil prices;"

-- near the article's end, he's forced to admit what economist Mark Weisbrot explains - that Chavez "is so far mainly just reversing some of the privatizations that took place in the 1990s;"

-- Romero reverts to form with some provocative ending quotes about Chavez "stimulating a pre-insurrectional climate;" that his nationalizations aim "to annihilate the productive apparatus so that we depend more on petroleum, which is to depend more on the state, or in other words, to depend more on Chavez."

For the dominant US media, Chavez-bashing is full-time. Washington Post writers excel at it on any pretext, and Juan Forero's May 16 Interpol report article was typical. It's headlined: "FARC Computer Files Are Authentic, Interpol Probe Finds." He echoed the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and said files seized "contain e-mails (Interpol never mentioned any) and other documents that show how Venezuela's populist leader had formed such a tight bond with guerrilla commanders that his key lieutenants had offered help in obtaining sophisticated weaponry such as surface-to-air missiles while delivering light arms. The files also document links between FARC and Ecuador's president, Raphael Correa, a close ally of Chavez."

Similar reports appeared throughout the US and western media. They never miss a chance to play down facts and attack populist leaders. In response, Hugo Chavez dismissed the allegations as "ridiculous." He urged Colombia's president to have "a moment of reflection (and added) The government of Columbia is capable of provoking a war....to justify a US intervention in Venezuela." He also called Colombia's assertion "a new act of aggression." It means relations with his neighbor will come "under deep review," and Reuters reported May 15 that "Venezuela is deeply revising diplomatic, economic and political relations with Colombia" following Interpol's report and the Uribe government's allegations.

Ecuador's Correa was abroad in France, but took time to say the computer file documents "prove absolutely nothing. We have information that the Colombian government had the computers for some time and prepared all this." Quite possibly because the entire story is unraveling. But don't expect Big Media to report it.

Revving Up Gunboat Diplomacy

While it continues, the Pentagon announced in April that it's resurrecting its Fourth Fleet in Latin America and the Caribbean after a 60 year hiatus. It was created during WW II and disbanded in 1950. Reasons given were vaguely stated - to "conduct varying missions including a range of contingency operations, counter narco-terrorism, and theater security cooperation activities."

US Naval Forces Southern Command chief Admiral James Stevenson said the move would send a message to the entire region, not just Venezuela. Commandant of the National War College, General Robert Steel added that: "The United States' obsession with Venezuela, Cuba and other things indicates they are going to use more military force, going to use that instrument more often." Bolivian President Evo Morales called the move "Fourth Fleet....intervention."

The Fleet begins operating in July and will be headquartered out of Florida's Mayport Naval Station. It'll be part of the Pentagon's Southern Command, extending from the Caribbean to the continent's southern tip. Its strength will be formidable - aircraft carriers, submarines, various attack ships, and several nuclear-armed ones.

With no Latin American threat, why then this move, and why now with an administration nearing its end and bogged down in two unwinnable wars? Like the Middle East and Central Asia, the region's importance is crucial. Venezuela alone is why. Its proved oil reserves were just raised to 130 billion barrels, but include what's uncounted and they're far higher. On its web site, the US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the country's extra-heavy oil at 1.36 trillion barrels, or 90% of the world's total. That's more than all "proved" world reserves combined and in addition to Venezuela's "proved" light sweet resources of around 80 billion barrels that alone ranks it seventh in the world behind the five largest Middle East producers and Canada.

With stakes that high, it's significant that Admiral Joseph Kernan will become Fleet commander when it's activated. He currently heads the Naval Special Warfare Command that includes Navy Seals and other counterinsurgency units. His choice is troublesome, and regional leaders are mindful. Hugo Chavez especially. It may be why he's buying nine Russian submarines, but against America it hardly registers. In total, Venezuela spends $1 - 2 billion on its military annually or less than half of 1% of the Pentagon's budget. Nonetheless, it's another reason Washington targets him with a hawkish commander now charged to do it.

Rumor also is that the Pentagon plans building a Colombian military base near Venezuela's border. Washington's Colombian ambassador, William Brownfield, said it's possible if its Manta, Ecuador one is closed. Its lease expires in 2009, and Raphael Correa said renewal depends on the US granting Ecuador equivalent basing rights in South Florida - his way of confirming renewal won't happen.

Chavez is justifiably alarmed at the prospect of US troops on his border. He warned Colombia not to do it and said this action will force Venezuela to revive a decades-old territorial conflict over its possible La Guajira location. He further added: "We will not allow the Colombian government to give La Guajira to the empire." Stationing US troops there will be "a threat of war at us." So far, neither Washington or Colombia confirm what's planned. But Colombia's defense minister, Juan Manuel Santos, denies the base rumor, at least in La Guajira. In a May 14 televised address, Chavez called it "good news." Nonetheless, the situation bears watching.

Chavez is justifiably wary. As long as he's president, he'll be vilified and targeted. Latin America is vital to Washington. Venezuela is a key part of it. But America's dominance is weakening, neoliberal pillage caused it, the Bush administration accelerated it, Bolivarianism challenges it, so muscular militarism may replace diplomacy to restore it.

Colombia's belligerency, the FARC-EP files, Fourth Fleet reactivation, continued funding of Venezuela's opposition, CIA's covert mischief, disruptive street violence, and other planned schemes are troublesome. They're to reassert regional control and rid Washington of its leading hemispheric antagonist. No guessing who, and no telling when the next attempt will come or in what form. Everything tried so far failed. Even worse, it's been counterproductive. Chavez has enormous stature and immense popular support.

That makes him an even greater threat and hints at something bigger coming. So far, it's just speculation, however, with the administration's tenure winding down. But it may or may not deter those running it who are always wrong, never in doubt, and apparently willing to risk making a bad situation worse. Stay tuned, expect surprises, and be assured the months ahead won't be boring.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on Republic Broadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8983

Grow Them Young, Pay Them Well - Anti-Chavistas, That Is

Grow Them Young, Pay Them Well - Anti-Chavistas, That Is - by Stephen Lendman

Who said crime doesn't pay? Read on.

The Washington-based Cato Institute is all about "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace," or so says its web site. It's been around since 1977 preaching limited government and free market religion with plenty of high-octane corporate funding for backing. It better have it for the award it presented on May 15. It was to a 23 year old fifth year Venezuelan law student at Universidad Catolica Andres Bello. Yon Goicoechea was the fourth recipient of the "Milton Friedman Liberty Prize" in the amount of $500,000. For what? What else. For serving the interests of capital back home and leading anti-Chavista protests.

Goicoechea is leader of Venezuela's "pro-democracy student movement" that in Cato's words "prevented Hugo Chavez's regime from seizing broad dictatorial powers in December 2007." The reference is to the narrow defeat of Venezuela's reform referendum last December. Goicoechea led student-organized street violence against Venezuela's democracy, but don't look for Cato to say that.

It played up Goicoechea's "pivotal role in organizing and voicing opposition to the erosion of human and civil rights in his country (that) would have concentrated unprecendented political and economic power in the hands of the government." Instead, he chooses "tolerance" and the "human right to seek prosperity." He's been active since student and other opposition emerged against the Chavez government's refusal (with ample justification) to renew RCTV's VHF operating license last May.

Then, and in the run-up to last December's referendum, Cato says he stood down "ongoing death threats and continual intimidation due to his prominent and vocal leadership." He's been "indispensable in organizing massive, peaceful protest marches that have captured the world's attention." In fact, there were no death threats but plenty of hard right intimidation targeting Chavistas with tools like Goicoechea a part of it.

Cato founder and president Edward Crane said "We hope the Friedman Prize will help further his non-violent advocacy for basic freedoms in an increasingly militaristic and anti-democratic Venezuela." Far right novelist Mario Vargas Llosa added that "freedom is disappearing" in Venezuela, and "Goicoechea is a symbol of (a) democratic reaction when (it's) threatened."

Goicoechea received his award at a $500 a plate dinner at New York's Waldorf Astoria. Prominent corporate and government types attended, all representing far right interests. None explain how Bolivarianism works, its participatory democracy, its commitment to Venezuela's people, or how it's lifted millions in the country out of desperate poverty. Nor is there comment on a model process, impressive social reforms, supremely democratic elections, or Hugo Chavez's immense popularity. An April 24 - May 2 Venezuela Data Analysis Institute (IVAD) poll puts him at 68.8%. That compares to comparable George Bush ones with some of the lowest ratings ever for a US president.

No discussion either of how student opposition is funded or for what purpose. That their money comes from US agencies like the misnamed National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, the International Republican Institute, and other pro-business US and international agencies and organizations. CIA's part of it, too.

Highlighted are Goicoechea's plans with the money - to challenge Bolivarianism back home and work to subvert it. With those ideas and Cato's backing, he's sure to remain a hard right favorite. He'll also be busy and well-compensated - for more destabilization against the most democratic government in the hemisphere. That's what Goicoecheas are for - to sabotage democracy, subvert equity and justice, topple populist governments, and make Venezuela "friendlier" for business.

Goicoechea now heads home fully briefed for his role, but don't expect Cato to explain it. It's to support capital's divine right, privilege over beneficial social change, and the rights of the few over the many. It's to mobilize indignation against a leader who works for all Venezuelans, especially those in greatest need. Who uses his country's oil wealth for his people, not elitist business interests. For having a Constitution that mandates it. For gaining overwhelming popular support and becoming a hero to millions. For wanting others to share in what Venezuelans have. For believing all people matter, not just the privileged. For becoming the greatest of all threats to the empire (and Cato) determined to stop him. For failing so far. For seeing him gain strength and stature. For securing grassroots allies everywhere. For needing many Goicoecheas to oppose him, but not nearly enough to prevail.

His "non-violent advocacy" and "peaceful" protesting went like this - promoting class warfare; wanting Chavez toppled; and following CIA diktats to:

-- "take to the streets; protest with violent disruptive actions across the nation; create a climate of ungovernability; provoke a general uprising; isolate Chavez" internationally; destabilize the government; disrupt the constitutional process; sustain aggressive agitprop; build unity among the opposition; and end Chavismo and Bolivarianism so capital can get back in control.

Last year, Goicoechea responded by engaging in violent street clashes; targeting pro-Chavez students, police and the National Guard; smashing windows; turning over and setting cars alight; starting other fires; burning tires; throwing rocks and bottles; engaging in a shootout at Caracas' Central University; seeing Venezuela's business media report "peaceful, civic and democratic" students were attacked without provocation; and getting full US (and Cato) backing for all of the above.

Like others of his class, Goicoechea enjoys privilege and wants to keep it. He's also unwilling to share it, and he puts it this way: "We have to fight for our future, for our rights," and you know whose he means. "If we don't fight for our freedoms, we won't be able to take part in a democratic Venezuela in the future." He means democracy for the few like in pre-Chavez days.

Gabriela Calderon shares that view as editor of ElCato.org, Cato's Spanish language website. She's young, well-educated, anti-Chavez, and also against Bolivarianism's spread to her native country of Ecuador. Cato says she's a "frontline" warrior in "the struggle against Hugo Chavez's '21st century socialism,' which is threatening to engulf all of Latin America." She, in turn, calls populists like Chavez and Ecuador's President Raphael Correa "the reactionary right" for in Cato's words: "pushing for greater state control over the economy and people's lives. By contrast, she - and ElCato.org - advocates for individual freedom." That means privatizing everything, favoring property over people, privilege over the needy, crowding out dissent, and getting well-rewarded for supporting all of the above.

These are imperial interests. Youths like Goicoechea and Calderon are its tools, and organizations like Cato are front and center supporting them. It's bankrolled by business, given clear marching orders, and they're full of high-octane markets uber alles religion. But in the spirit of "Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace." Orwell would approve.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8983

Frances Fox Piven's "Challenging Authority"

Frances Fox Piven's "Challenging Authority" - by Stephen Lendman

Frances Fox Piven is a Canadian-born Professor of Political Science and Sociology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York (CUNY). Her career is long and distinguished. She's the recipient of numerous awards, has combined scholarship with activism, and is the author of many important books. Most notable is her 1971 classic "Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare." It's a landmark historical and theoretical analysis of how welfare policy is used to control the poor and working class.

A more recent book is her 2006-published "Challenging Authority" and subject of this review. It's about how social movements can be pivotal forces for change because ordinary people in enough numbers have enormous political clout. Abolitionists, labor movements and civil rights activists proved it. Piven examines their collective actions plus one other in the four examples she chose - the American Revolution.

Piven's book is succinct and masterful. Howard Zinn calls it a "brilliant analysis of the interplay between popular protest and electoral politics." Canadian Professor Leo Panitch says the book is "theoretically profound, yet immensely readable," and sociologist and social movements expert Susan Eckstein describes the book as "quintessentially Piven-esque." It "eloquently (shows) how ordinary people....have taken it upon themselves to correct injustices."

Piven's theme is powerfully relevant at a perilous time in our history. The nation is at war on two fronts, a third one looms, constitutional protections have eroded, social services erased, the country is militarized, dissent repressed, and the government is empowered to crush freedom and defend privilege at the expense of beneficial social change it won't tolerate.

Introduction

In light of the current situation, Piven's introductory Thomas Jefferson quote is relevant. It was his response to the repressive 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. He wrote: "A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles." Disruptive social actions have done it in the past, and Piven puts it this way: "ordinary people (have) power....when they rise up in anger and hope, defy the rules....disrupt (state) institutions....propel new issues to the center of political debate....(and force) political leaders (to) stem voter defections by proferring reforms. These are the conditions that produce (America's) democratic moments."

Electoral participation alone won't do it. "In the real American political world, numerous obstacles" remain - structural, legal and practical. Despite liberalization of the process through the years, "large numbers of ostensibly eligible voters" are effectively disenfranchised. Former restrictive laws are gone, but new schemes replaced them - intimidation, misinformation, electoral fraud, and the corrupting power of money in a nation beholden to capital at the expense of the greater good.

Piven cites more as well:

-- the power of incumbency,

-- the two-party system that shuts out independent and minority interests,

-- the construct of the law that empowers the powerful,

-- the revolving door between business and government,

-- the corrupted dominant media,

-- the lack of accountability to voters,

-- arbitrary redistricting for political advantage,

-- believing markets work best so let them,

-- disdaining the harm they cause,

-- feeling interfering with market excess is "moral trespass,"

-- sacrificing democracy in the pursuit of profit,

-- and it all turning the public away from a process they no longer trust.

It shows in declining voter turnout with half or less of the electorate showing up at the polls and many without conviction.

Post-WW II, "most political scientists viewed American democracy with a self-satisfied complacency." It wasn't perfect, but it was the best possible at the time. Two decades later, system imperfections were more apparent, and more recently political science professor Robert Dahl said our system is "among the most opaque, complex, confusing, and difficult to understand" to show how badly we fare compared to other democracies.

Inequalities are extreme and growing, and Piven calls it "pernicious." It breeds "patterns of domination and subservience (and) undermines democratic capabilities." She quotes political analyst Kevin Phillips saying Washington is "the leading interest-group bazaar of the Western World," and economist Paul Krugman calling our political system "utterly and perhaps irrevocably corrupted."

Bad as it now is, Piven says democracy "never worked well in the United States." Citing the 19th century, she notes how it "was stamped and molded by intense religious and ethnic allegiances (that in turn created a culture of) political parties (at all levels) steeped in patronage." It was at a time corporate power grew and began to gain advantages that are now commonplace and harmful to the public interest.

Nonetheless, egalitarian reform is possible, and Piven recounts four crucial times when it showed up. Each time, protest movements achieved it by influencing American politics, "if only temporarily." It's no surprise that power "flows to those who have more of the things and attributes valued in social life." But times emerge when "workers or peasants or rioters exercise power," it's "distinctive....disruptive or interdependent," and it happens when conditions are right for it to be actualized.

Piven states the "central question" of her book: "given the power inequalities (in America)" and how it corrupts the political process, "how does egalitarian reform ever occur" at all? It's only been at times of "disruptive protest movements" with their "distinctive kind of power" Piven calls "disruptive power."

The Nature of Disruptive Power

First a definition of power in the abstract. Piven notes the "widely held thesis that (it's) based on control of wealth and force" - big landowners over peasants, rich over poor, armies over civilians, and so forth. However, it's not always the case, and "history is dotted" with examples of "people without wealth or coercive resources....exercis(ing) power, at least for a time."

She notes how societies organize through cooperation and interdependence, but disparate interests at times conflict. While workers depend on management for jobs, managers, in turn, need a work force to produce. If labor is withheld, production halts. Both sides have leverage. Either one can activate it. Piven calls the "activation of interdependent power 'disruption.' " It's a power strategy based on "withdrawing cooperation in social relations." Protest movements "mobilize disruptive power." They achieve leverage by breaking down "institutionally regulated cooperation" as in strikes, boycotts or riots.

At these times, ordinary people (potentially) have enormous power - "their ability to disrupt institutionalized cooperation that depends on their continuing contributions." Key is that great reforms in history have been "responses to the threatened (or use of) disruptive power." In the US, it achieved representative government, ending slavery, the right to organize, social welfare and civil rights. Grassroots bottom-up "disruptive power" produced them.

But it takes more than marches, rallies, slogans, shouting or even violence. It's also too simplistic to think power from below is there for the taking. Actualizing power depends on the ability to withhold cooperation. But it's not "actionable" until certain problems are solved:

-- recognizing interdependence and the potential power from below such as workers withholding their labor or wives their domestic services;

-- the necessity of people breaking rules; rules are power strategies; they allow some people to dominate others, establish property rights, become law, and so forth;

-- individuals must coordinate their disruptive power for strategic advantage;

-- they must overcome constraints of an entire matrix of social relations; examples are the influence of family ties or the threat of religious excommunication;

-- disruptive power must be sustained, cooperation withheld, and be able to withstand whatever reprisals occur; and

-- the determination to stay the course in the wake of threats and uncertainty - employers who may hire scabs or relocate their plants and facilities.

New strategies aren't invented for each challenge. They're "embedded in memory or culture, in a language of resistance (and) become a 'repertoire' (of a) specific constellation of strategies to actualize interdependent power." New repertoires from below are developed in response to social and economic change. They become "forged in a political process of action and reaction." Popular struggles change over time, so, for example, food riots became rare and strike actions typical. However, they're now threatened with weakened labor protections, the growth of temporary workers, and the ability of employers to operate anywhere in the world under WTO rules.

Slowly over time, new repertoires emerge to respond to conditions of the times. Lessons are learned from defeat, anger and defiance builds, and creative imagination invents new solutions to old problems.

The Mob and the State - Disruptive Power and the Construction of American Electoral-Representative Arrangements

Disorderly and defiant crowds or mobs figure prominently in the history of disruptive movements. They played an important role in the Revolutionary War period and years leading up to it. American elites allied with mobs because they grew uneasy about British rule and developed radical ideas about the right of the colonies to self-government. Without mob support, the war with England couldn't have been won. They provided the troops who fought it.

Most colonists were from England, and by the mid-1700s numbered around 1.6 million. Most had egalitarian ideas and were ordinary people - artisans, apprentices, sailors, laborers, urban poor, farmers, bonded servants, and so forth. They also relied on mob action for results.

In the pre-revolutionary period, "riots and tumults" were commonplace. Bacon's 1676 Rebellion of discontented frontiersmen and slaves was the first one of note. In the next 100 years, another 18 uprisings erupted (according to Howard Zinn) against colonial governments along with six black rebellions and 40 riots.

