By Nour Samaha

A legal opinion recently leaked to Al Jazeera highlighting serious ramifications for Palestinians’ planned bid for statehood at the UN in September has created further divisions between ”pro” and “anti” statehood camps, with each side claiming the other is damaging future prospects for the Palestinians.

The leaked opinion, written by Oxford University law professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, was designed to ”flag the matters requiring attention, if a substantial proportion of the people are not to be accidentally disenfranchised”.

Representation of Palestinian rights may be jeopardised with the bid, as the legal status of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO), the sole representative of the Palestinians, will be transferred to the State of Palestine. This transfer raises questions regarding the constitution, capacity, and legitimacy.

Supporters of the bid for statehood claim the opinion is ill-researched and full of misinformation, aimed at creating fear within the Palestinian diaspora to prevent them from supporting such a bid.

Francis Boyle, a professor of international law and the legal advisor to the PLO and Yasser Arafat when the group pushed forward its Declaration of Independence in 1987, dismissed Goodwin-Gill’s opinion, calling it a “completely shoddy piece of work”.

“My understanding is that he is not an expert on international law, and he knows nothing about the Palestinians or the constitutional framework of the PLO, or its relationship to the PA (Palestinian Authority),”  Boyle told Al Jazeera. “I feel very strongly about this, since I’ve been advising the PLO on this matter since 1987, and I want all the Palestinians to know that there is no basis to any of his concerns, that the PLO will continue, and it will not be disenfranchised.”

Professor Boyle said he set up the 1988 Declaration of Independence so as all Palestinians “living anywhere in the world” would automatically become citizens of a UN member state, “and thus recognised, as citizens of Palestine by the UN and all member nations,” except for the US, Israel, and probably Canada.

“So the Palestinians will no longer be stateless, and this would entitle all Palestinians living everywhere to apply for passports from Palestine,” he added. While they may be able to travel on these passports, he said holding such a passport does not guarantee entrance into a country, as that is dependent on the visa regulations between the state of Palestine and the nation state in question.

‘Questionable statehood bid’

There are those, however, who fully support the leaked opinion, claiming that it further emphasises the illegitimacy of the Palestinian Authority as a true representative of the Palestinian people.

“Gill’s opinion sheds much-needed light on the legal implications of the Palestinian Authority’s questionable statehood bid, and does a good job of identifying the Palestinian Authority as an illegitimate representative of the Palestinians, ” Andrew Dalack, spokesperson for the United States Palestinian Community Network, told Al Jazeera.

“Gill’s analysis exposes the Palestinian Authority for having abandoned the revolutionary and rights-oriented platform that was previously embraced and nurtured by the Palestine Liberation Movement,” Dalack said. “Clearly, the Palestinian Authority has both overshot its mandate and seeks to use the statehood bid as an opportunity to salvage whatever is left of the Oslo-inspired political body.”

Professor Goodwin-Gill’s opinion challenged the mandate of the PA, asking whether as a body it has the authority and legitimacy to move towards statehood.

“By definition, it does not have the capacity to assume greater powers, to ‘dissolve’ its parent body, or otherwise to establish itself independently of the Palestinian National Council and the PLO,” Goodwin-Gill wrote.

The PLO was officially established in 1965, when a number of different Palestinian groups and factions came together. The legislative body of the PLO is the Palestinian National Council (PNC), predominantly made up of individuals living outside of the Occupied Territories. The governing body is the PLO’s Executive Committee, made up of members elected by the PNC. It is the PLO which is the sole representative of the Palestinians worldwide.

Within the 1993 Oslo Accords, a US brokered peace process which was never implemented, the PLO established what it deemed to be a temporary administrative body, the PA, to govern over the West Bank and Gaza only. The PA’s legitimacy has since been called into question as Mahmoud Abbas remains its president, despite the experiation of his term.

Furthermore, the Palestinian diaspora with an estimated six million members, does not have a right to vote within PA elections. This leads critics to question the PA’s right to represent the Palestinians in the bid for statehood. It is the PA who is pushing forward the UN bid.

Questions over the Palestinian Authority’s legitimacy have become the crux of the debate for the diaspora. “We’re not against the principle of statehood, but it really comes down to who do we empower, as Palestinians in the diaspora and inside Palestine, to speak on our behalf, and the PA is not in that position,” Dalack said. “What they are doing is arbitrary, and we see it as a tactic to salvage their political position.”

The United States Palestinian Community Network has called for a mass rally prior to the September 20 UN vote, asking for people to come together and voice their opposition to the bid. “Any diplomatic initiatives, including the initiative at the United Nations this September, must preserve the status of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people at the United Nations and protect and advance our inalienable rights,” the statement said. “The current Statehood initiative does neither, and is therefore an unacceptable threat to the Palestinian national movement.”

Ambiguity over the bid

Professor Boyle argues against this tact claiming that through the Declaration of Independence which he penned, safeguards have been put in place ensuring that the PLO remains the representative of the Palestinians. “I set it up, and the PLO acted pursuant to my advice, that the PLO executive committee would act as the provisional government for the state of Palestine, and this was approved by the Palestinian National Council.”