Tensions grew as the years passed. They challenged Britain and colonial elites. Inequalities also increased, and they spawned protests against them. One study cited 150 riots in cities and rural areas between 1765 and 1769. In addition, merchants and landowners grew angry with the Crown. In 1763, it sent a standing army to the colonies, introduced new taxes, made demands to billet British troops and to curb colonial assemblies' power. It introduced the Sugar Act, Tea Act and a new Stamp Act. Colonists resisted and mob action was crucial.

They made Stamp Act enforcement impossible and dumped tea into more than one harbor to prove it, besides the notable December 16, 1773 Boston action. Historian Edward Countryman called it the "final rupture" leading up to war. Those who took up arms wanted popular democracy, and it affected the post-revolutionary drafting of state constitutions. They reflected "egalitarian and libertarian ideas that were spreading up and down the eastern seaboard." They wanted popular liberty and drafted laws that limited executive powers, established unicameral legislatures or at least powerful lower houses, short terms of office to force elected officials to face voters more often, and essentially make government accountable to the people.

It alarmed the nation's elites who, in turn, precipitated efforts to reform the new state constitutions and reign in their democratic excesses. Defeating England unleashed electorate demands, and they showed up in popular rebellions. They were fueled by postwar depression, debt, and legislative imposition of poll and property taxes on farmers. They petitioned for relief, got none, so armed mobs closed the courts to stop debtor suits and stave off foreclosure on their farms. Rebellions spread across New England with Daniel Shays leading the most famous one in 1786 and 1787. The rebels were dispersed, but they got amnesty, tax relief, and most imprisoned debtors were released.

Elites were alarmed, excess democracy had to be curbed, and the 1787 Constitutional Convention became the way to do it. There were other problems as well. The Articles of Confederation were unwieldy, had to be replaced, and a new document was needed that would last into "remote futurity" to serve the interests of "the (only) people" who mattered. They were established white male property owning delegates and members of state conventions who rammed the ratification process through in the face of a largely indifferent and uncomprehending populace left out entirely.

The challenge was to offer democratic concessions, create an appearance of democracy, but frame a document for rich property owners in charge of the process for their own self-interest. Only the privileged could vote. Women, blacks, Indians and children couldn't and most who qualified didn't bother. The process, and what it produced, showed operatively democracy is little more than fantasy, but it wasn't designed to appear that way.

The "people" got to elect lower house members, who, in turn, elected senators to the upper chamber. The system stayed that way until the 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913) allowed voters in each state to elect representatives to both Houses of Congress.

Also proposed was a chief executive, a national judiciary with a Supreme Court, and provisions for admitting new states with republican governments. In addition, the Constitution had procedures for amendments and much more, including terms of office and staggered elections to prevent too many officials being unseated at the same time. In the end, the final product was a bundle of compromises, yielded little of substance to "the people," and assured power was left to the powerful.

The Constitution's opening words were "We the people," but, in fact, they were nowhere in sight. The framers "engineered a conservative counter-revolution....whose purpose....was to thwart the will of the people in whose will they acted." Government under the new document was created to fill the vacuum created by the defeat of Great Britain. It restored the essential British commercial and financial system and put it under new management. Monarchal wrappings were removed, everything changed, and yet everything, in fact, stayed the same. Rarely, if ever, was there so much rebellion with so little cause, and with so little to show for it.

Consider the Constitution's crowing achievement, at least so we're told - the Bill of Rights. Adopting them made the difference to get 13 states to ratify the document and make it law. Their protections weren't for "the people." They were for the privileged who wanted:

-- prohibitions against quartering troops in their property;

-- unreasonable searches and seizures there as well;

-- the right to have state militias protect them;

-- the right to bear arms, but not the way the Second Amendment is today interpreted;

-- - the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition - largely for the monied and propertied interests;

-- due process of law with speedy public trials; and

-- various other provisions worked out through compromise; two additional amendments were proposed but rejected; Jefferson and Madison wanted them; Adams and Hamilton were opposed; they would have banned monopolies and standing armies; in the end, the first 10 alone were adopted; we never saw what difference the other two might have made.

Piven's main point isn't that "constitution-making" limited "popular power." It's that "disruptive power challenges (of the time) could not be (entirely) ignored...." The founders established a republican government, popular liberties (to a degree) were conceded, and the idea (if not the reality) of the "consent of the governed" became a fundamental principle of political thought.

Further, in subsequent decades, suffrage expanded, taxpaying requirements replaced property ones, and these, too, were gradually eliminated. By the 1830s, most white men had the right to vote. It's unlikely these changes would have happened under British rule. So while was no disagreement on how government was to be run, (in John Adams' words, by "the rich, the well born, and the able,") the mob, according to Piven, "played a large if convoluted role in the construction of a new state with at least some of the elemental features of democracy."

Dissensus Politics, or the Interaction of Disruptive Challenges with Electoral Politics - The Case of the Abolitionist Movement

Piven defines "dissensus" as a tug of war between the need for political leaders to "mobilize majorities" and "disruptive challengers work(ing) to fragment them." She also calls this "the key to understanding" disruptive protest power over public policy decisions. Political coalitions are at times fragile and vulnerable. When opposition to consensus surfaces and builds, it can be fractious, disruptive, and an "opening (to get) policy concessions on the (breakaway) movement's issues."

Case in point - "Abolitionism." By one estimate, free blacks numbered around 59,000 in 1790. By the start of the Civil War, the total had increased eightfold to about 488,000. In the run-up the the Revolutionary War, slavery issues were contentious with hints early on about what later might develop.

In spite of owning slaves himself, Jefferson's first Declaration of Independence draft included grievances against the Crown's involvement in trafficking. Southern representatives took issue, the clause was dropped, and to build postwar consensus the South had to be reassured that their slave system would remain intact.

It led to Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution saying that slaves would be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of allocating congressional representation. According to historian Gary Wills: For southern states, this issue was "a nonnegotiable condition for their joining the Union" and with it they got "a large and domineering representation in Congress."

Consider some other relevant facts:

-- large slave owners had disproportionate power; they controlled state legislatures and selected senators;

-- most American presidents until the Civil War were southerners and slaveholders (including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson);

-- the first US 1790 census reported 757,000 blacks or nearly one-fifth of the total four million population;

-- in 1807, Congress outlawed the importation of African slaves after 1808, yet trafficking illegally brought in another 250,000 until 1860;

-- enacted slavery provisions were for the North as well as the South; only Pennsylvania and the New England states outlawed the practice; in 1787, most states were slave states, and the new Constitution protected their holdings;

-- intersectional planter, commercial, banking and manufacturing interests tied the North and South together; slavery and cotton enriched the South, production boomed, and northern manufacturing also benefitted;

-- the human bondage system affected radical abolitionists; they knew that ending slavery meant "overturning" the Constitution;

-- to accommodate consensus politics, compromise was preferable to conflict; to protect the South from the majority nonslave North, "balanced" admission of new slave and free states was agreed on as well as a similar arrangement for presidential and vice-presidential tickets;

-- nonetheless, compromises were fragile and sectional conflicts arose; one instance was over the Mexican War, annexation of Texas, and disposition of 650,000 square miles of new territory; neither side was satisfied even though compromise was achievable on matters of tariffs, centralized banking, internal improvements, and free western land.

Given the enormous costs of dissolution, why weren't both sides committed to preventing it? Piven cites "the strident and disruptive abolitionist campaign with its demands for immediate emancipation. Abolitionism fractured....the sectional accord" that held disparate elements together - until 1860.

Who were the abolitionists? According to Howard Zinn, they were "editors, orators, run-away slaves, free Negro militants, and gun-toting preachers." Together they "shaped....the movement and contributed to its disruptive power." Its effects fractured intersectional parties, divided the nation, and led to the Civil War and legal emancipation.

"Evangelical revivalists" were committed to reform. They believed slavery was sinful, and would accept nothing less than ending it. In 1831, William Lloyd Garrison founded The Liberator. It became the voice of militant abolitionism. "Garrison was no gradualist." He refused compromise and demanded "immediate and unconditional emancipation."

Others were equally committed. They formed antislavery associations, edited papers, spoke publicly, and by 1841 claimed 200,000 members. Religious passion and enlightenment fervor spread throughout the North. In the South, it was opposed by "Southern rights" societies that used the Bible to claim "slavery fulfilled God's purposes." It produced schisms and strife, got Garrison paraded through Boston with a rope around his neck, and vigilante welcoming committees awaited northern abolitionists coming south.

Nonetheless, abolitionism grew, congressional antislavery petitions mounted, Congress claimed no authority to act, and thousands of slaves took matters into their own hands. They resisted by "evasion, sabotage, suicide, or running away." There were also slave revolts - in 1800 in a march on Richmond; 1811 on a plantation near New Orleans; 1817 and 1818 in Florida; and Nat Turner and 70 other slaves in Virginia "kill(ing) all whites" and sparing no one.

Most disruptive was the Underground Railway with whites and free blacks involved. It defied federal antifugitive laws and freed tens of thousands of southern slaves. Abolitionist disruptions "inevitably penetrated electoral politics." It fragmented both parties, made compromise impossible, and led to the emergence of the Republican Party. It opposed expanding slavery as new states entered the union, and in 1860 got Abraham Lincoln elected president. His platform - containing slavery and condemning threats of disunion as treason.

The South responded. Seven states seceded, Fort Sumpter was attacked, the Civil War began, four more slave states joined the others, and Lincoln committed to war to restore the union. As conflict wore on, its horrific toll drove him toward emancipation. Piven notes that the "insurrectionary role of the slaves....was probably critical to his decision." During the war, hundreds of thousands of them refused to work, deserted plantations, and crippled the Confederacy's ability to feed itself. In addition, around 200,000 slaves fought with the North, and their numbers were significant in achieving victory.

Abolitionism grew, southern secession spurred it, and in January 1865 Congress passed the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery. Nominally, former slaves got more rights from the Fourteenth (due process and equal protection) and Fifteenth (forbidding racial discrimination in voting) Amendments as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

"Abolitionists had triumphed," they did it through electoral politics by splitting the parties, yet their victory was limited. Post-emancipation, the movement "melted into the Republican Party," southern and northern leaders became accommodative, and elites in the South "moved rapidly to restore their control over blacks." Nonetheless, an impressive victory was won even if only marginally, and it would take another century before blacks got any of their constitutional rights.

Movements and Reform in the American Twentieth Century

Throughout American history, disruptive protests were common, yet rarely did any have a "big bang" effect. Decades elapsed between successful abolitionism and New Deal reforms. In the 20th century, Piven notes that almost all important labor, civil rights and social welfare legislation got passed in just two six-year periods - 1933 - 1938 and 1963 - 1968. There was one exception - the 1972 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for the elderly poor and people with disabilities.

Great Depression hard times spurred important reforms to provide emergency relief:

-- the Civil Works Administration (CWA) for work relief; it reached 28 million people (22.2% of the population);

-- overall social spending rose from 1.34% of GDP in 1932 to 5% by 1934 and showed that government works for the people when it wants to;

-- the 1935 Social Security Act established the framework for all future income support programs - retirement benefits, unemployment, supplemental income, subsidized housing, and all categories of "welfare;"

-- most entitlements expanded in the 1960s - old age pensions; unemployment insurance; quadrupling the numbers of women and children receiving Aid to Dependent Children; Medicare; Medicaid; new nutritional programs, including food stamps and school lunches; federal aid to education; and inner-city development through the Model Cities Act of 1966.

Overall in the 1960s, social spending rose from $37 billion to $140 billion in the post-1965 decade. By the mid-1970s, poverty levels were down from 20% in 1965 to 11%.

Each period also saw political rights expand. Mass strikes of the early 1930s produced the landmark 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). For the first time, it gave labor the right to bargain collectively on equal terms with management and provided legal protections to strike actions. The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act established national minimum wages and maximum hours. These laws advanced worker rights over the next three decades.

In 1964, civil rights actions got the Twenty-Fourth Amendment passed. It prohibited poll taxes in federal elections, and along with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act overrode state and local franchise restrictions that were in place in the South since Reconstruction. As Piven put it: The 1960s civil rights movement "finally won, a century later, the reforms first announced (but never gotten) in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments." In addition, the 1964 Equal Opportunity Act (antipoverty program) provided federal funds for poor communities.

Why these "big bangs" then and not at other times? It's because they were gotten during periods of "mass disruption" that mobilized "interdependent power from below...." Veterans marched on Washington, rent strikes spread, people commandeered food, labor walkouts occurred, demonstrations demanded relief, so Roosevelt had to act. It wasn't out of benevolence, and his 1932 platform showed it. It contained the same old 1920s planks that kept Republicans in power throughout the decade. Conditions now changed, disruptive protests demanded help, echoes of the 1917 Russian Revolution were still audible, so Roosevelt acted to save capitalism. He gave a little to save a lot for the privileged who understood the fragility of their position.

The 1960s saw other disruptive protests - this time by a massive black insurgency on one side against white southern "resistance" on the other. It came to a head in the mid-1960s in the form of civil disobedience. It began in the South, spread across the country, resulted in harsh police crackdowns, greater disruptive riots, and they forced the federal government to intervene. Turbulence, social unrest, and a climate of general crisis produced reforms to diffuse the disorder of the times.

Electoral forces also played a role the way Piven explains. She calls the "interplay between electoral shifts and political leaders....the most influential explanation of twentieth-century policy change." Big bangs were "big electoral" ones. Two credible hypotheses explain how they occur:

-- the "mobilization" thesis (during hard times) raising the level of voter turnout; new voters are key; they provide impetus for realignment under this theory; and

-- the "conversion" thesis (also during hard times) detaching voters from their traditional Republican Party affiliation; here shifting loyalties explain it.

Either way, political leaders respond, strive to win and/or hold their support, and they enacted social relief measures in the 1930s and 1960s.

More is in play as well as voters by themselves have little influence over policy. In addition, politicians need broad majorities, and building them takes avoiding conflict, building consensus and striking familiar appeals for prosperity, God, country and family. As a result, electoral shifts alone don't automatically produce bold new initiatives. In fact, they rarely do unless special times produce extraordinary responses. In the 1930s and 1960s, disruptive protests and potential institutional disorder got Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson to act quite differently than they would have had conditions been normal.

Under the right circumstances, protest movements are powerful and provide the impetus for social reform. "The urgency, solidarity, and militancy that conflict generates lends movements distinctive capacities as political communicators." At least for a brief time, "marches, rallies, strikes and shutdowns can break the monopoly on political discourse otherwise held by politicians and the mass media." They can bring vital issues to the fore and get politicians (out of fear) to address them. Potential or actual "voter dissensus is the main source of movement influence on public policy." It was true in the 1930s, again in the 1960s, and the latter victories inspired other movements for women's rights, the disabled, gays, lesbians, and so forth.

The Times-In-Between

Unfortunately, disruptive movements are short-lived. After a few years they pass as politicians mount rollback initiatives when the pressure is off and they're able to do it. New state constitutions stripped away hard-won abolitionist reforms. Labor rights underwent a gradual erosion after peaking in the 1930s. Union membership declined from a post-war 34.7% high. It was 16.8% after the Reagan era and is currently around 12% overall today but only 7.4% in the private sector.

Social gains have also eroded, and now have Democrats as much against them as Republicans. Why so is the question? It's because protest movements lose their energy when the reasons causing them subside. Further, it's because internal movement dynamics are hard to sustain. They wane from exhaustion. Exhilaration can't last forever. In addition, defiance entails costs and sacrifice. Strikers lose wages. Workers get fired. Plants relocate, and governments support business and sometimes with force.

Protests also fade when gains are won. They always fall short and yet fail to embolden more action. Movement leaders also get co-opted, become more conciliatory to management, get more enmeshed in party politics, and sometimes run for office at federal, state or local levels. Dissensus has its limits. Inevitably, gains come at the expense of concessions, the movement runs out of energy, disruption ebbs, and hard-won reforms get rolled back. Nonetheless, these are glorious times in our history, momentous advances get achieved, and the lesson is that at other times for other reasons it can happen again.

People in large numbers and with enough will have enormous power provided they use it. Nonetheless, it's disconcerting that the Constitution was designed as a conservative document to protect what Michael Parenti calls "a rising bourgeoisie('s)" freedom to "invest, speculate, trade, and accumulate," and to assure that (as John Jay believed) "The people who own the country (ought) to run it."

After Reconstruction, Abolitionists lost out as well. Southern states regrouped, enacted new laws, and curbed the rights of newly freed blacks. The old planter class was gone but not its mentality. A new capitalist planter class replaced it, many from the North, and it proved easy for them to devise new ways to exploit cheap, vulnerable black labor.

The Supreme Court went along much the way it does today. In a number of decisions, it rolled back civil rights gains, including enough of the Fourteenth Amendment to restore near-total white supremacy in the South. Its 1896 "separate but equal" Plessy ruling added insult to its 1857 Dred Scott support for slavery.

Post-war, blacks were nominally free but light years from equality, and southern states intended to keep it that way. Property tests, poll taxes and literacy qualifications were imposed to enforce disenfranchisement. Jim Crow laws multiplied and lynchings became a way of life. Washington was dismissive.

Labor also lost out in the post-New Deal years. What the NLRA gave, Taft-Hartley and other regressive laws took back. Labor got progressively weaker, its leadership became part of the problem, while business ascended to omnipotence with plenty of friendly governments on its side. Early on, workers hoped the Democrat Party would represent them. How could it in the conservative (anti-labor) South and, in the North, where big city bosses ran things. Over time, business took over and effectively created a one-party state with "two right wings," as Gore Vidal explains.

Post-WW II, Piven notes that America's economic dominance was unchallenged for 25 years, so business opposition to New Deal gains was largely muted. But once Europe and Japan recovered, they became formidable competitors, profit margins got squeezed, and a conservative counterassault gained momentum to roll back earlier social gains. Piven cites four ways:

-- a "war of ideas" beginning in the early 1970s with the formation of a right wing "message machine" - corporate-funded think tanks like Cato, Hoover, Heritage and AEI; they preached cutting social programs, weakening unions, ending costly regulations, military spending, tough law enforcement, privatizing everything, and using the dominant media for propaganda;

-- building up a business lobbying capacity; "K Street" became a household term, and so is the "revolving door" arrangement between business and government;

-- the growth of right wing populism, "rooted in fundamentalist churches" as part of the powerful Christian Right; also pro-life, defense-of-marriage and gun groups, along with others opposed to progressive ideas, racial and sexual liberalism, and the notion that public welfare is a good thing and government ought to provide it; in their best of all possible worlds, markets work best so let them, and democracy is only for the priviliged; and

-- the effective merging of Republicans and Democrats into one pro-business party with each pretty much vying to outdo or outfox the other; it took Democrat Bill Clinton to "end welfare as we know it," continue shifting more of the tax burden from the rich to workers, enact tough law enforcement measures, offer big giveaways to business, cut social benefits as much as Republicans, and pretty much make the 1990s a new golden age for Wall Street and the privileged. James Petras calls the decade "the golden age of pillage."

George Bush then took over and went Clinton whole new measures better - declaring open warfare on workers, waging real wars on the world, enacting repressive police state laws, surrendering unconditionally to business, smashing every social service in sight, desecrating the environment, pretty much acting as despotic and vicious as the worst third world dictators, and getting away with it.

Since the early 1970s, and especially since Ronald Reagan, most notable in Piven's mind is "the striking rise in wealth and income inequality" that economist Paul Krugman calls "unprecedented." Moreover, "as wealth concentration grows, so does the arrogance and power that it yields to the wealth-holders to continue to bend government policies to their own interests."

With business so omnipotent, government as its handmaiden, the scale of corruption extreme, the electoral process so flawed, it makes the task of redressing social gains lost formidable but not impossible.

Epilogue

Given the state of things, Piven poses the essential question - is another "popular upheaval" possible? She calls this "the big question for our time." Nothing is certain or simple, but historically "hardship propels people to collective defiance," especially in times of extreme inequalities of wealth. The current American era is the most extreme ever, so how long will people tolerate the decline in their standard of living as the rich grow richer and multi-billions go wars without end.

How does the Bush administration respond - with a dominant media "message machine" touting an "ownership society," scaring people to accept the outlandish and fraudulent "war on terror," blaming victims for their own misfortune, letting (Christian) faith-based groups take over welfare, preaching God and markets solve everything, and calling a lack of patriotism the equivalent of treason.

Piven, nonetheless, is hopeful. Independent polls show Bush's approval at record lows as well as a large majority opposing the Iraq war. In addition, she sees "an intimate connection between what people think is possible in politics and what they think is right." Popular aspirations tend to rise for what people believe is "evident" and "reach(able)."

So she asks: "What, then, are the prospects for the emergence of new social movements that mobilize disruptive power?" Global justice demonstrations in Seattle and around the world aren't enough. Much more is needed. Labor must become resurgent, but it's no simple matter doing it and without committed leadership impossible.

Yet it happened in the 1930s at a time of great need, and Piven suggests that "Maybe workers need to see the possibility of worker power again." Activists and organizers must concentrate on "developing and demonstrating power strategies" for a "new economy" that's increasingly service-based, high-tech and global.

Millions still live here, their standard of living is declining, business pretty much has it all, and it's high time that changed. People have power but only if they use it. New times need "new forms of political action, new 'repertoires' that extend across borders and tap the chokepoints of new systems of production (and governance)" where they're most vulnerable to mass disruption.

Piven closes by saying that history shows that "collective defiance" and its subsequent "disruption" have "always been essential to the preservation of democracy." It's no different today than it's ever been, and that's an idea to build on.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research New Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are also archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8924

Disturbing Stirrings - Ratcheting Up For War On Iran

Disturbing Stirrings - Ratcheting Up For War on Iran - by Stephen Lendman

Led by Dick Cheney, Bush administration neocons want war on Iran. So does the Israeli Lobby, but it doesn't mean they'll get it. Powerful forces in Washington and the Pentagon are opposed and so far have prevailed. Nonetheless, worrisome recent events increase the possibility and must be closely watched.

Recall George Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the nation. He announced the 20,000 troop "surge" and more. "Succeeding in Iraq," he said, "also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt (those) attacks....we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

That was then; this is now. On May 3, Andrew Cockburn wrote on CounterPunch: "Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret 'finding' authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, (is) 'unprecedented in its scope.' " The directive permits a range of actions across a broad area costing hundreds of millions with an initial $300 million for starters. Elements of the scheme include:

-- targeted assassinations;

-- funding Iranian opposition groups; among them - Mujahedin-e-Khalq that the State Department designates a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO); Jundullah, the "army of god militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan; Iranian Kurdish nationalists; and Ahwazi arabs in southwest Iran;

-- destabilizing Syria and Hezbollah; the current Lebanon turbulence raises the stakes;

-- putting a hawkish commander in charge; more on that below; and

-- kicking off things at the earliest possible time.

These type efforts and others were initiated before and likely never stopped. So it remains to be seen what differences emerge this time and how much more intense they become.

More concerns were cited in a Michael Smith May 4 Times Online report headlined "United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp." It refers to a "surgical strike" against an "insurgent training camp." In spite of hostile signals, however, "the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities on the back burner" after Gates replaced Rumsfeld. The article makes several other key points:

-- "American defense chiefs (meaning top generals and admirals) are firmly opposed to (attacking) Iranian nuclear facilities;"

-- on the other hand, they very much support hitting one or more "training camps (to) deliver a powerful message to Tehran;"

-- in contrast, UK officials downplay Iranian involvement in Iraq even though Tehran's Revolutionary Guard has close ties to al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army; and

-- Bush and Cheney are determined not to hand over "the Iran problem" to a successor.

Earlier on April 7, Haaretz reported still more stirrings. It was about Israel's "largest-ever emergency drill start(ed) to test the authorities' preparedness for threats (of) a missile attack on central Israel." Prime Minister Olmert announced that the "drill (was) no front for Israeli bellicose intentions toward Syria" and by implication Iran. Both countries and Hezbollah see it otherwise and with good reason. Further, Israeli officials indicated that this exercise might be repeated annually because they say Iran may have a nuclear capability by early 2009, so Israel will prepare accordingly.

No one can predict US and Israeli plans, but certain things are known and future possibilities can be assessed. Consider recent events. In mid-March, Dick Cheney toured the Middle East with stops in Israel, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Oman, Afghanistan and Iraq. It came after Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon "resigned" March 10 (a year after his appointment) after reports were that he sharply disagreed with regional administration policy.

Public comments played it down, but speculation was twofold - Fallon's criticism of current Iraq policy and his opposition to attacking Iran. Before the March 10 announcement, smart money said he'd be sacked by summer and replaced by someone more hawkish. It came sooner than expected, and, even more worrisome, by a super-hawk. One with big ambitions, and that's a bad combination. More on that below.

First, recall another Pentagon sacking last June, officially announced as a "retirement." George Bush was said to have "reluctantly agreed" to replacing Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace because of his "highest regard" for the general. At issue, of course, was disagreement again over Middle East policy with indications Pace was far from on board. He signaled it on February 17, 2006 at a National Press Club luncheon. Responding to a question, he said: "It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral." He later added that commanders should "not obey illegal and immoral orders to use weapons of mass destruction....They cannot commit crimes against humanity."

These comments and likely private discussions led to Pace's dismissal. This administration won't tolerate dissent even by Joint Chiefs Chairmen. It's clear that officials from any branch of government will be removed or marginalized if they oppose key administration policy. Some go quietly while more notable ones make headlines that omit what's most important. For one thing, that the Pentagon is rife with dissent over the administration's Middle East policy.

For another, the law of the land, and there's nothing more fundamental than that. The administration disdains it so it's no fit topic for the media. Law Professor Francis Boyle champions it in his classroom, speeches, various writings and books like his newest - Protesting Power: War, Resistance, and Law.

Boyle is an expert. He knows the law and has plenty to cite - the UN Charter; Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and Principles; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Hague Regulations; Geneva Conventions; Supreme and lower Court decisions; US Army Field Manual 27-10; the Law of Land Warfare (1956); and US Constitution.

He unequivocally states that every US citizen, including members of the military and all government officials, are duty bound to obey the law and to refuse to carry out orders that violate it. Doing so makes them culpable. Included are all international laws and treaties. The Constitution's supremacy clause ("the supreme law of the land" under Article VI) makes them domestic law. General Pace, Fallon and others on down aren't exempt. Neither is the president, vice-president, all administration members and everyone in Congress.

Before Fallon's sacking, things were heating up. Three US warships (including the USS Cole guided-missile destroyer) were deployed to the Lebanese coast - officially "to show support for regional stability (and over) concern about the situation in Lebanon." It's been in political crisis for months, and it's got Washington and Israel disturbed - because of Hezbollah's widespread popularity and ability to defend itself.

Any regional US show of force causes concern, especially when more is happening there simultaneously. Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin criticized it, and Hezbollah said it "threat(ened)" regional stability - with good reason. It believes conflict will erupt in northern Occupied Palestine close to the Lebanese border. It's also preparing to counter Israel's latest threat - an Israeli Channel 10 News report that the IDF is on high alert "inside and outside Israel" and is prepared to launch a massive attack if Hezbollah retaliates for the assassination of one of its senior leaders, Imad Fayez Mughniyah, by a February 12 Damascus car-bombing.

Then came Cheney's Middle East tour with likely indications of its purpose - oil, Israeli interests and, of course, isolating Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas further, and rallying support for more war in a region where Arab states want to end the current ones. What worries them most, or should, is the possibility that Washington will use nuclear weapons. If so, consider the consequences - subsequent radioactive fallout that will contaminate vast regional swaths permanently.

After Cheney left Saudi Arabia, the state-friendly Okaz newspaper reported that the Saudi Shura Council (the kingdom's elite decision-making body) began formulating "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom" should the Pentagon use nuclear weapons against Iran. It's a sign Saudi leaders are worried and a clear indication of what they discussed with Cheney.

Saudi, Iranian and other world leaders know the stakes. They're also familiar with Bush administration strategy and tactics post-9/11.

Exhibit A: the December 2001 Nuclear Policy Review; it states that America has a unilateral right to use first strike nuclear weapons preemptively; it can be for any national security reason, even against non-nuclear states posing no discernible threat;

Exhibit B: the 2002 and hardened 2006 National Security Strategies reaffirm this policy; the latter edition mentions Iran 16 times stating: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country country than Iran;" unstated is that Iran never attacked another nation in its history - after Persia became Iran in 1935; it did defend itself vigorously when attacked by Iraq in 1980;

Exhibit C: post-9/11, the Bush administration scrapped the "nuclear deterrence" option; in his 2005 book "America's War on Terrorism," Michel Chossudovsky revealed a secret leaked report to the Los Angeles Times; it stated henceforth nuclear weapons could be used under three conditions:

-- "against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack;

-- in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or

-- in the event of surprising military developments;" that can mean anything the administration wants it to or any threats it wishes to invent.

WMD echoes still resonate. Now it's a nuclearized Iran. Preemptive deterrence is the strategy, and Dick Cheney places the Islamic Republic "right at the top of the list" of world trouble spots. He calls Tehran a "darkening cloud" in the region; claims "obviously, they're heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment....to weapons grade levels;" cites fake evidence that Iran's state policy is "the destruction of Israel;" and official post-9/11 policy identifies Iran and Syria (after Iraq and Afghanistan) as the next phase of "the road map to war." Removing Hezbollah and Hamas are close behind plus whatever other "rogue elements" are identified;

Exhibit D: former Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith's new book, "War and Decision;" in it, he recounts the administration's aggressive Middle East agenda - to remake the region militarily; plans took shape a few weeks post-9/11 when Donald Rumsfeld made removing Saddam Hussein official policy; the same scheme targeted Afghanistan and proposed regime change in Iran and elsewhere - unnamed but likely Syria, Somalia, Sudan, at the time Libya, removing Syria from Lebanon, and Hezbollah as well.

On the Campaign Trail - Iran in the Crosshairs

John McCain is so hawkish he even scares some in the Pentagon. Here's what he said about Iran at a May 5 campaign event. He called the Tehran government the gravest danger to US Middle East interests and added: a "league of nations" must counter the "Iranian threat. Iran 'obviously' is on the path toward acquiring nuclear weapons. At the end of the day, we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. They are not only doing that, they are exporting very lethal devices and explosives into Iraq (and) training people (there as) Jihadists."

It's no surprise most Democrats have similar views, especially the leadership and leading presidential contenders. Obama calls Iran "a threat to us all." For him, a "radical (nuclearized) Muslim theocracy" is unthinkable, and as president he won't rule out using force. Nor will he against Pakistan or likely any other Muslim state. Obama also calls his support for Israel "unwavering." He fully endorsed the 2006 Lebanon war, and it's no secret where Israel stands on Iran and Syria.

Clinton is even more menacing. One writer calls her a "war goddess," and her rhetoric confirms it. On the one hand, "Israeli security" tops "any American approach to the Middle East....we must not - dare not - waver from this commitment." She then calls Iran "pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel." She says a "nuclear Iran (is) a danger to Israel (and we've) lost critical time in dealing" with the situation. "US policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

Worst of all was her comment on ABC's Good Morning America in response to (a preposterous hypothetical) about Iran "launch(ing) a nuclear attack on Israel." Her answer: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. We would be able to 'totally obliterate' them (meaning, of course, every man, woman and child)." She then added: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. (Iran has) to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in."

At the same time, she, the other leading candidates, and nearly everyone in Washington ignore Iran's official policy. The late Ayatollah Khomeini banned nuclear weapons development. Today, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad affirm that position, but western media won't report it. They also play down IAEA reports confirming that no evidence shows Iran has a nuclear weapons program or that it's violating NPT.

Media Rhetoric Heating Up

It happens repeatedly, then cools down, so what to make of the latest Iran-bashing. Nothing maybe, but who can know. So it's tea leaves reading time again to pick up clues about potential impending action. Without question, the administration wants regime change, and right wing media keep selling it - Iranian leaders are bad; removing them is good, and what better way than by "shock and awe."

Take Fouad Ajami for example from his May 5 Wall Street Journal op-ed. It's headlined - "Iran Must Finally Pay A Price." He's a Lebanese-born US academic specializing in Middle East issues. He's also a well-paid flack for hard right policies, including their belligerency. He shows up often in the Wall Street Journal (and on TV, too) and always to spew hate and lies - his real specialty.

His latest piece is typical. Here's a sampling that's indicative of lots else coming out now:

-- "three decades of playing cat-and-mouse with American power have emboldened Iran's rulers;

-- why are the mullahs allowed to kill our soldiers with impunity;"

-- in Iraq, "Iranians played arsonists and firemen at the same time; (it's) part of a larger pattern;

-- Tehran has wreaked havoc on regional order and peace over the last three decades;"

-- earlier, George HW Bush offered an olive branch to Iran's rulers;

-- "Madeleine Albright (apologized) for America's role in the (1953) coup;"

-- all the while, "the clerics have had no interest in any bargain;" their oil wealth gives them great latitude;

-- "they have harassed Arab rulers while posing as status quo players at peace with the order of the region;"

-- they use regional proxies like "Hezbollah in Lebanon, warlords and militias in Iraq, purveyors of terror for the hire;

-- the (earlier) hope....that Iran would refrain from (interfering) in Iran (was) wishful thinking;" now there's Iran's nuclear "ambitions" to consider; the "Persian menace" has to "be shown that there is a price for their transgressions."

Sum it up, and it spells vicious agitprop by an expert at spewing it. He's not alone. Disputing one of his assertions, a May 5 AFP report quotes Iraq government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh saying no "hard evidence" shows Iran is backing Shiite militiamen or inciting violence in the country.

Consider the Arab street as well. It's unconcerned about Iran but outraged over US adverturism. Recall also that on March 2 Iranian President Ahmadinejad became the first Iranian head of state to visit Iraq in three decades. Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Talabani invited him and welcomed him warmly as a friend.

That doesn't deter The New York Times Michael Gordon. He's taken up where Judith Miller left off, and his May 5 piece is typical. It's headlined "Hezbollah Trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials Say." The key words, of course, are "Officials Say" to sell the idea that their saying it makes it so. No dissent allowed to debunk them or other administrative-supportive comments.

This one cites supposed information from "four Shiite militia members who were captured in Iraq late last year and questioned separately." For Gordon and "Officials (who) Say," it's incriminating evidence for what Washington has long charged - "that the Iranians (are) training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran," and Hezbollah is involved. The Pentagon calls them "special groups."

Gordon goes on to report that Iran has gotten "less obtrusive (by) bringing small groups of Iraqi Shiite militants to camps in Iran, where they are taught how to do their own training, 'American officials say.' "

Once trained, "the militants then return to Iraq to teach their comrades how to fire rockets and mortars, fight as snipers or assemble explosively formed penetrators, a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb....according to American officials."

As usual, the "officials" are anonymous and their "information has not been released publicly." Gordon continues with more of the same, but sum it up and he sounds like Ajami, Judith Miller, and growing numbers of others like them.

On March 17, Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) put out an Action Alert headlined "No Antiwar Voices in NYT 'Debate.' " It referred to The Times March 16 "Week in Review" section on the war's fifth anniversary featuring nine so-called experts - all chosen for their hawkish credentials. Included were familiar names like Richard Perle, Fred Kagan, Anthony Cordesman, Kenneth Pollack and even Paul Bremer. On May 4, The Times reconvened the same lineup for a repeat performance that would make any state-controlled media proud.

No need to explain their assessment either time, but NYT op-ed page editor said this on July 31, 2005: The op-ed page (where the above review was published) is "a venue for people with a wide range of perspectives, experiences and talents (to provide) a lively page of clashing opinions, one where as many people as possible have the opportunity to make the best arguments they can." As long as they don't conflict with official state policy, offend Times advertisers or potential ones, acknowledge Iran's decisive role in ending the recent Basra fighting, or mention the (latest) 2007 (US) National Intelligence Estimate that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 - even though it's likely one never existed and doesn't now.

With Iraq still raging and hawkishness over Iran heating up, it's disquieting to think what's coming, and it's got Middle East leaders uneasy. Not about Iran, about a rogue administration with over eight months left to incinerate the region in a mushroom-shaped cloud and no hesitation about doing it.

Enter the Generalissimo - Initials DP, Ambitions Outsized

Fallon is out, and, in late April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said David Petraeus is being nominated to replace him as Centcom commander. General Raymond Odierno (his former deputy) will replace his former boss as Iraq chief. New York Times reporter Thom Shanker said these "two commanders (are) most closely associated with President Bush's current strategy in Iraq," so are on board to pursue it and maybe up the stakes.

Besides being a Latin American expert, James Petras writes extensively on the Middle East and how the Israeli Lobby influences US policy. His 2006 book, "The Power of Israel in the United States," is must reading to understand it. Petras has a new article on Petraeus. It's incisive, scary, and unsparing in exposing the generalissimo's true character, failings, and ambitions.

Competence didn't make him Iraq commander last year. It came the same way he got each star. In the words of some of his peers - by brown-nosing his way to the top. It made him more than a general. He's a "brand," and it got him Time Magazine's 2007 runner-up slot for Person of the Year.

The media now shower him with praise for his stellar performance in an otherwise dismal war. So do politicians. McCain calls him "one of (our) greatest (ever) generals." Clinton says he's "an extraordinary leader and a wonderful advocate for our military." Obama was less effusive but said he supports his nomination as Centcom chief and added: "I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq....It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say." It would also hurt his presidential hopes as the right wing media would bash him mercilessly if he disparaged America's new war hero with very outsized ambitions and no shyness in pursuing them.

He got off to a flying start after being appointed to the top Iraq job last year. The White House spin machine took over and didn't let facts interfere with its praise. It described him as aggressive in nature, an innovative thinker on counterinsurgency warfare, a talisman, a white knight, a do-or-die competitive legend, and a man able to turn defeat into victory.

Others like Admiral Fallon had a different assessment, and Petras noted it in his article. Before his removal, he was openly contemptuous of a man who shamelessly supported Israel "in northern Iraq and the Bush 'Know Nothings' in charge of Iraq and Iran policy planning." It got him his April 16 promotion, and his week earlier Senate testimony sealed it. He was strikingly bellicose in blaming Iran for US troop deaths. That makes points any time on Capitol Hill, especially in an election year when rhetoric sells and whatever supports war and Israel does it best.

Petras adds that Petraeus had few competitors for the Centcom job because other top candidates won't stoop the way he does - shamelessly flacking for Israel, the bellicose Bush agenda, and what Petras calls "his slavish adherence to....confrontation with Iran. Blaming Iran for his failed military policies served a double purpose - it covered up his incompetence and it secured the support of" the Senate's most hawkish (independent) Democrat, Joe Lieberman.

It also served his outsized ambitions that may include a future run for the White House. His calculus seems to be - lie to Congress, hide his failures, blame Iran, support Israel and the Bush agenda unflinchingly, claim he turned Iraq around, say he'll do it in the region, and make him president and he'll fix everything.

He (nor the media) won't report how bad things are in Iraq or the toll on its people. They won't explain the "surge's" failure to make any progress on the ground. They won't reveal the weekly US troop death and injury count that's far higher than reported numbers. By one estimate, (including weekly Pentagon wounded updates), it tops 85,000 when the following categories are included:

-- "hostile" and "non-hostile" deaths, including from accidents and illness;

-- total numbers wounded; and

-- many thousands of later discovered casualties, mainly brain traumas from explosions.

Left out of the above figures are future illnesses and deaths from exposure to toxic substances like depleted uranium. It now saturates large areas of Iraq in the soil, air and drinking water. Also omitted is the vast psychological toll. For many, it causes permanent damage, and whole families become victims.

Consider civilian contractor casualties as well. They may be in the thousands. A February Houston Post report noted 1123 US civilian contractor deaths. It left out numbers of wounded or any information about foreign workers. They may have been affected most.

Several other reports are played down. One is from the VA about 18 known daily suicides. The true number may be higher. Another comes from Bloomberg.com on May 5 but unreported on TV news. It cited Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health on an April 2008 Rand Corporation study. It found about "18.5% of returning (Iraq and Afghan) US soldiers (afflicted with) post-traumatic stress disorder or depression (PTSD), and only half of them receive treatment."

Much of it shows up later, and many of its victims never recover. A smaller psychiatric association study put the PTSD number at about 32%, and a January 2006 Journal of the American Medical Association put it even higher - 35% of Iraq vets seeking help for mental health problems. A still earlier 2003 New England Journal of Medicine Study reported an astonishing 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans showing PTSD "symptoms." Most victims said their duty caused it, but over half of them never sought treatment fearing damage to their careers.

The same Rand study said another 19% have possible traumatic brain injuries ranging from concussions to severe head wounds. About 7% of vets suffer a double hit - both brain injury and PTSD or depression. It's a wonder numbers aren't higher as most active duty and National Guard forces serve multiple tours - some as many as six or more in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Surviving that ordeal in one piece is no small achievement.

Patraeus' calculus omits these victims and all other war costs abroad and at home. They're consigned to an over-stuffed memory hole for whatever outs the facts on the ground or his PR-enhanced image.

Petras strips it away and calls him "a disastrous failure" whose record is so poor it takes media magic to remake it. This man will now direct administration Middle East policy. He supports its aims, and if neocon wishes are adopted it means continued war and occupation of Iraq, stepped up efforts in Afghanistan, and making a hopeless enterprise worse by attacking Iran. No problem for Petraeus if it helps his ambitions. They, of course demand success, or at least the appearance, the way Petraeus so far has framed it. It remains to be seen what's ahead, and how long defeat can be called victory.

And one more thing as well. Congress will soon vote on more Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental funding. Bush wants another $108 billion for FY 2008. In hopes a Democrat will be elected president, Congress may add another $70 billion through early FY 2009 for a total $178 billion new war spending (plus the usual pork add-ons) on top of an already bloated Pentagon budget programmed to increase.

It's got economist Joseph Stiglitz alarmed and has for some time. In his judgment, the Iraq war alone (conservatively) will cost trillions of dollars, far more than his earlier estimates. That's counting all war-related costs:

-- from annual defense spending plus huge supplemental add-ons;

-- outsized expenses treating injured and disabled veterans - for the government and families that must bear the burden;

-- high energy costs; they're affected by war but mostly result from blatant market manipulation; it's not a supply/demand issue; there's plenty of oil around, but not if you listen to industry flacks citing shortages and other false reasons why prices shot up so high;

-- destructive budget and current account deficits; in the short run, they're stimulative, but sooner or later they matter; they're consuming the nation, and analysts like Stiglitz and Chalmers Johnson believe they'll bankrupt us; others do as well like Independent Institute Senior Fellow Robert Higgs who last year outed the nation's trillion dollar defense budget; in a recent May 7 article, he wrote: "As the US government taxes, spends, borrows, regulates, mismanages, and wastes resources on a scale never before witnessed in the history of mankind, it is digging its own grave;" others believe we're past the tipping point and it's too late;

-- debts must be serviced; the higher they mount, the
greater the cost; they crowd out essential public and private investment; need growing billions for interest payments; damage the dollar; neglect human capital; and harm the country's stature as an economic leader; the more we eat our seed corn, the greater the long-term damage;

-- debts also reduce our manoeuvring room in times of national crisis; limitless money-creation and reckless spending can't go on forever before inflation debases the currency; that's a major unreported threat at a time monetary and fiscal stimulus shifted financial markets around, and touts now predict we're out of the woods; they don't say for how long, what may follow, or how they'll explain it if they're wrong;

-- add up all quantifiable war costs, and Stiglitz now estimates (conservatively) a $4 - 5 trillion total for America alone; watch for higher figures later; both wars have legs; another may be coming; leading presidential candidates assure are on board and have no objection to out-of-control militarism;

-- Stiglitz will be back; his estimate is low; before this ends, look for one of several outcomes - trillions more spent, bankruptcy finally ends it, or the worst of all possible scenarios: an unthinkable nuclear holocaust that (expert Helen Caldicott explains) "could end life on earth as we know it" unless sanity ends the madness.

The generalissimo is unconcerned. He's planning his future. He envisions the White House, and imagine what then. Like the current occupant and whomever follows, look for more destructive wars to serve his political ambitions and theirs. They fall right in line with the defense establishment, Wall Street, and the Israeli Lobby.

Decades back, could anyone have thought things would come to this. Hopefully, good sense will gain currency and stop this madness before it consumes us.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. Programs are also archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8924

Ramzy Baroud's "The Second Palestinian Intifada"

Ramzy Baroud's "The Second Palestinian Intifada" - by Stephen Lendman

Ramzy Baroud is a veteran Palestinian-American journalist and former Al-Jazeera producer. He also taught Mass Communication at Australia's Curtin University of Technology and is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of the Palestine Chronicle, a vital resource for information on Israel/Palestine and much more.

Baroud is an international media veteran. He publishes many articles, commentaries and short stories, is a frequent radio and television guest, and has been a guest speaker at top universities around the country and abroad. He was also once guest speaker at the British House of Commons.

Baroud published his first book of Arabic poetry at age 18 and has since written two others - "Searching Jenin: Eyewitness Accounts of the Israeli Invasion" and "The Second Palestinian Intifada" and subject of this review.

Baroud is well-qualified for his task. He was born and raised in a Gaza refugee camp and saw how Israeli soldiers repressed and humiliated young Palestinians like himself - "forcing (them) to their knees....and threatening to beat them if they did not spit upon a photo of Yasser Arafat." They refused to insult his image even under threat, and "would endure pain and injury, but would say nothing." They've taken plenty, and it's unrelenting.

Baroud's book is poignant and masterful. It blends his personal experience with a gripping narrative of his peoples' struggle for justice. It's about the strong against the weak, war, repression, displacement, massacres, targeted assassinations, and yet Palestinians resisted throughout the painful Second Intifada years. Baroud's book was published in 2006. His timeline is from September 29, 2001 (the Intifada's onset) through September 29, 2005. The Uprising ended, but the struggle continues.

Forward and Introduction

Two introductory sections precede the Intifada years that Baroud recounts. The first is by Kathleen and Bill Christison. They both formerly worked for CIA. Kathleen resigned after 16 years service. Bill retired after 28 years. Over time, their views ideologically changed, and both husband and wife are now vocal Israeli critics.

They reflect about Baroud's grandfather. He was a Beit Daras village refugee, who lived in a Gaza camp for 40 years until his death hoping one day he'd return to his home. It was lost in the 1947-49 Nakba, an old man's dream proved fruitless, and it "symbolizes....the tragedy of the Palestinian people and their great strength."

For decades, Zionists tried to ignore the historical record, delegitimize Palestinian claims to their land, dehumanize and remove them from more it it, crush their spirit, seize their land, destroy their homes, and erase their existence. Yet a proud people persist. The Christisons refer to their "great strength: their resilience and remarkable endurance (despite being) ignored, exiled, repeatedly dispossessed, (viciously) oppressed, occasionally massacred," yet their struggle for liberation continues.

Jennifer Loewenstein is a political activist and University of Wisconsin Associate Director of the Middle East Studies Program. She added her reflections in an introductory section. From her travels to Occupied Palestine, she wrote of her experience - getting through checkpoints, for her as an American Jew, what it's like for Palestinian Arabs, how demeaning and punishing it is, how Israelis control the Occupied Territories, and how they take full advantage to dismember "Palestinian culture and society...."

She describes how Israeli settlers live compared to their Palestinian neighbors - "neatly packed housing units....cheerfully clean, with an assortment of modern businesses available to (their) residents." Some homes have swimming pools, "all of them (have) small, green gardens," streets are lined with "flowers, glossy green shrubs, and well-tended trees."

In contrast, across the West Bank and Gaza (before the disengagement), "poor Arab villages (are) huddled together in valleys overlooked by hilltop settlements" on the choicest land. In most cases, they're "encircled by....IDF military outposts with....watchtowers, barbed wire fences, jeep patrols....scores of entrapping checkpoints" and for-Jews only roads. Big cities are separated from smaller ones, which, in turn, are "cut off from villages...." They, in turn, are detached from farmland, water, businesses, schools, clinics and "access to the outside world."

Under these conditions, Palestinians are viciously confronted. They're vilified as "militants, gunmen and insurgents." These are code words for "terrorists," and the spring 2002 "Operation Defensive Shield" was one of many assaults against them. Israeli forces rampaged through Ramallah. They destroyed civic institutions and NGO records; ransacked buildings and homes; randomly smashed furniture and appliances; scrawled graffiti on walls; covered floors with food, drink, mud, urine, feces, and other type trash; removed computer hard drives; then smashed the equipment beyond repair.

It wasn't enough. They wrecked everything in sight - burning, shredding and at times shooting at photos, posters and pictures on walls. They vandalized radio and TV stations, banks, schools, hospitals, clinics, government facilities and cultural centers. In the end, they justified their actions as "a necessary part of the 'war on terror.' "

This was a single instance of what Israelis inflict willfully, wantonly, viciously, and randomly throughout the Occupied Territories. All the while, world community support is firm, while Palestinian self-defense is called terrorism. Both sides are urged to show restraint as if the struggle were between equal adversaries.

Nonetheless, in spite of everything Israel unleashes, the dream of a liberated Palestine remains strong.
That's the goal in spite of continued repression, Oslo's betrayal, fiasco at Camp David in 2000, decades of built up frustration, and Hizbollah's forcing Israel's May 2000 South Lebanon withdrawal remains inspiring. It sewed the seeds of the Second Intifada. Anger and discontent were building, then erupted in a popular uprising on September 29, 2000. Ariel Sharon provoked it by "visiting" the Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) the previous day. Israel responded harshly, a cycle of resistance and retaliation followed, and the struggle continued ever since. Baroud recounts its nominal five year period.

He begins by stating that it "will be etched in history as an era in which a major shift in the rules of the game occurred." It was fueled by:

-- decades of continued, repressive occupation;

-- desperate young people in frustration voluntarily blowing themselves up; their resistance and defiance is called "terrorism;" Palestinians call them heroic; Baroud urges Palestinians to resist targeting civilians regardless of how Israel acts; he believes it's vital to seize a higher ground, maintain moral values, and confine resistance to self-defense and targeting an illegal occupation;

-- the construction of the 721 kilometer Separation Wall on confiscated Palestinian land; the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled it illegal and ordered it be removed; Israel ignored the ruling and continues to build its unfinished parts; its consequences have been devastating; Palestinians have been cut off from work, schools, medical facilities, and their community life is seriously impaired; farmers are separated from their land; it's an act of land seizure and collective punishment; and

-- a decades-long struggle now "an eternal divide between two peoples," and its gulf continues to widen.

Baroud was in high school when the First Intifada erupted in December 1987. In spite of it, residents of his Gaza refugee camp "were consumed with....other more" daily concerns: "would they eat today, would they find clean water, would they seize their long-awaited freedom?" Palestinians took to the streets, and Baroud joined them in their chants. He also began to write with poetry his earliest efforts. They evolved into chants, were "published" on Gaza refugee camp walls, and there they stayed.

Baroud was studying in America when the Second Intifada began. Like the first one, Palestinians were unfairly blamed and condemned by a media as one-sided as the nations they report from. Baroud confronts them, and his book and writings are his "contribution" to the mostly neglected Second Uprising narrative and the Palestinian struggle overall.

He has no political affiliation and intends it solely as an independent view. His aim is direct and forthright - to represent and report on "the same principles espoused by countless (numbers of Palestinians) in small and over-crowded refugee camps where freedom is proudly cherished over life." Without comment, his book is dedicated to them and everyone who supports his efforts to reveal what the mainstream continues to suppress.

Intifada - Year One (2000-01)

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is the main protagonist. He willfully incited violence before becoming Israel's 11th Prime Minister in March 2001, and consider what Palestinians were up against.

He was brutish and violent from his earliest days as a platoon commander during Israel's "War of Independence." He later led the infamous Unit 101 that carried out vicious and criminal assaults against Palestinian civilians, including women and children.

As IDF's southern command head, he conducted a reign of terror against Gaza - indiscriminate killings, targeted assassinations, wanton destruction of hundreds of homes, displacement of thousands of civilians, and uprooting their lives. It got him called "the Bulldozer," and for all of it he was never held to account.

In 1981, as defense minister, he led the infamous Lebanon attack. He bombed civilian populations, killed around 20,000 Lebanese, and oversaw what British journalist Robert Fisk called "one of the most shocking war crimes of the 20th century" - the Sabra and Shatila massacres of about 3000 men, women, children and infants in a 62 hour proxy Phalange militia force rampage.

He always opposed peace. He voted against the 1979 treaty with Egypt, the southern Lebanon withdrawal in 1985, the 1991 Madrid peace conference, the Knesset 1993 Oslo agreement plenum vote, the Hebron 1997 agreement, and he abstained from voting on peace with Jordan in 1994.

He was at it again on September 28, 2000 prior to becoming Prime Minister. Accompanied by over 1000 Israeli troops and police, he staged a provocative (photo-op) visit to Islam's third holiest site - the Haram al-Sharif sacred shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque. It ignited "uncontainable violence" and Second Intifada the following day.

Baroud suggests that the Second Uprising may have been "rooted in south Lebanon." After years of "empty promises, meaningless summits and equally barren accords," Palestinians were at a "numbing impasse." To the north, things were much different. After a decade of occupation, a few hundred Hizbollah fighters defeated the IDF, forced their withdrawal in May 2000, then did it again in summer 2006 (beyond Baroud's timeline).

It shook the notion of IDF invincibility, made its commanders want to regain their machismo, emboldened Palestinians to resist, and ignited the events that followed. A political element is important as well - the failed Camp David II July 2000 talks. They were all take and no give. Clinton, Arafat and Barak were the protagonists. The major media played up Barak's "generous offer," Arafat spurning peace, with no mention that Israel presented nothing in writing and had no documents or maps.

Barak presented a take it or leave it betrayal, no different than similar past ones. Palestinians were offered nothing in return for renouncing armed struggle, recognizing Israel's right to exist, leaving unresolved issues for later, and agreeing to be Israel's enforcer and have the West Bank divided into four isolated cantons surrounded by expanding Israeli settlements on the Territory's choicest land. Arafat had to reject it and was blamed for not being a serious peace partner. It later sealed his fate.

In the meantime, Barak fortified settlements, sent in more military forces, set the stage for September 2000, and Sharon took full advantage as explained above. The majority of Israelis approved and elected him Prime Minister on February 6, 2001 with the Intifada already underway.

In his new capacity, Sharon escalated things further by "unleash(ing) a bloody onslaught on the disadvantaged, disappointed, and fed-up Palestinian masses...." Khan Yunis was one of his first targets. Its refugee camp houses 60,000, it's one of the most crowded places on earth, its homes are makeshift, the residents are impoverished, garbage is everywhere, and human misery and despair are very real for these long-suffering people.

Earlier, the IDF attacked them in March 1956 killing 275 civilians in one night. It emboldened the camp's resistance, made it a target during the First Intifada, dozens were killed, thousands injured, maimed and arrested, yet survivors continued to resist. It became a target again during the Second Uprising with a horrific toll on the people. IDF forces savagely attacked, unknown chemical agents were used, missiles and helicopter gunships were unleashed, bulldozers destroyed homes, many were killed and wounded, and when it ended an entire neighborhood was obliterated. The Palestinian Authority (PA) couldn't intervene, appealed for outside help, but had to stand by helpless when none came.

Targeted assassinations are also ignored. They violate international law, but not according to Israel's High Court of Justice. In December 2006 (beyond Baroud's timeline), it ruled that these killings aren't in violation, and that each one must be evaluated on its own merit. This is what passes for justice in a nation that affords it only to Jews. It's also one that systematically kills, starves and brutalizes an entire people. It collectively punishes them, gets full western backing, huge US funding, and one-sided media support without exception. Criticizing Israel is the most taboo of all issues. Journalists who dare can count on a very short career.

Instead they go along to get along and label victims terrorists with clever code words like "militants" and "gunmen." Baroud knows them well, the overwhelming force they face, and how ruthlessly it's unleashed. He calls resistance fighters: "dedicated and honest individuals, men and women (and children) who represent large segments of Palestinian society with its wide spectrum of political and ideological affiliations." They embrace "freedom, liberty, and human rights." They show courage and will, have endured for six decades, survived every Israeli harsh tactic, won't ever surrender, so the "free" world views them as "terrorists."

It doesn't matter how often Israel violates international law, how many UN resolutions it ignores, or that it disdains the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling against the Separation Wall. With western backing against a disenfranchised people, it gets free reign, and it became easier post-9/11. Sharon took full advantage.

Baroud cites lessons from the Intifada's first year:

-- "audacious....institutionalized violence," but even worse

-- Israeli Knesset legislation "in willful and blatant violation of international law."

In place of Geneva and Nuremberg, Sharon's model is Machiavelli's "The Prince:"

-- ruthlessly seizing power (in Sharon's case manipulating public opinion to get i);

-- justifying any actions to keep it;

-- believing a stable state is the only morality;

-- people are of no consequence;

-- it's best to be feared and loved but if can't have both fear works best;

-- using the law to institutionalize repression;

-- having a strong military to enforce it;

-- today a supportive media as well;

-- the enemy must be portrayed as criminals, savages, terrorists; they're wicked; we're righteous;

-- mass-killings and imprisonments, repression, occupation, land seizures and total disregard for civil and human rights are acceptable ways to govern;

-- then convince the world, you're the victim acting in self-defense.

Intifada Year Two (2002)

The struggle continued and got world attention and International Solidarity Movement (ISM) support. It's an August 2001-founded "Palestinian-led movement committed to resisting the Israeli occupation....using nonviolent, direct-action methods and principles." It provides "international protection and a voice....to nonviolently resist an overwhelming military occupation force."

Israel tolerates no opposition. It attacks its members - kills, wounds, imprisons and deports them. Yet, like Palestinians, they persist. They're volunteers from around the world, coming to the Occupied Territories (OPT), risking their lives, "laying down before tanks, breaking curfews, (acting as) human shields," and defying an illegal occupation. The UN gives them no legitimacy, and Israel calls them "anti-Israeli radicals."

Its anti-Palestinian jihad persists, and it came to a head in early April 2002 with the infamous Jenin refugee camp invasion. It's the home of 13,000 displaced Palestinians in the northern West Bank. The IDF cut off the camp and city from outside help; destroyed hundreds of buildings; buried people inside under ruble; cut off power and water; kept out food and essentials, including medical aid; and killed dozens of mostly civilian men, women and children.

With no outside help and little for self-defense, Palestinians resisted, and inflicted losses on the vaunted IDF. One Palestinian inside the camp on a cell phone with a dying battery reached Al-Jazeera television and said: " I just wanted to tell the proud people of the world not to worry, we are resisting and will fight to the last drop of blood." It's the price many there paid and keep paying as the struggle continues.

Throughout the ordeal, the West, US administration, Congress and dominant media react the same way - justifying Israeli actions and condemning "Palestinian terror."

A definition is in order, and noted scholar and activist Equal Ahmad offered one a decade ago. He identified five types of terrorism:

-- crimes of any sort, individual or organized;

-- pathology (by the disturbed) who "want the attention of the world" and may kill to get it;

-- political by a private group;

-- religious like Christian and Muslim killings during Papal crusades; Catholics killing Protestants and the reverse in Northern Ireland; Sunnis and Shiites killing each other; any groups claiming God-inspired violence is justified; and by far the worst of the five types -

-- state terrorism committed by nations against other states, groups, or individuals, including state-sponsored assassinations.

Individual one-on-one violence makes headlines and is condemned. So is individual self-defense and retaliation against state repression; but when Israel or America commit state terror, it's called self-defense; when they wage aggressive wars, they're called liberating one.

When Palestinians demand international law protection, they're denied and ignored. When, in frustration, they blow themselves up in a crowd of Israelis, no one understands, they're condemned as "terrorists" and are called "enemies of peace." Who listens to how to end this - stop attacking them, and they'll have no reason to retaliate.

Instead, Israel commits more state terrorism, calls it part of America's "war on terror," and Baroud puts it this way: "Fighting terror is the new trend." It so "aggressive, powerful countries (can) crush weaker foes, deprive them of freedom (and keep) blam(ing) them for all the woes of the world." We're "expected to believe (that) Israel is defending itself as though Palestinians....occup(ied) Israeli territories, besiege(d) Israeli people, bl(ew) up their homes, st(ole) their land, and gun(ned) down their children." We're supposed to hate the victim and praise the powerful. "How long will we be blinded by empty slogans," truth reversal, "unexplained hatred, and pretentious condemnations?"

Intifada Year Three (2003)

Israeli killings and targeted assassinations escalated in the third Intifada year. Retaliatory suicide bombings followed, and the cycle of violence begot still more. It claimed the lives of two of Baroud's cousins. They were PA Bureij refugee camp police officers who were celebrating the Eid al-Fitr feast when they were killed. Israeli tanks invaded the camp. The two men got their rifles to face heavy armor. They fought so others could flee, then died from a shell explosion they couldn't avoid.

Bureij is "ingrained in (Baroud's) mind." It was his mother's first refugee home and his grandmother's. Now it's special because his cousins died there and for their valor were branded "militants" - meaning "terrorists."

Baroud calls the Second Intifada "uniquely different" from the first one. Efforts from 1987 to 1993 were largely symbolic. The Second Uprising used new methods and went beyond "the traditional stone-throwing (and sling shots) of the past." Armed resistance was more significant and legitimate than ever, and international law supports it. It clearly gives sovereign states the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. What about individuals and groups?

The General Assembly's 1965 20th session affirmed it for the first time. It recognized "the legitimacy of struggle by the people under colonial rule to exercise their rights to self-determination and independence." It also urged "all States to provide material and moral assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories." In 1974, the General Assembly passed Resolution 3236. It fully and properly recognizes collective Palestinian rights and UN Charter self-determination affirmation. It also granted their right to national independence, sovereignty, and right to return to their homes.

The General Assembly went further in 1975. Its Resolution 3375 recognized the PLO as a liberation movement and its right to represent its people under Resolution 3236. Additional Palestinian support came from the 1977 Geneva Convention Protocol I (Act 1 C4). It declared that armed struggle may be used as a last resort to exercise the right of self-determination. These measures affirmed the Second Uprising's legitimacy, now with strong international law backing it.

Year three also saw the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) appoint Mahmoud Abbas as Prime Minister. An intense debate followed as it represented Yasser Arafat's first challenge as PA President. Abbas' prominence was the result of two separate Palestinian movements - one wanting true reforms and democracy; the other purely political to forge "peace" with Israel using the US-devised "Road Map." It caused a PA and Fatah split. One side refused to negotiate under military assaults and settlement expansions. Their leaders (including Marwan Barghouti) were either assassinated or arrested and imprisoned. Others still at large are wanted men.

Abbas represents the other side. He was an Oslo formulator, only "moderately corrupt," and, in deference to Israel and Washington, insists that all violence end and Palestinians disarm. Even worse, he wanted negotiations to resume with a sweetener - his willingness to "compromise" (read surrender) on fundamental issues that ignited armed struggle in the past. The Sharon government loved Abbas because he'd sell out his people for his own self-interest. He was very unpopular as a result, and only an Israeli-rigged election made him PA President later on. More on that below.

On August 6, Palestinian factions concluded a meeting with Abbas. Although described as positive, it was full of grievances. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others agreed to a three month "hudna" (ceasefire) starting June 29 on condition Israel reciprocate. Palestinians honored its commitment, but Israelis didn't and claimed it had no obligation to do it. As a result, killings, assassinations, land seizures, arrests and more incitement followed as before. Washington backs everything Israel does, the ceasefire wouldn't last, and another peace process was stillborn.

Frustration led to rage with two August 12 bombings in Israel after a multi-week one-sided lull. Sharon's position was clear. He ignored the ceasefire, demanded unconditional surrender and insisted resistance groups be disbanded. On top of it, throughout his life, he threw all his weight against a peace he never wanted and wouldn't accept. For decades (and most notably under George Bush), Washington has the same design and showed it repeatedly in UN Security Council vetos of everything unfavorable to Israel. In the eyes of many independent observers, the US is a "dishonest broker and a biased party (with no) genuine interest in (MIddle East) peace and stability."

At the same time, rumors about an Arafat-Abbas "power struggle" emerged. It was hard to imagine with the long-time Palestinian leader hugely popular and convincingly elected. In contrast, Abbas had a rock-bottom 3% approval rating so where was the disagreement. It was over differing visions. Abbas favored nonviolence and surrender while Arafat opposed suicide bombings but knew Israeli violence demanded resistance.

In the eyes of Tel Aviv and Washington, it made him persona non grata with Abbas a prefered safe alternative. He was even more conciliatory by vowing to crack down on Palestinian resistance, step up security, and pretty much tow the Israeli line. The plan ahead was clear - remove Arafat and replace him with a reliable Abbas.

It was a bad time for Palestinians to lose one of their iconic best. Baroud learned of it in a troubling email - "Edward Said passed away this morning." He'd suffered for years and finally succumbed to a decade-long battle with leukemia. Baroud describes him like many other admirers, including this reviewer: He "stood for everything that is virtuous. His moral stance was even more powerful than (his) essays, books, and music (as critic and consummate performer)...."

"He was an extraordinary intellectual....thoughtful (and) inimitable. And because of that, he was a target for those who wish to silence (powerful voices) of truth." Said was never silent or compromising in his beliefs or virtue. As a Palestinian, he was denied the right to live freely in his homeland. He spent his life instead teaching, writing, speaking forcefully and traveling the world to "convey the pain of his people (like no) intellectual" before him had done. No "wonder he....was adored by (his) people (and) detested by the" powerful he opposed. He died on September 25, 2003. He's sorely missed.

Others now carry on in his place and Baroud is one of them. He notes that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may work in some places but in others, like Occupied Palestine, it's just "ink on paper." Nonetheless, it endorses the notion that we're all "born free and equal in dignity and rights." Its Article 3 declares: "Every one has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 4 says: "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude," and under Article 6 "Every one has the right to recognition everywhere before the law."

Palestinians enjoy none of these and other basic human rights. They're falsely imprisoned and tortured; viciously attacked and killed; surrounded, harassed and humiliated; ethnically cleansed from their land; stripped of their homes and crops; denied their livelihoods and right of free movement; forced to endure a brutalizing occupation; and yet, on their own and without aid, they're united in their decades-long liberating struggle. "Why," asked Said? "Because (their cause is) just..noble (and) a moral quest for equality and human rights" everyone deserves.

In Intifada year three, Palestinians were sacrificed on the alter of continued Israeli viciousness. Attacks against them increased, they resisted as international law allows, media vilification followed, and Baroud reflects what most of them believe: that "the will of the people might some day prevail over tyranny and occupation. And it will, of this I am certain."

Intifada Year Four (2004)

The new year brought more pain and agony as well as "profound changes (and) insurmountable challenges." Hundreds of Palestinians died, countless others kept suffering, and Sharon's Separation Wall "became a reality" in spite of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling it illegal in July.

Targeted assassinations continued as well. Khalil al-Zabin, a 59-year old Palestinian journalist was gunned down outside his Gaza office in March. He was a close Arafat advisor, ran a newspaper, was funded by the PA, and "was entrusted with the complex and controversial subject of human rights."

Later in the month, Israelis targeted Hamas' spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. The IDF murdered him while he was returning from early morning prayer at a Gaza mosque. He was old, paralyzed, confined to a wheelchair, and no match for an Israeli missile that killed him and nine others.

Less than a month later, Israel assassinated Dr. Abdelaziz Rantisi, a top Hamas leader. Yassin's importance was spiritual, and he was respected and cherished for his role. Rantisi, on the other hand, was a hands-on political operative. Removing him was part of Israel's scheme to destroy Hamas' infrastructure and render it ineffective. More killings followed against even moderate leaders, Israel's reign of terror was relentless, it flagrantly violates international law, and Baroud called the elimination of resistance leaders "a counter-productive military strategy."

Gaza's history since the 1970s shows why. After the 1967 occupation, Palestinians sought alternative strategies. Armed struggle surged in the 1970s, Gaza was its hub, extreme poverty and overcrowding fueled it, and proximity to Egypt aided it at a time Palestinians "were determined to become the defenders of their own plight...."

Israel's response was savage, and it took its toll. Almost all resistance members were killed, imprisoned or forced into exile. A period of "hibernation" followed. Israel then invaded Lebanon in 1982, PLO factions were dispersed, and "homegrown resistance" reborn. It led to the 1987 Uprising - the First Intifada, a popular revolt against a repressive occupation. It also gave birth to Hamas. It became an integral part of Gaza, a full-fledged political and military force and much more. It provided essential services Gazans lacked - clinics, universities, vast charity networks, even daycare centers. It's little wonder it drew support it now enjoys.

Throughout the 1980s and 90s, Palestinian resistance changed. It fostered solidarity, and unlike in the 1970s "the killing of one resistance fighter (encouraged) ten others (to) join the struggle." For Israel, it was disastrous. Eliminating old leaders gave rise to new equally effective ones. It kept Israelis busy assassinating them, one by one, and by assaults on Palestinian towns taking scores.

A May 14 Rafah attack was one of many. It lasted a week and claimed 40 mostly civilian lives along with many more elsewhere in Gaza. Targeted assassinations continued as well. Sharon kept murdering with impunity with plenty of US funding, weapons and political support. Bush administration officials also rejected the ICJ ruling against the Separation Wall. They called the Court an "(in)appropriate forum to resolve a political issue (that should) specifically (be left to) the road map."

As for the Palestinians, the ruling reaffirmed their right to resist with full World Court backing. It also exposed the "PA's bankrupt approach" - localizing the Palestinian struggle instead of pursuing it within a regional and international context. In addition, it led to a PLC report and its galling evidence of corruption. It revealed that Palestinian companies had been smuggling and selling Israel (discounted) cement to speed up the Wall's construction, and some PA ministers were involved in the scheme.

Meanwhile political crises affected the PA. Israel battered Arafat's Ramallah headquarters, confined him inside it, and co-opted his prime minister, Ahmed Oorei, to pressure him. For a while crisis was averted, but Israeli efforts persisted - to force out an unwanted leader and replace him with a more "moderate" one.

At a time prospects looked grim, Israel killed 140 mostly civilian men, women and children in a devastating Gaza raid. The media championed it, said Arafat orchestrated the Uprising, called him no partner for peace, and vilified him for turning down Barak's "generous (Camp David 2000) offer."

Another element was Sharon's "Disengagement Plan" that was all political subterfuge and no gracious gesture. Washington referred to his "painful concessions." It was all a sham, and close Sharon advisor Dov Weisglass explained it to Haaretz. He said the scheme was to "freeze" the peace process, assure 80% of West Bank settlements remain unaffected, erase any chance for an independent Palestinian state, and do it all with Washington's blessing and funding. He added that this also shuts down discussion of the right of return, borders and Jerusalem. In other words, it was all win for Israel and more defeat for Palestinians with Gaza even after "disengagement" staying occupied and reentered or attacked militarily at Israel's discretion.

Baroud closes out the year with the passing of Arafat. He took ill in his compound, there's strong evidence Israel poisoned him, and his personal physician (Dr. Ashraf Al Kurdi) believes it. He was flown to France on October 29 and died in Paris on November 11 at age 75.

Some suggested it ended an era, but Baroud believes that it's rash to represent the Palestinian struggle through the legacy of one man, even Yasser Arafat. Some called him autocratic, but they ignore his "political, cultural, and intellectual mix....his ability to mean many different things to....different people." Whatever his faults, he was an important figure who unified the Palestinian struggle and symbolized it. "But Palestinians are resilient," states Baroud. They'll learn "how to deal with life without Arafat and his mystique....the march to freedom would certainly carry on."

At the end of another painful year, Baroud remained hopeful and awaited the new year with his annual thought: "I pray that the coming year will bring peace and justice in our troubled world." He noted that "Onslaughts that were designed to ravish and destroy a land and its people were in fact creating unity and igniting an awakening among the forces of good all over the world."

The Fifth and Ending Intifada Year (2005)

No official announcement signaled its end, and talk at the time was of a Third Uprising because of a one-sided ceasefire. Presidential elections were scheduled for January with Hamas more concerned about parliamentary and municipal ones later on. Winning substantially would establish its popular legitimacy - politically as well as morally and religiously.

As Israel's presidential choice, Abbas was favored to win, and how could he lose the way Israel arranged it. He was safe and reliable, represented the status quo, and categorically opposed armed struggle. Baroud describes him as a man without vision and with "no meaningful alternative to armed resistance."

To assure he won big, "Israel resorted to its usual tactics of intimidating other candidates who dared" challenge their choice for the top PA job - a man more concerned about Israeli security than his own peoples' rights and wishes.

Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi was his main opponent. Baroud calls him an "eloquent and dedicated physician and activist....He was never (involved in) corruption (and he provided) free medical services (for) tens of thousands of the poorest Palestinians." He respected human rights, believed in democracy and national unity, and was "one of the most influential founders and leaders in the democratic opposition movement."

Those aren't attributes Israel prefers, so he was targeted with a vengeance for having them. While campaigning, IDF soldiers beat him at checkpoints, choked him with his necktie, and inflicted wounds on his hands, foot and nose. He and other candidates were arrested repeatedly, harassed and beaten, demeaned in the media, and Israel called it democracy.

Imagine the outrage if this happened in America or any western country. It got scant notice in Occupied Palestine and Israel where the election was reduced to charade, and its outcome preordained. Abbas, of course, won. Israel got its puppet, and Palestinians were again betrayed.

The February Sharm el-Sheikh (Egypt) summit followed. Western leaders hailed its success. Once again, Palestinians got nothing. Concluding pro forma statements promised continued efforts to pursue the Road Map, and a formal Intifada end was declared.

Baroud chose to defer judgment on the outcome and examine the Second Uprising in a historical context. He noted how "Israeli governments....mastered the technique of pushing Palestinians to the brink," punishing them collectively, seizing their land, and destroying their homes and lives. Resistance naturally followed. The First and Second Uprisings reflected the aspirations of most Palestinians - "a truly sovereign Palestinian state in all territories illegally occupied...in 1967." After decades of abuse and disappointment, they're willing to sacrifice 78% of historic Palestine and settle for the remaining (OPT) 22%.

Israel, however, rejects even these modest demands. Its notion of peace is to "drive Palestinians out of their land....expand (illegal) settlements....expropriate large (West Bank) chunks as 'security zones,' and further alienate and completely fence off Occupied East Jerusalem."

In 2000, Israel's scheme got sidetracked for a time. Arafat refused any further sacrifice, and the Second Intifada erupted. After Arafat's 2004 death, Sharm el-Sheikh followed and with it revived Israeli hopes. Palestinians were told to "overcome their violent tendencies," assure Israel gets the security it "rightfully needs and deserves." The term "occupation" was never mentioned. No Palestinian grievances were addressed. Settlements expansions would continue, the right of return was a non-starter, occupation remained, seizing all of East Jerusalem is planned, unconditional Palestinian surrender is demanded, and all that matters is what Israel wants.

Abbas is the perfect "peace partner." But Hamas in Gaza became credible after its December 2004 electoral success. Baroud called it a "dramatic shift in the way the movement was perceived nationally and internationally." The defining event was Arafat's passing. It "shifted the political momentum in (their) favor." Fatah was deeply corrupted and without its leader thrown into "structural and organizational mayhem." Hamas won control of over one-third of OPT municipal seats, including most major cities. It signaled what would soon follow.

Palestinians view Hamas as credible - for its social services and confronting Israel militarily. Its unilateral ceasefire commitment, in spite of repeated Israeli violations, also enhanced its reputation. Before its January 2006 stunner, British diplomats met with Hamas twice and EU officials did it "every 10 days to two weeks," according to a senior Hamas member. Reports were that Israel was "fuming" about it and the Foreign Ministry said "Europeans should be strengthening 'moderate' Palestinians and not appeasing the 'extremists.' " Israel applies that designation to anyone opposing its OPT agenda or who confronts its worst abuses, let alone the way Hamas does.

Post-"disengagement," Gaza remained occupied, but talks, nonetheless, proceeded on core Palestinian issues - border crossings, free movement, the airport, seaport, and Israel's stranglehold on the OPT economy. After the 1967 occupation, Israel controlled border crossings into Egypt and Jordan. The economic impact was devastating.

Both countries offered Palestinian professionals employment that could lead to better opportunities in oil-rich Arab states. In addition, income earned abroad was sent home, and needy families relied on it.

With border crossings controlled, traffic across them halted, so Palestinians had to depend on Israel for relief. Its economy is vibrant, jobs plentiful during good economic times, and Israeli employers exploited a vulnerable labor pool. With no other option available, Palestinians were easy pickings. They became part of Israel's cheap labor force, were forced to work "under harsh and even inhumane conditions," accept meager compensation, and be offered no benefits like health care, pensions, or insurance covering personal injury. It was the beginning of a "historic....economic dependency" that was all downhill from there.

It's the reason Oslo was welcomed and each successive engagement to address needs previous ones hadn't met. With Israel controlling the process and having one-sided western support, outcomes each time were predictable - hopes again dashed, talk only empty rhetoric, promises made and then broken, and no end to an occupation and all its harshness. Israel wanted PA partners for one purpose - as "prison guards" for the Territories so forget about peace and concessions.

Conflict is planned, a "high level of chaos" assured, and the idea is to show that Palestinians are "innately lawless and irresponsible" to justify continued crackdowns and occupation for a people not ready for prime time on their own.

The Second Uprising marked its fifth anniversary on September 29. The cost in bloodshed was huge, the suffering immense, and there was nothing to show for the sacrifice as the struggle entered "one of its most consequential challenges yet."

Epilogue

Baroud symbolizes the spirit of his people. It's magnificent and contagious. He reflects on "reality versus rhetoric." In spite of decades of disappointment, "peace and justice movements (everywhere see) the Palestinian people as an icon of resistence....no other struggle in the world....symbolize(s so much) to so many people." Palestinians are a "rallying point for the dispossessed and the aspiring underdog."

Their reality - repression, occupation, suffering, isolation, anger, "packed prisons, ruined lives," six decades of hopes raised and then shattered.

"Symbolic Palestine - the dream....for (the) long hijacked....reality."

On December 26, 2005, barely months after the Second Uprising ended, a historic era did as well. Sharon suffered a stoke, sunk into coma, and some believe he's dead. The "Butcher of Beirut" is a brutish war criminal, but the US media extolled him. "Replacing the Irreplaceable" read one headline, and lots of others picked up on the theme to honor a "great statesman" whose crimes went unmentioned.

On January 25, 2006, one month later, Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) elections were held. Their outcome was stunning and historic. It was the second PLC election ever and a momentous event in Palestinian history as Hamas won in a landslide - 74 of the 132 seats at stake. Baroud explained it this way:

"....Palestinian voters were obviously fed up with the Israeli occupation, the US's dishonest role as a 'peacekeeper,' and the indefensible corruption of the Palestinian Authority." They chose Hamas for its "commitment to social services and corruption-free history...." The movement is the "antithesis" of Oslo's ills and betrayal. Palestinians voted for "unity, not exclusion."

The western response was harsh and predictable - no donor money to a government that won't acknowledge Israel's existence and is "dedicated to Israel's destruction." It was grossly hyperbolic and exaggerated, but easy to say when Hamas' response is silenced. It's also easy to ignore its exemplary unilateral ceasefire throughout most of 2005.

Baroud's book ended before the West's crackdown on Hamas began - before all outside aid was cut off, economic sanctions and embargo instituted, political isolation enforced, Israeli rule tightened, daily attacks increased, a Fatah insurgent force enlisted to confront the new government militarily, and then (since June 2007) a medieval siege imposed.

It's taken a horrific toll on the Territory and its people. They face isolation, repeated incursions, abductions, killings, targeted assassinations, and mostly against civilian men, women and children. Their power and fuel supplies were cut, essentials denied, the most inhumane punishments imposed, they continue to be at this writing, and the world community remains dismissive. They sanctified the siege, fully stick by Israel, uncompromisingly vilify Hamas, ignore its conciliatory efforts, so Palestinians continue to suffer and die.

Baroud covers it all on his Palestine Chronicle web site. It's a vital resource for what's happening in the Territories and much more. He calls the Palestinians a "force to be reckoned with," and ends his book with four thoughts:

-- despite the Second Uprising's initial success, the PA reverted to its same failed approach; the Intifada's legacy is thus discredited;

-- any resolution of the decades-long struggle must include the diaspora - the millions of scattered-around-the-world refugees and their right of return; international law guarantees it; so does UN Resolution 194;

-- some issues are non-negotiable - the existence of Palestine for generations; resolution demands it be duly recognized; and a final important point -

-- Palestinian resistance will continue; struggling for six decades proves it; in the face of intensified Israeli oppression it's resilient, and history's lesson is clear; ferment builds, then erupts; renewed Palestinian response is assured, and their struggle for "freedom, human rights, and justice" will persist; more important, it's unbeatable; ultimately, it'll prevail.

In the meantime, Baroud list's the five-year Intifada toll at his book's end. Citing multiple sources, it includes:

-- 4166 Palestinian deaths, including 886 children and 271 women;

-- 554 extra-judicial assassinations; 253 of them were bystanders;

-- 3530 disabled or maimed;

-- 8600 imprisoned, including 288 children and 115 women;

-- 576 students killed, including 199 university-level ones and 32 teachers;

-- another 4713 students injured and 1389 detained;

-- 2,329,659 dunums of confiscated land;

-- another 73,613 dunums of razed land plus 1,355,290 uprooted trees; and

-- 7761 demolished homes and another 93,842 damaged.

This was a five-year toll. The six-decade holocaust is incalculable. It will take generations to heal and renew. For now, conditions continue to worsen. They can no longer be tolerated. In Israel's 60th year, the world no longer can wait.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting edge discussions with distinguished guests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8867

Sixty Years of Palestinian Displacement, Occupation and Suffering

Sixty Years of Palestinian Displacement, Occupation and Suffering - by Stephen Lendman

On May 14, Israelis will commemorate the 60th anniversary of their "War of Independence" and founding of the Jewish State. It also marks 60 years of Palestinian Nakba suffering. The web site alnakba.org recounts the history:

-- from the late Ottoman empire period; to

-- the birth of Zionism; to

-- the early Jewish colonization of Palestine; to

-- the 1917 Balfour Declaration support for a "Jewish national home in Palestine;" to

-- the simultaneous British betrayal of the indigenous Arabs; to

-- the British occupation; to

-- its delayed promised end; to

-- the founding of the Haganah underground military organization; to

-- the first British (1922) Palestine census showing a population of 757,182 - 78% Muslim, 11% Jewish and 9.6% Christian; to

-- the official 1923 establishment of the British Mandate period; to

-- the 1920s Jewish population increase to 16% on 4% of Palestinian land; to

-- the terrorist Irgun (IZT) National Military Organization established in 1931; to

-- the terrorist Stern Gang founded in 1939; to

-- the 1945 Jewish population growth to 31% of the total; to

-- the October 1947 US endorsement of partitioning Palestine at a time Palestinians comprised two-thirds of the population and Jews one-third; to

-- the November 1947 UN General Assembly Resolution 181 to end the British Mandate by August 1, 1948 and partition Palestine - 56% to Jews, the remainder to Palestinians, and for Jerusalem to be an international city; to

-- Britain recommending (in December) an end to Mandate Palestine on May 15, 1948 and independent Jewish and Palestinian states to be established two weeks later; to

-- Harry Truman secretly meeting Chaim Weizmann at the White House on March 25, 1948 and pledging support for the declaration of Israel on May 15; to

-- the State of Israel established at 4PM on May 14, 1948; to

-- the official end of the British Mandate on May 15; to

-- Harry Truman recognizing the Jewish State on the same day.

David Ben-Gurion was Israel's first prime minister. On March 10, 1948, he met with leading Zionists and young Jewish military officers in Tel-Aviv's "Red House." They finalized plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine through a process of siege, intimidation and terror - to bomb and depopulate villages and cities; massacre innocent people; burn homes, property and goods; and prevent expelled Palestinians from returning.

Dalet (Plan D) was the final master plan. It was for war without mercy - mass slaughter, targeted assassinations, rapes, other atrocities, displacement and destruction. It was to establish an exclusive Jewish State without an Arab presence.

It took six months to complete, consider the toll, and understand the Nakba's meaning. It displaced 750,000 to 800,000 people - men, women, children, the elderly and infant civilians. Many hundreds or thousands of others were killed. Sweeping destruction was carried out. It erased 531 villages and 11 urban neighborhoods in Tel-Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and other cities.

The plan's roots went way back:

-- to the birth of Zionism;

-- the 1901Jewish National Fund (JNF) beginning; it was to compile a detailed registry of Arab villages so later Zionists knew what to colonize and where; it was also to buy and occupy Palestinian land;

-- by the late 1930s, it was a detailed topographic blueprint of every Arab village and urban area; its information included husbandry, cultivated land, number of trees, quality of fruits, crops, average amount of land per family, number of cars, shop owners, Palestinian clans and their political affiliation, description of mosques and names of their imams, civil servants and more;

-- by 1947, it also included "wanted" persons, by villages, to be targeted for elimination - leaders to be arrested and summarily executed in cold blood to create a power vacuum;

-- the process began in December 1947, five months before the British Mandate ended; Britain did nothing to deter it; David Ben-Gurion led it from the 1920s to the 1960s; after ethnically cleansing Palestine he said: "We have come and we have stolen their country....We must do everything to insure they never do return." Ten years earlier he wrote to his son: "We will expel the Arabs and take their places....with the force at our disposal;"

-- other Israeli leaders expressed the same mindset; two were former prime ministers - Golda Meir said: "There are no Palestinians" and Menachem Begin and Nobel Peace Prize recipient called Palestinians "two-legged beasts" and said Jews were the "Master Race" and "divine gods on this planet;"

-- Labor Party leader Haim Herzog was more discreet in expressing disdain for the Arabs; in 1972, he said "I am not prepared to consider (Palestinians) as partners in any respect in a land that has been consecrated in the hands of our nation for thousands of years. For the Jews of this land there cannot be any partner."

Earlier in 1969, Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan described the 1947 - 49 success: "Jewish villages were built in place of Arab (ones). You do not know the names of these Arab villages (because they) no longer exist....There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." Like other leading Israelis, Dayan expressed scorn for all Palestinians and told his Labor Party colleagues that they "shall continue to live like dogs...."

The Palestinian Holocaust

Alnakba.org recounts the toll. It lists the destroyed villages in 14 Palestinian Districts, including Gaza, Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Nazareth and Hebron. One was Deir Yassin in the Jerusalem District. On April 9, 1948, it was the site of an infamous Nakba massacre. Israeli soldiers entered the village, machine-gunned houses randomly and killed many inside them. The remaining villagers were assembled and murdered in cold blood. Included were children, infants, the elderly and women who were first raped. The total number killed is uncertain but best estimates place it between 93 and 120. In addition, dozens more were killed in the fighting that ensued, and many other villages met the same fate in the systematic cleansing plan - to seize as much Palestinian land as possible leaving the fewest number of Arabs on it.

In December 1947, Jews in Palestine numbered 600,000 compared to 1.3 million Palestinians. Ben-Gurion ordered them removed with commands like: "Every attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion." He meant depopulation; obliteration; homes blown up, burned or bulldozed; their inhabitants inside killed; shooting anything that moved, especially fighting-age men and boys who might pose a combat or resistance threat; and leaving behind rubble, a forgotten landscape and a proud history erased.

The Lifta ruins can be seen from Jerusalem. All that was left in Dayr Aban were piles of rubble, collapsed roofs and part of some standing walls. Only two houses remained in Barqa. One is deserted. The other is a warehouse. Jura became the city of Ashqelon. Its Jewish population is now about 117,000. The only Arab remains in al-Faluja are the village mosque foundations and fragments of walls. The Israeli town of Qiryat Gat now stands on land between al-Faluja and Iraq al-Manshiyya and on al-Faluja land as well. Hundreds of other Arab villages have similar stories. They were erased and replaced by Jewish-only development.

An eye witness to the Deir Yassin massacre recounts the horror:

"I was (there) when the Jews attacked....(They) closed on the village amid exchanges of fire with us. Once they entered the village, fighting became very heavy in the eastern side and later it spread to other parts, to the quarry, to the village center until it reached the western edge....The Jews used all sorts of automatic weapons, tanks, missiles, cannons. They enter(ed) houses and kill(ed) women and children indiscriminately. The (village) youths....fought bravely.

We had no aid or support....They took about 40 prisoners....After the battle was over, they took them to the quarry where they shot them dead and threw their bodies in the quarry....they took (other) prisoners and killed them....they killed the youths."

Other accounts spoke of shootings, bombs exploding and a mother being killed with her husband, son and brother. A nurse was shot dead as well as the daughter of a friend and her baby. "Whomever tried to run away was shot dead." It was cold-blooded murder.

After the battle, "the Jews took elderly men and women and youths, including four of my cousins and a nephew. They took them all. Women who had on them gold and money, were stripped of their gold. After the Jews removed their dead and wounded, they took the men to the quarry and sprayed them all with bullets." One woman watched her son shot to death. "They later poured kerosene on his body and" burned it.

The men were fighting. "Eyewitnesses were only women. The elderly men were (used) to remove the dead, Arabs and Jews." The Arab ones "were thrown in a well in the village center." It all happened five weeks before the State of Israel was founded. Arabs died and were displaced to make Plan D a success. It worked because western powers supported it, and Arab neighbors were indifferent. Their intervention held off until May 15, five and a half months after the UN partition. When it began, it was with an inferior force that was no match against Israeli superiority, despite popular myth to the contrary.

It recounts how an outnumbered and outgunned Jewish force prevailed against overwhelming odds. Pure rubbish. In fact, the Jews held a clear advantage. As long as the British stayed out (and they did), the outcome was never in doubt. Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq held off intervening as long as possible, then reluctantly stepped in with token forces. It was too little, too late, and, for its part, Jordan (with its potent military) stayed out entirely in return for most of the West Bank as a payoff.

Intervening Arab forces performed poorly. They overstretched their supply lines, ran out of ammunition, mostly used antiquated weapons, and had no effective command and control. It was a testimony to their lack of commitment, not their ability to fight had they wished to.

Jews, in contrast, were supplied effective armaments from Soviet Russia and other Eastern bloc countries. They easily outgunned the Arabs and outclassed and outnumbered them as well. The outcome was never in doubt that a new Jewish State would emerge. On May 14, 1948, Israel signed separate armistice agreements with its four major warring adversaries. It gave Israel 78% of British Mandatory Palestine, 40% above its UN allotment. Palestinians got the other 22% comprising the West Bank and Gaza.

On December 11, 1948, a historic General Assembly resolution passed - UN Resolution 194 consisting of 15 articles. Four were most important. Article 7 protected and provided free access to the Holy Places. Article 8 demilitarized Jerusalem and placed it under UN control. Article 9 called for free access to Jerusalem, and Article 11 is most remembered for granting Palestinian refugees the right of return or to be compensated for their loss if they chose not to. From 1948, to the present, Israel defied the UN mandate and got away with it. It was because of western support and Arab indifference. As a result, it was able to terrorize remaining Arabs inside Israel, and set in motion the eventual Gaza and West Bank occupation.

The War Ended - State Terrorism Was Just Beginning

Throughout 1949 in the war's aftermath, Israel pursued another one - a war of terror against the remaining Arab population. It set a six decade precedent. Israel now belonged to Jews. Arabs were unwelcome. State security forces cracked down to show how much.

Thousands of displaced Palestinians were rounded up and imprisoned. Others were targeted, harassed and abused. They lost everything - their land, homes, fields, crops, places of worship, freedom of movement and expression, and any hope for fair treatment in the new Jewish State.

Naked and undisguised racism confronted them. They were issued identity cards with penalties up to 1.5 years in prison and immediate transfer to an "unauthorized" and "suspicious" Arab pen if caught without them.

Persecution was relentless, much the way it is today. Roadblocks and checkpoints went up, curfews imposed, violators shot on sight, and systematic abuse inflicted. In addition, thousands of Palestinians were conscripted, sent to labor camps, and forced to help build the new Jewish state. Conditions there were deplorable. Quarry laborers performed arduous work, carried heavy rocks, and had to live on one potato and half a dried fish for daily sustenance. Complainers or slackers were beaten, many severely. Others, considered a threat, were simply shot.

Other Arabs weren't treated much better. Human rights abuses were appalling. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) documented them. Palestinians (now Israeli citizens) got no protections and were afforded no rights. They were subjected to relentless abuses. Their mosques were profaned, schools vandalized, homes robbed and at times stripped bare in broad daylight. Palestinians reported that not a single home or Arab shop escaped the onslaught. Authorities did nothing to deter it. They made things worse.

Palestinians (inside Israel) were transfered from their homes, moved to undesired locations, crammed into confined ghettos, they became open-air prisons, and treatment there was horrific. The ICRC and UN reported beatings, rapes and other abuses. Israel was undergoing transformation. Its Arab character was being erased. It affected about 150,000 remaining Arab Israelis in the new Jewish State.

Formal ethnic cleansing ended in 1949, dispossession and displacements nonetheless continued, and a new Committee for Arab Affairs was established to defuse growing international pressure to enforce UN Resolution 194, especially the right of return under Article 11.

Arab Israelis lost all their rights and were placed under military rule. In addition, discriminatory laws were passed, like the Law of the Land of Israel. It stipulated that the Jewish National Fund (JNF - the Jewish State landowner) was forbidden to sell or lease land to non-Jews.

From inception, Israel has had no formal constitution. It's governed instead by its Basic Law. Nine laws were passed between 1958 and 1988, all of which pertained to the institutions of state. No basic rights were enacted until 1992. That year, the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom was passed authorizing the Knesset to overturn laws contrary to the right to dignity, life, freedom, privacy, property and to leave and enter the country. The law states: "There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person. All persons are entitled to protection" of these rights, and "There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise."

Israeli Basic Laws are for Jews only. Arab Israelis have no rights under them with one exception - the right to run for public office in the Knesset, become a nominal legislative member, but have no power beyond a public stage for their views to be shouted down and ignored.

Palestinians have endured six decades of shattered hope and dreams. They were uprooted from their homes, denied their basic rights, given little outside recognition or aid, blamed for Israeli crimes, terrorized without mercy, falsely promised peace, yet condemned to a state of siege under which nothing will change without outside pressure to force it.

Since 1948, Palestinians have lived in a state of limbo. Their Nakba never ended. What's left of their country is occupied. They have no recognized nation and no power over their daily lives. They live in constant fear. They're economically strangled; dispossessed of their land and homes; isolated under siege; collectively punished; denied free movement; casually murdered; ruthlessly arrested, imprisoned and tortured; afflicted by random curfews; invaded, bombed, and shot at; extra-judicially assassinated; and constricted by roadblocks, checkpoints, electric fences and the Separation Wall that the World Court ruled illegal.

Israel: The World's "Worst Brand"

That's according a 2006 National Brands Index (NBI) study. On November 22, 2006, Israel Today reported the findings. They were compiled by "government advisor Simon Anholt and powered by global market intelligence solutions provider GMI (Global Market Insite, Inc.)."

The survey polled 25,903 "online consumers" in 35 countries across the world. It was to measure respondents perceptions "across six areas of national competence," including governance, people, culture, heritage and immigration.

"Israel's brand (was) by a considerable margin the most negative we have ever measured in the NBI, and (came) at the bottom of the ranking on almost every question (asked about 36 countries)."

Israel was ranked the least desired country to visit. Its people were ranked the "most unwelcoming in the world." Surprisingly, Americans were as negative as others. They "ranked Israel slightly above China in terms of its conduct in the areas of international peace and security."

Other recent opinion surveys report similar results. It's encouraging to know that well over half of all Europeans rank Israel "the biggest threat to world peace" according to a 2003 European Commission poll. Israel is a pariah state. That's the view of millions around the world in spite of dominant media efforts to say otherwise. Israel calls it growing anti-Semitism. That, of course, is rubbish. Jews and Israelis aren't being singled out - only their criminal leaders. World public opinion justifiably condemns them.

Commemorating the Unforgivable

Jews in Israel and around the world will commemorate May 14. It's the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel's founding. Thousands of other Jews everywhere along with everyone of conscience stand with the Canadian Palestine Support Network (CalPalNet). They cannot celebrate. They will not celebrate. They remember the Nakba. They know it continues. They condemn 41 years of occupation; the starving and bombing of Gaza; the oppressive Separation Wall; the theft of Palestinian land; the building of illegal settlements; the denial of the right of return; the killings, torture, imprisonment and harassment; the denial of basic human rights; and Israel's disdain for international law.

They "can (and) will continue (their) efforts to end these injustices, uphold international law," and support every UN resolution demanding it. "This is the only road map to peace." They, with millions of others, won't ever stop working for it.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting edge discussion with distinguished guests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8867

Denying Palestinians Free Movement in the West Bank

Denying Palestinians Free Movement in the West Bank - by Stephen Lendman

This article summarizes an August 2007 B'Tselem report now available in print. It's one of a series of studies it conducts on life in Occupied Palestine to reveal what major media accounts suppress. This one is titled: "Ground to a Halt - Denial of Palestinians' Freedom of Movement in the West Bank."

B'Tselem has a well-deserved reputation for accuracy and integrity. It's the Jerusalem-based independent Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). It was founded in 1989 by prominent academics, attorneys, journalists and Knesset members to "document and educate the Israeli public and policymakers about human rights violations in (Occupied Palestine), combat (the Israeli public's) denial, and create a human rights culture in Israel" to convince government officials to respect human rights and obey international law.

Its work is detailed, wide-ranging, carefully researched, and based on hundreds of testimonies and dozens of on-the-ground observations. For verification, it's also cross-checked with relevant documents and other government sources. Work on this report was completed over a six month period in 2007. It included information from other reports, statements from political and military officials, petitions to Israel's High Court of Justice, and media accounts.

B'Tselem states: "For the past seven years (since the September 2000 Second Intifada began), Israel has imposed restrictions and prohibitions on Palestinian movement that are unprecedented in scope and duration." It refers to hundreds of permanent and temporary checkpoints, other obstacles, physical barriers, and Israel's Separation Wall (ruled illegal by the World Court) on confiscated Palestinian land.

Free movement in the West Bank is severely restricted and nearly always entails "intolerable and arbitrary delays, much uncertainty, friction with soldiers, and often substantial expense." B'Tselem stresses that throughout 2008, it will continue to focus on this topic - with new maps, short videos, and various "public education and advocacy activities to highlight" Israel's unnecessary, outlandish and illegal restrictive measures. People need to know, and B'Tselem intends to tell them.

This is its 14th report on this topic since September 2000. Previous ones covered specific type restrictions like checkpoints, for-Jews only roads, and the Separation Wall. The one is comprehensive. It surveys all of them and their collective effects on Palestinians' lives.

The measures aren't new or restricted to the West Bank. They've been ongoing since the early 1990s and have undergone expansion and refinement ever since. Until 1991, Palestinians (except small numbers designated security threats) could move freely throughout the Territories and were able to enter and stay in Israel during daytime hours. It helped Palestine establish social, cultural and commercial ties to its neighbor, Israeli Arab citizens in it, as well as between Gaza and the West Bank.

During the January 1991 Gulf war, everything changed. General permits were cancelled and replaced by new restrictive policies. Thereafter, all Palestinians needed (selectively authorized) permits to enter Israel and East Jerusalem. Checkpoints and barriers were erected for enforcement. They've restricted movement ever since, and at times, like the 1993 killings of nine Israelis, became a general closure policy. All free movement was halted, Palestinians lost their jobs in Israel, few opportunities at home could replace them, and the Territories suffered great economic and social harm.

Closure also split the OPT into three areas: East Jerusalem, the remaining West Bank and Gaza. After September 2000, Israel tightened free movement further and continues harassing and containing relentlessly. Two main factors explain how:

-- Israel's "ever-expanding settlement enterprise....along the length and breadth of the West Bank;" they're on strategically chosen and most valued lands; in areas designed to contain Palestinian city expansions; further harmed by Israel's (for-Jews-only) bypass roads that constrict, isolate and divide West Bank areas; and

-- the effects of the Oslo Accords; they split the West Bank into three areas - Area A under Palestinian Authority (PA) security and civil affairs control; Area B under Israel security and right to restrict free movement; and Area C under total Israeli control, including on matters relating to land, planning and building; Areas B and C comprise 80% of the West Bank, including its main roads, so that lets Israel restrict movement how, when, for as long, and for whatever purpose it wishes over most of the Territory.

After September 2000, its measures were hardened. It clamped down on free movement, isolated Palestinians in cantonized enclosures, and made a fundamental human right a privilege to grant or withhold as it pleases. Its pretext is security but, in fact, that's false. The real aim is harassment, land grab, and a state-sponsored expulsion plan so Israel can seize all the land it wants for Jews only. It's gone on for decades and so far unchallenged by the world community. B'Tselem wants to stop it along with all other law violations so Palestinians can have their long denied justice they deserve and should get.

Israel's Means to Control Movement

B'Tselem divides Israeli control into three categories reflecting "different layers" of restrictive policy. They, in turn, build on each other and are interrelated:

-- physical means to divert movement to certain passageways and roads and prevent access to others;

-- restrictions and prohibitions that first layer physical tools enforce; and

-- the means to ease or tighten, selectively and under careful monitoring, second layer restrictions and prohibitions.

The essential idea is that in combination these layers represent a single control mechanism, all parts operate together, and determining their impact requires evaluating the combined effect of four types of control:

(1) obstructions to deny access to main roads; they divert Palestinians to checkpoints where the army (IDF) supervises movement from one area to another or can deny it altogether; obstructions are in different forms - dirt mounds, concrete blocks, boulders, trenches, fences and iron gates; their numbers have gradually increased and in mid-2007 totaled 455 throughout the West Bank; they limit pedestrian and vehicular movement, and especially affect the elderly, the ill, pregnant women and small children; they're even more restrictive in winter when water accumulation turns dirt areas muddy;

(2) permanent staffed checkpoints; they're fairly constant in number, and Israel has used them to some degree throughout 41 years of occupation; they gained prominence, however, after Israel cancelled general-entry (free movement) permits in 1991; they were then expanded during the Second Intifada; over time, they've become the most conspicuous occupation symbol and one of its most hated;

-- in mid-2007, 80 were in place of which 33 were the last inspection point before entering Israel along the Green Line; the other 47 lie inside the West Bank, some with control towers; seven are to transfer goods; they're called "back-to-back" because merchandise is unloaded on one side, checked, then reloaded on another truck on the other side; operating times vary - many open at 6AM and close at night; others are staffed around the clock but limit crossings to "urgent humanitarian" cases;

-- movement restrictions vary from one checkpoint to another and always at Israel's discretion; to pass, travelers must show proper ID or crossing permits; searches may be conducted; procedures are at the discretion and mood of soldiers; some checkpoints are for pedestrians only; others are restricted to commercial and public transportation.

(3) so-called flying checkpoints; they're temporary, may be erected anywhere, and remain for hours or longer; in recent years, they've increased in numbers - from a weekly average of 73 in late 2005 to 136 in 2006 to about 150 in 2007 and at times up to 200. Again, the pretext is security, their real aim is to harass, and no one does it better than Israelis.

Consider the effects of all checkpoints. Since September 2000, they've become "the main (source of) friction (between) Palestinians and Israeli security forces." They generate tension, create uncertainty, deny or delay passage, humiliate and overall makes things intolerable. They're also degrading by demanding that males expose their upper bodies in public simply as a way to harass them.

It gets worse by selective detentions in so-called "positions" - isolated holding areas for additional "security" checks that, in fact, are to punish and further humiliate; they can last hours, in exposed heat or cold, without food or water, and at times include physical abuse; many Palestinians are affected daily; Israel's high command has full knowledge; the government does as well; nominal recommendations are made to stop it, yet abuse continues and few offenders are ever punished.

(4) the Separation Wall; in June 2002, Israel decided to build it; again the claim was security; in fact, it was separation and theft of over 10% of Palestinian land, including for-Jews only roads to connect settlements with Israel and other settlements; most of the Wall is completed; its planned length is 721 kilometers; only 20% of it lies along the Green Line; most of it runs deep inside the West Bank; near Jerusalem, it surrounds the Ma'ale Adumim settlements about 14 km into the West Bank on stolen Palestinian land;

-- its route creates two kinds of Palestinian enclaves - villages and farmland between the Wall and Green Line (in the "seam zone") on the Israeli side of the barrier; another area comprises villages on the Palestinian side that are surrounded on three or more sides because of the route's winding path or that the Wall meets roads on which Palestinian movement is forbidden or physical obstructions prevent it.

Physical restrictions and movement prohibitions give Israeli security forces more latitude, and they take full advantage through a fourfold layer of control:

(1) by imposing a siege to completely or partially prevent Palestinians from crossing to or from a certain area as well as isolating the area from other parts of the West Bank; it's done with physical obstructions to block access and force residents to pass through staffed checkpoints; closing off the area facilitates sweeping movement prohibitions on specific classifications of people by gender, age or place of residence; the IDF claims their "risk profile" makes them "potential terrorists;" targeting them by siege is a frequently used post-September 2000 tactic; large areas of the West Bank have been affected; their degree of harshness varies; and areas like the Jordan Valley, Area A and cities like Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and Hebron have been especially impacted.

-- in December 2001, the West Bank IDF commander signed the Proclamation Regarding the Closure of Area (Encirclement) (Area A); it classified it as a closed military area, was unlimited in duration and still remains in force; in April 2007, a separate order was issued for Nablus restricting entry to and exit from the city to certain checkpoints; again the army claims it's a security measure "to prevent terrorists and materiel from leaving Palestinian towns in Judea and Samaria...."

(2) the "seam zone;" Israelis say it's the enclosed area between the Green Line and Separation Wall; when its first section was completed (in October 2003), the IDF declared this section a closed military area with entry into it forbidden; later areas may also be closed off, but even ones that aren't will have severe movement restrictions the way they're imposed throughout the West Bank; all Palestinians are affected; Jews and foreigners have permits permitting easy entry and exit.

(3) prohibiting travel on certain roads for Jews only; on some roads, no Palestinian vehicles are allowed; on others, travel is allowed for ones with special permits; the Oslo Accords set the rules; most often (but not always), Palestinians may travel on Areas A and B roads but prohibited or restricted in Area C; they're excluded from about 311 km of West Bank roads for Jews only; they connect settlements to Israel or other settlements.

-- rules are so harsh and convoluted that further restrictions are imposed on some roads Palestinians may use; an example is forbidding Palestinian vehicles from crossing a road, requiring passengers to leave their vehicles on one side, cross on foot, and get other transportation on the other side; this creates great hardship, is only to harass, and in cases of passenger illness or mothers in labor it may be life-threatening; in addition, Israeli security forces have great enforcement latitude; orders are issued verbally, not in writing, and soldiers at checkpoints can pretty much do as they please, depending on their mood.

(4) harsh travel laws act as deterrence; they impose high fines and/or insurance requirements; Palestinian violators are treated discriminatorily; and a high percentage of drivers are affected.

To counter public criticism, Israel issued two selective easing measures; they help some Palestinians but tighten movement restrictions for others:

(1) the permits regime; since 1991, Israel required Palestinians to have personal entry permits to enter its territory and East Jerusalem; after 1996, Palestinians also needed permits to enter West Bank jurisdictional areas; post-September 2000, rules were further tightened; some Palestinians must have permits to enter, remain in, or leave large areas inside the West Bank, including the "seam zone" and areas under siege; other permits are needed to arrange (passenger and commercial) vehicular checkpoint crossings; a limited number are allowed based on the capacity of security forces to inspect vehicles, goods and passengers;

-- B'Tselem lists nine different type permits for passenger vehicles - commercial ones; public ones for taxis and buses; movement in areas under encirclement; humanitarian ones; for permanent "seam zone" residents; for daily "seam zone" entry; "seam zone" entry for farming or work; and to enter the Jordan Valley;

-- movement restrictions and prohibitions are so onerous and for so many reasons that Israelis consider permits a privilege; for Palestinians, they're essential to meet daily needs; West Bank District Coordination Offices (DCOs) issue them, but procedures are unclear and lack transparency; B'Tselem believes "two general and sweeping criteria must be met" to get one:

(a) "lack of 'prevention,' either for security or police-related reasons relating to the applicant," and

(b) having documents to show justification for the request.

Quotas exist in all cases; when they're filled, many qualified residents are left out; in addition, other qualifying procedures exist but are unstated; ultimately DCO officials have total discretion in awarding or denying permits and can be pretty arbitrary about it; "seam zone" residents provide an example of what all Palestinians endure; to get a permit to their own home area, they must prove they reside there from their ID card address on the day the declaration of closed military area was made or in some other way show their center of life is there; those getting one are allowed entry via one checkpoint only;

(2) So-called "fabric of life" roads for Palestinians only; the West Bank's main roads are only for Jews; initially, those for Palestinians passed through villages and city centers, but because of criticism an alternate plan was developed - creating a separate, contiguous road network running north-south in the West Bank; it's based on separate levels in places where Israeli and Palestinian roads meet; bridges and interchanges achieve separation with Israelis able to travel on top at high speed; lower level "fabric of life" roads comprising 20% of the West Bank's total are for Palestinians; elements of the plan have been implemented and "fabric of life" roads are being built; they represent another part of Israel's repressive apartheid scheme.

Splitting the West Bank

Article 13 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

(1) "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."

Israel is a serial international law and human rights abuser. For Palestinians, it believes allowing free movement is a privilege, denying it is the norm, and actions no matter how outlandish require no explanation or justification.

Israel divided the West Bank into three control areas - A, B and C. For purposes of restricting movement, it further split the Territory into six geographical units:

-- North that includes the Jenin, Tulkarm, Tubas and Nablus districts, except for those in the Jordan Valley and Separation Wall enclaves; about 840,000 Palestinians lived in this area as of summer 2007; today the number is somewhat higher;

-- Central that includes the Salfit, Ramallah, and Jericho districts, except for parts in the Separation Wall enclaves; in summer 2007, the Palestinian population exceeded 400,000;

-- South that includes the Hebron and Bethlehem districts, except for the northern Dead Sea and Separation Wall enclaves; Palestinians here number over 700,000;

-- the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea that includes the eastern strip of the West Bank, except for Jericho and nearby refugee camps; the Palestinian population is around 10,000;

-- the Separation Wall-created "seam zone" and inside the West Bank "internal" enclaves; when the Wall is completed, the "seam zone" Palestinian population will number about 30,000; an additional 25,000 will be in "internal" enclaves; the "seam zone" also contains thousands of Palestinian farmland dunams (a dunam equals about one fourth of an acre) and 39 settlements; unlike the other geographical units, the enclaves are dozens of non-contiguous sections that are separated from the rest of the West Bank; and

-- East Jerusalem that includes all the area Israel annexed in 1967 and is attached to the Jerusalem Municipality, except for the Shu'afat refugee camp and Kfar Aqeb that the Wall separates from the city; around 200,000 Palestinians live in this section.

All geographical units are constricted by Israel's rigid control system explained above. Below are the checkpoints that control movement from one section to another:

-- Za'tara (Tupuah) Checkpoint controls North to Central sections movement; in addition, the IDF directs to this checkpoint all west and east traffic along the Trans-Samaria highway and from Route 60 from Nablus in the north and Ramallah in the southwest and south; Palestinians may generally pass freely heading north; those traveling south encounter ID and sometimes vehicle checks; delays are common; males aged 16 - 35 often aren't allowed to go south.

-- Container Checkpoint almost totally controls movement between the South and Central sections; Border Police staff it round the clock; from 2002 to February 2007, passenger cars were prohibited without a special permit; it's now cancelled; since September 2000, Palestinians have been prohibited from using Route 398 that runs from the checkpoint to the Ma'ale Adumim and Qedar settlements; Palestinians are diverted to other worn roads of nearby villages; Palestinian traffic passing through the checkpoint are subjected to lengthy delays and at times searches; when Israel declares a comprehensive closure, it applies to this checkpoint; it severs the southern West Bank from the rest of the Territory and requires Palestinians traveling to or from the South to do it by foot.

-- Tayasir, Hamra, Gittit and Yitav checkpoints control movement to and from the Jordan Valley. In May 2005, Israel instituted sweeping Palestinian movement prohibitions here, except for residents with ID cards and persons with special permits. They were cancelled in April 2007, it affects only pedestrians and those using public transportation (that also requires a permit), and applies only to the Tayasir and Hamra crossings.

-- Almog Checkpoint that controls movement to and from the northern Dead Sea; generally only Palestinians with work permits for nearby settlements and/or to enter Israel may pass; since May 2007, the latter category was cancelled.

-- the Separation Wall directs movement between the "seam zone" enclaves and the rest of the West Bank to several gates in the Wall; only Palestinians with special entry permits may pass; 38 gates are in place; only six operate daily from 12 to 24 hours continuously; 17 others open two or three times a day for 30 minutes to two hours; 13 additional ones operate during farming season; two other gates allow movement of residents of a few houses that are enclosed by the Wall and separated from their village; still other crossings are for Israeli travel between the West Bank and Israel; they operate round the clock.

-- the Separation Wall also directs movement between East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank; this section is called the "Jerusalem envelope" and has 12 checkpoints; crossing (permitted only through four of them) requires a valid ID and permit and submitting to stringent checks; they include exiting vehicles, having them searched, and passing through a revolving gate equipped with a metal detector; the remaining eight checkpoints are for settlers, Israeli residents and East Jerusalem Palestinians with Israeli IDs.

In addition to area to area restrictions, Israel tightens them further with others within areas by breaking them into sub-areas and controlling movement between them. Nablus in the North is separated from nearby villages and from other northern West Bank districts.

The Nablus area includes the city, three refugee camps and 15 villages that contain over 200,000 Palestinians combined. It's been under siege for seven years; entry and exit is through four surrounding checkpoints; passage through them entails stringent personal and vehicle checks, including for all merchandise in both directions; and special permits are required for passenger vehicle entry.

Collective Nablus movement prohibitions are harsh and unique in the Territory. Males between 16 and 35 are especially affected, but they overall disrupt life for everyone. The restricted male population alone affects 26,000 persons. If the age is lowered to 15, it rises to 36,000, and if females are included (as sometimes happens) it totals 73,000. This group is the area's main work force, its entire economic life depends on them, and prohibiting their movement brings it to a halt.

When it's in force, siege conditions vary by checkpoint for those allowed through. The two main Beit Iba and Huwara ones inflict the longest and most burdensome delays and restrictions. In addition, all persons having a "risk profile" because of age are forbidden to leave the area and need a "movement permit in area under encirclement" if they want to exit. However, it's not easy getting one with a convoluted system in place that requires a party permitted to cross to apply for persons who aren't and even they can't do it easily. In addition, permits aren't issued for "ordinary" needs, such as work, family visits or school. Those considered are only for "humanitarian" reasons like needed medical care. Few overall are issued.

The Nablus siege also restricts movement in the Jenin Tulkarm and Tubas districts. Nablus is vital for them and for years was the West Bank's economic and industrial center. Now these districts are separated, and major roads between them are blocked. In the past, traveling from Jenin to Nablus took about 40 minutes on the main road. It now takes one to three hours on narrow, winding roads plus a long wait at one of the Nablus area checkpoints.

Over the past two years especially, accessing Nablus has been hard and complicated for villagers located to its north. Checkpoint access is limited, some are closed to traffic, and those that operate have delays running up to hours. In addition, soldiers at times block road traffic for several hours, no advance notice is given, and it causes undue hardship for travelers having to wait or use alternate routes. The IDF is also at times punitive. It sets up indiscriminate flying checkpoints, uses them for punishment, and makes it harsher with instances of violence and confiscation of permits and identity cards that can only be redeemed at a permanent checkpoint that may or may not be operating.

The Central Section splitting caused much the same type hardships. It created two principal sub-areas around Salfit and Ramallah. It detached some of these cities' villages and separated them from their residents' farmland.

After the IDF blocked Salfit's main entrance road from the north, alternate routes became necessary, and they lengthened travel times considerably. It created great hardship for travelers who rely on Nablus for basic services and also for villagers who are blocked from their farmland. Sixty-six thousand people are affected.

It's even worse for the 300,000 Ramallah district residents in a city that's the West Bank's seat of government because Israel denies East Jerusalem that status. In addition, after undo restrictions and hardships caused many Palestinian entrepreneurs to leave Nablus and the northern West Bank, Ramallah developed into the Territory's cultural and economic center. Obstructions, checkpoints and the Separation Wall demarcate the area and combined make movement just as hard as throughout the rest of the West Bank.

It's the same for Jericho's 40,000 residents. In addition, for 10,000 of them in the north in the besieged Jordan Valley, they're separated from the city, and for those in the east there's another obstacle - 19 km of trenches and land east of it that's a closed military area.

The South section's splitting has been less conspicuous, but it hasn't made movement easier. Most notably since September 2000, have been restrictions in Route 60's southern section that runs the entire length of the southern West Bank and is this subsection's principal roadway. Access roads to the Route are now blocked, over time some have been eased, but use of the road remains limited.

Most harmed are residents in towns and villages in Hebron's southern area. To reach the city, they must use long, winding, beat-up roads that are no substitute for decent ones. Once the Separation Wall is completed east of the Efrat and Gush Atzion settlements, Route 60's northern quarter in the South section will be on the Wall's Israeli side and completely off-limits to Palestinians. As a result, Bethlehem will be separated from Jerusalem as well as the main road to Hebron with all the hardships that will create.

Consider how they affect Hebron. It's the only Palestinian West Bank city (other than East Jerusalem that Israel annexed in 1967) with an Israeli settlement in its center. Because of it, the IDF created a contiguous strip of land through the city over which Palestinian vehicles are prohibited. It runs from the Kiryat Arba settlement in the east to the Palestinian Tel Rumeida neighborhood in the west, and in many sections along its center, Palestinian pedestrians are banned. The main Shuhada Street is most affected. In addition, the strip blocks Hebron's main north-south artery harming the entire Palestinian population.

Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea restrictions involve the use of Route 90 that runs the entire length of the section. Israel operates five checkpoints here for control. Only public transportation and vehicles with special permits may pass. That frees the Route for settlers and Israelis traveling between Jerusalem and the Beit She'an Valley, the Sea of Galilee, or the Galilee area in the north. It also allows the IDF to use large Jordan Valley sections as fire-exercise zones and close off much of their water and grazing areas to Palestinians.

Dozens of non-contiguous "seam-zone" enclaves are also affected. The Separation Wall separates them by winding back and forth between the Green Line and deep into the West Bank. They all contain Palestinian farmland on the barrier's Israeli side. Some also include villages where 30,000 Palestinians live. Because they aren't connected, crossing from one subsection to another at best is hard and at worst impossible. It forces travelers to cross the Wall twice with all the hardships that entails. Further, since permits are for one enclave only, entering another one requires a second permit.

The Separation Wall then can be divided into five sections plus the Jerusalem area, and each one contains separate enclaves. Combined they form a crazy quilt isolation pattern with physical obstacles and human repression used against a defenseless civilian population.

Internal community and farmland enclaves are affected as well but not by having to pass through the Wall or obtain permits. However, roads that used to connect them have been closed making travel times longer and more complicated. When completed, the Wall's route will create 13 non-contiguous internal enclaves for about 240,000 Palestinians in dozens of towns and villages.

East Jerusalem is the final section. Israeli Arabs with identity cards may move about fairly freely with one notable exception. It's the use of temporary checkpoints (so-called "collection" ones) to collect resident tax debts. They operate a few hours at a time on main neighborhood roads where Israeli Police (usually Border Police) provide security along with tax officials to do the collecting. Police stop cars, collectors do the rest, but never to Jerusalem's Jewish residents.

Harm to Palestinians' Fabric of Life

West Bank separation and division inflicts great harm to Palestinians' fabric of life in the short and longer term. This section examines how.

First consider health as a fundamental human right and how restricting movement affects it. Ill persons needing treatment are greatly impeded reaching medical centers. The quality and availability of service is hampered as well by delaying or restricting physicians and staff. First aid crews also aren't able to reach the sick and injured quickly. Even when situations aren't life threatening, movement restrictions increase morbidity chances and may shorten a life span.

Overall, West Bank Palestinians have limited or no access to medical care, and residents of villages and outlying areas are most gravely affected. Then consider so-called "risk profile" people being denied passage through checkpoints. Another example is persons needing a permit for access to Jerusalem hospital treatment. To get one, patients must provide medical documents testifying to their illness and confirming their appointment at a specific hospital.

The situation is especially problematic for pregnant women when their time to deliver approaches and their hospital is in Jerusalem. Permits are valid only for one or two days, as it is for all ill persons, but the moment when it's needed is uncertain. They must thus be continually renewed, and there are times when it's impossible. It thus forces mothers to give birth at checkpoints because they're denied passage through them.

In 1996, the Physicians for Human Rights petitioned the State Attorney's office for relief and nominally got it - to allow passage through checkpoints without permits in cases of medical emergency so ill persons can be treated. All checkpoint locations are supposed to comply, but it turns out they don't. Soldiers don't treat Palestinians kindly, are unresponsive to their needs, and are untrained medically to recognize emergencies.

Patients encounter other obstacles as well. Their travel is slowed by having to use long, winding and worn roads; they're sometimes blocked causing long delays; they have no access to ambulances or other transportation; must pass through checkpoints when they do or by foot; be up against closed ones; be forced to wait at open ones; and undergo searches.

These problems make people more dependent on first aid that can't cope in emergency cases where special expertise is required. At times, long distances are involved, and when need is greatest, it means lives are endangered. This is what Palestinians endure daily.

Movement restrictions also affect hospitals, especially East Jerusalem ones that are considered the OPT's best because they provide services unavailable elsewhere in the Territories. East Jerusalem's separation from the rest of the West Bank and needing a permit to enter is the problem. It affects staff and patients with the situation at al-Makassed Hospital typical. Twelve of its workers live outside the city and are classified "prevented entry." They have no permits. Even workers with them face long checkpoint delays or their closure when Israel wishes.

Restricting free movement also impacts health care professionals from developing their skills through in-service training. Students as well are affected, are unable to complete their studies or receive a lower professional training degree. It places Palestinians needing medical care in a hopeless situation. They're unable to move freely or receive expert care if they can.

B'Tselem's report is on the West Bank. Gaza is another matter, and since Israel's June 2007 siege, 130 in the Territory have died because they couldn't be treated. Their deaths are in addition to the hundreds of others from near daily incursions that continue without letup.

Movement restrictions also greatly affect the OPT's economy and trade. Post-September 2000, it's been in deep depression. GDP has declined around 40%, unemployment stands at about 80%, and the poverty level is punishing. It's how Israel and Washington planned it to bring the Territories to their knees and demand surrender as the price for relief.

At present, look how working conditions and transport of goods are affected. Palestinians could once travel freely outside their communities to jobs. No longer, and many lost out and have no means of employment. Employers as well are affected. They lost workers, had to scale back their operations or shut them down entirely.

The same hardships apply to transporting goods. They can no longer move freely, permits are required, they're hard to get, travel times are longer even with them, at much greater cost, and an example is trade between Nablus and Ramallah. The cost is fourfold what it was in 2002, the result is greatly reduced trade, it's forced merchants to concentrate more on their own communities and those nearby, and the result is far less commerce overall that severely impacts everyone.

Here's what's involved to move goods between Nablus and East Jerusalem:

-- permits are needed;

-- a quota restricts the number;

-- goods allowed to be transported endure the so-called "back-to-back" method; at point of shipment they're loaded; then stopped at a checkpoint; unloaded; inspected by mechanical scanner, manually, and/or by dogs; they're then reloaded on another truck for delivery;

-- damage is frequent because of extra handling and Israelis aren't too gentle about it;

-- delays are the rule and they're costly;

-- transport requires passing through other checkpoints and repeating the whole procedure again that may be more or less stringent depending on the whims of inspectors;

-- when the Separation Wall is completed, transport will be even harder and its cost greater.

Tourism is also affected. Between the Oslo Accords and September 2000, cities like Bethlehem were desired destinations. No longer because of difficulties getting there and how hard it is to move around. The result is privately owned tourist sites throughout the West Bank have closed or have greatly cut back. An example is the Barahameh family's park in al-Badhan, a village 10 km north of Nablus. Getting there from Ramallah means passing through four permanent checkpoints plus whatever flying ones are up for the day. The result is wasted hours to spend a day at the park, and most tourists won't do it.

Small businesses like stores, souvenir shops and restaurants are also impacted. Many close down or operate at a fraction of their former levels. A World Bank West Bank report cites movement restrictions and their costs as two major obstacles affecting a healthy Palestinian economy.

They affect farming as well in areas like the Jordan Valley and "seam zone." Agriculture is an important source of Palestinians' income. Farmers need permits for it in these areas. Many are denied and their livelihoods destroyed or greatly impacted. Farm workers are also affected. They, too, need permits, but even having them means putting up with long travel times and exhausting days. Many workers won't do it it so farmers lose a vital work force and the ability to grow their crops productively.

Farmer and merchant Husni Muhammad 'Adb a-Rahman Sawafteh is an example of what others like him endure:

-- he lives, works and farms in Tubas; he and his brothers have a house and 250 dunams of land in Bardala, a northern Jordan Valley village; they also have livestock;

-- to reach Bardala, they must pass through Tayasir checkpoint; doing it involves "much difficulty;" it affects their workers as well;

-- to sell their produce, they need to reach Bardala, but the hardship forces Sawafteh to manage things by phone; it's inadequate because it's vital to be current on prices and dealer payments that requires being in Bardala to do it;

-- sometimes he can't be for a month; the result is dealers send "payment on account" and pay less than the amount owed; their back due debts accumulate; being there is essential to handle things; when he can't do it, he hasn't enough money for materials to fertilize the land and grow crops;

-- caring for the livestock is another problem; they need daily care; Sawafteh had to build a new Tubas farm to do it, but it was lacking; Tubas hasn't enough grazing land so the flock can't do it daily as they need to; he thus has to buy them food; it's an additional expense he can't afford;

-- he and other farmers have an additional problem as well; they need permits for themselves but also for their tractors and farm vehicles; it forces most of them to go long distances on foot or donkeys;

-- it also restricts what crops can be grown; restrictions forced farmers like Sawafteh to forgo higher revenue-generating ones like tomatoes and cucumbers and switch to less labor intensive ones like wheat;

-- some farmers give up altogether and let their land lie fallow rather than risk economic failure or work under onerous conditions.

Family and social life are also affected. Palestinian community life is based on extended familial ties even though members don't often live in the same towns and villages. Movement restrictions and inability to get permits prevent their ability to see each other, and it's especially felt in the "seam zone," Jordan Valley and Nablus under siege.

Ni'ma 'Ali Salameh Abu Sahara from Nablus is a case in point:

-- her daughter married and moved to the Jordan Valley;

-- no one has been able to see her, not even during holidays, because "the army doesn't let us cross the Hamra checkpoint;"

-- she wasn't able to visit her first grandson and only saw him two months after his birth when her daughter visited her;

-- her daughter just had a second child by Caesarean section; Abu Sahara went to the checkpoint to get through to see her; soldiers refused to let her pass; she begged them; they still refused; Abu Sahara "went home and cried."

This story and many others like it are commonplace, and it's caused the splitting up of nuclear families. Students leave parents to be near school. Wage earners and tradesmen leave families to be close to work. The ill live in cities to be near essential medical care facilities. From the time they leave homes to whenever they try to return, they encounter problems. For most Palestinians, they're painful to impossible.

Restrictions prevent routine family gatherings as well as special ones like weddings, funerals, and caring for the sick. Palestinians once could take vacations, and a favorite spot was the northern Dead Sea area with its 25 km of coastline. No longer. The 'Ein Fascha nature reserves there (one of the most popular recreational sites) are now operated by Israel's Nature Reserves and Parks Authority for Jews only.

Movement restrictions affect all facets of daily life, including basic services and law enforcement - urban infrastructure, social services, mail, governance, rescue operations, electricity and gas, water, and locally-based security. When breakdowns occur and repairs are needed or other vital services have to be performed, district government employees get no preferential treatment crossing checkpoints to handle them. The result is long delays fixing essential public services or dealing with problems like medical emergencies.

"Fabric of life" roads for Palestinians are also affected, including the way they were built. They're on expropriated private land, inefficiently use public property, and take other Palestinian land for the Separation Wall. An example is a road Israel built between the village of Shufa (south of Tulkarm) and a-Ras, northeast of the Sal'it settlement. Israel took village lands for it - from Far'on, a-Ras and 'Izbat Shufa. To connect the two district seats, Israel seized private land, destroyed olive and citrus orchards on them, asked no permission to do it, and paid no compensation for the losses.

Israel unilaterally chooses routes for new roads, Palestinians' interests aren't considered, and injuries and losses they incur get no redress. They're also harmed in other ways. Roads often demarcate villages, they limit their ability to build and expand for their growing populations, their costs outweighs their benefits, the harm affects whole communities, and it's long-term.

Restrictions on Free Movement from the Perspective of International Law

Besides Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international humanitarian law, the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is very clear about free movement. Its Article 12 states:

1. "Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within the territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

Besides legitimate national security and military necessity, restricting free movement must meet another requirement - proportionality. Under Israeli administrative law as well, the state must prove the legitimate necessity of restrictions, that security can't be achieved by less harmful means, and that the end result justifies the cost under international law. The UN Human Rights Committee states that the principle of proportionality requires that movement restrictions be incorporated in clear and justifiable legislation. Failure to do so violates international law under which Israel is accountable.

Israel claims justification for its occupation policies - that they're vital to secure its West Bank settlers as well as Israelis traveling on the Territory's roads. Clearly, the threat is real, but unasked is why. It's because of Israel's longstanding belligerency forcing Palestinians to respond in self-defense and at times take Israeli lives. There's no secret how to stop it, but Israel abjures - stop attacking Palestinians so they stop fighting back. Long ago it was that way before Palestine became Israel. Arabs and Jews lived peacefully at a time the population imbalance heavily favored Palestinians and the great Jewish immigration wave hadn't begun.

Today, it's another matter, Israel manufactures its own security problem, then unjustifiably claims the right to react, and in the process, inflict great harm on a mostly-civilian population. Its actions are unrelated to security, are entirely political and stem from its annexation aims - to seize the West Bank's most valued areas, remove the Palestinian population, and resettle them in isolated cantons unconnected to the others except by a crazy quilt patchwork of obstructive checkpoints, barriers, and hard to traverse road network.

Israel acts illegally on occupied lands, and its draconian restrictions follow as a result. They're less for security and mainly to let settlers (on stolen land) move around freely. They're heavily protected, isolated from their Arab neighbors, able to travel on for-Jews only roads, live in Jewish-only communities, and get all the conveniences of a modern state that denies them to non-Jews in a country claiming to be a model democracy.

All West Bank settlements are illegal under international law. So is the main road network forbidden to Palestinians that's built on annexed land. Israel's justifications are unfounded. Security is a non-starter. So is the claim that it's to protect against terrorist attacks that are, in fact, self-defense measures in an unfair fight. Palestinians are matched against the world's fourth most powerful military that flexes its muscles by attacking civilians and claims its occupation is just. International law says otherwise, but Israel ignores it.

It also acts disproportionately. It fails the test by all measures:

-- there's no rational connection between the harm restrictions cause and Israel's declared security objective; independent security and human rights experts concur on this; their view is that there's a converse relationship between restrictions imposed and security desired; the greater the former, the less of the latter;

-- a second failure is the lack of an alternative that causes less harm to achieve a security goal; in some instances, Israel admitted it hasn't used other methods that would have caused less harm; the Separation Wall is the clearest example of a measure causing great harm with little payback except for confiscated land; after that, the Wall is purely punitive and the Palestinian response justifiable anger;

-- a third failure is the lack of a proper relationship between the harm caused and security benefit gained; whatever reasons Israel claims for its policy, it must still justify that it acted in proper proportion to the benefit achieved; sweeping and protracted West Bank restrictions clearly fail the test; they affect all aspects of Palestinians' lives, infringe on their human rights and deny them the right to family life, health, education, work, and all else Israelis take for granted and get; and in cases of Nablus under siege, the effects are much worse on a locked-down population; there's no justification for causing so much harm for whatever benefits Israel claims to be getting; they're disproportionately way out of whack.

Israel also imposes its might without military legislation or written orders. For measures this far-reaching and causing so much harm, orders are merely passed down the chain of command verbally with lots of latitude on their implementation on the ground no matter how harsh. Such a system begs for abuse, and that's exactly what happens repeatedly.

Without official restrictions in writing, it's near impossible to monitor how the IDF administers them or judge what's right or wrong. By its policy, Israel has, in fact, given the army unlimited latitude, made it unaccountable, and instituted a system guaranteed to punish and abuse.

Under international humanitarian law, it's a system of strictly prohibited collective punishment. Article 50 of the Hague Regulations states: "No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible."

Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited." The UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (quoted above) concurs. So do all independent human rights experts.

Israel claims it acts to deter, not collectively punish, but evidence on the ground proves otherwise. The vast majority of Palestinians affected are innocent civilians, they're suspected of nothing, they're made to endure great suffering, and Israel's actions have been imposed continuously and repressively for over seven and a half years plus the punitive effects of 41 years under occupation.

These are actions of one ethnic group against another, thus constituting another international law violation. It's prohibited by the 1966 (UN General Assembly-adopted) Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that Israel ratified in 1979. Article 1.1 defines racial discrimination as follows:

"Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

Article 5(d)(1) gives every person the right of free movement within the borders of the state without discrimination. Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits all measures that discriminate solely on the basis of race, color, sex, language, religion, or social origin. Israel violates all of the above. Its claims otherwise hold no water and are, in fact, convoluted. It denies legitimate citizens their legal rights on their own land, but provides preferential treatment for illegal settlers in stark breach of the law.

Conclusion

Israel's repressive measures force West Bank Palestinians to live in a constant state of uncertainty, prevent them from making plans, deny them their basic rights, harm them when emergencies arise, and overall consign their lives to the will and whims to an illegal occupier.

Beyond the immediate harm that's considerable, the West Bank's geographical division causes severe long-term detriment to the entire Palestinian fabric of life - affecting their economic, political and social welfare. The result is an entire nation locked down, punished for being unwanted and in the way, and denied their right of self-determination and free movement on their own land.

Israel's justification is fraudulent on its face, yet goes unchallenged by the world community as well as by neighboring Arab states. Shamefully and willfully, they turn a blind eye to a human calamity they won't confront and denounce publicly as illegal and unacceptable.

B'Tselem has no such hesitancy. It ends its report by calling on Israel to:

-- "immediately remove all the permanent and sweeping restrictions on movement inside the West Bank (including the Separation Wall ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice). In their place, Israel should" protect its citizens along the Green Line and inside the Jewish state according to the rule of law;

-- "act immediately to evacuate all the settlements in the West Bank. Until this is done, Israel" has every right to protect its settlers security, but not to the detriment of the Palestinian people who are the lawful occupants of their own land; and

-- "verify, before any temporary restriction....is approved (while settlements remain in place)," that it's "needed for a legitimate security purpose and that the resultant harm to the Palestinian population will be proportionate," according to international law. Restrictions in place "must be incorporated in a written order that specifies the nature of the restriction and the period of time it will remain in force."

Until Israel takes these measures and begins ending its 41 year occupation, it will continue violating international law and remain in violation of dozens of UN resolutions condemning it for its actions, deploring it for committing them, and demanding they be ended. So far, Israel shows no signs of complying and continues acting with impunity, arrogance and defiance of the rule of law it disdains.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8806