Today, Palestine holds observer status at the UN. The state of Palestine at the UN is represented by the provisional government, which is the PLO executive committee. “If and when Palestine is upgraded to full member status, its government will be governed by the executive committee, so the PLO will still be the same as it is today,” Boyle said.

This is not enough for Dalak. “What if professor Boyle is wrong? What does it mean for millions of Palestinian refugees to all of a sudden become citizens of an arbitrary Palestinian state? Does the Palestinian Authority have the capacity to protect their rights? How can the PA declare a state over territory that it is hardly allowed to control in the first place?” he asked. “How can statehood precede the end of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land?”

“For us, the main concern is representation, and the Palestinian Authority has absolutely no mandate to go before the United Nations and request a state.”

Professor John Quigley, an expert in international law and the author of the recently published book titled The Statehood of Palestine, found Professor Goodwin-Gill’s opinion to be “not very reasoned,” and that there has been “too much attention on this particular opinion”.

“It doesn’t actually go into the advantages of if Palestine was a UN member, and how it may enhance the possibility of gaining better settlement in negotiations with Israel,” he told Al Jazeera. “I feel that as a member, Palestine would be in a stronger position to negotiate, much better than as a national liberation organisation, whose status is still uncertain.”

Although he does point out the uncertainty over how the bid is being presented in the UN, which has led to the divisions within the diaspora. “It is the PA who is putting the bid forward, but there is ambiguity over whether it is the PA or the PLO pushing for it,” he said, adding that in the bigger picture, “that shouldn’t keep anyone from supporting the general proposition of a member state and be beneficial for Palestinians everywhere.”

Furthermore, he felt it important to highlight that with regards to the authority of the PA and the PLO, “it is the PLO that set the path towards statehood and the UN membership in the 1988 declaration on statehood. That of course pre-dates the PA.”

Rights for the diaspora

Yet there are those who remain unconvinced. Ahmed Moor, a Palestinian journalist and activist, found that Goodwin-Gill’s opinion not only highlighted an issue that has been on the Palestinian political landscape for quite some time; the disenfranchising of the diaspora, but also explained the limited powers of the PA and how it has gone above and beyond its scope of authority. “[Goodwin-Gill] points out that the Palestinian Authority is a subsidiary body whose non-representative decisions are non-binding and illegitimate from both a political philosophy and a political reality perspective,” Moor told Al Jazeera.

It is this issue that regardless of any mandate placed two decades ago in preparation for this move, remains the primary objection in the bid for statehood. “It is clear to most people that the PA does not represent the Palestinians, does not take their concerns seriously, and does not respond to their calls for accountability,” said Mr Moor. “The diaspora position has been untenable for decades now. The rights of the Palestinians outside Palestine were diluted by Oslo. Moreover, their position has worsened as members of the PA became more effective at administering the occupation on Israel’s behalf.”

For Mr Moor, the diaspora should, “focus our resources on Palestine and the rehabilitation of the PLO. That is our prerogative. It is our responsibility to ensure that Israel, America and the PA don’t succeed in silencing our voices or minimising our demands,” Moor said.

Boyle is not convinced, stating that: “Once Palestine has UN membership, Palestine will be there forever. Once it gets statehood, the Zionists won’t be able to destroy them.”

He said the bid for statehood would be: “The greatest act of emancipation since Lincoln freed the slaves in America.”

Article and photo courtesy Al Jazeera English

Philip Giraldi, Executive Director, Council for the National Interest

The United States has long been on the receiving end of Israeli misbehavior. Israel invades Lebanon or Gaza, the US vetoes UN Security Council resolutions condemning civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure, and Washington winds up taking the blame for condoning Tel Aviv’s recklessness. Repeat that twenty times and it is no surprise that most of the world regards the United States as the enabler of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly cited American support of Israeli repression as one of his reasons for attacking the United States. Opinion polls taken in Muslim countries, where footage of Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is nightly fare on television, demonstrate sharp declines in the numbers of those who regard the US favorably. And the repeated application of the get out of jail free card to Israel has produced an insufferable arrogance in Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu, confident that the American dog will let itself be wagged by the Israeli tail whenever necessary. It invites more of the same, whether it is building more settlements, killing civilians in Gaza, or intercepting humanitarian missions on the high seas.

Not being held accountable ever has led to recklessness on the part of the Israelis and has further diminished America’s international reputation as it is increasingly seen as complicit in various outrages and even war crimes. In the Cast Lead invasion of Gaza in December 2008 Israel was able to unleash an enormous and sophisticated US-provided military arsenal against a largely helpless civilian population within which a small number of genuine Hamas militants concealed themselves. It was probably Israel’s most audacious defiance of international norms of behavior and the fact that it has escaped consequence-free suggests that history will soon repeat itself in the form of another assault on Hamas which will undoubtedly bring in its wake a large number of civilian casualties and further destruction of schools, hospitals, homes, and businesses.

This time Judge Richard Goldstone, who was commissioned by the United Nations to head a group of four jurists asked to write a report on Cast Lead, has to be seen as an enabler of any possible future conflict. Let us assume for a moment that Goldstone, who was under tremendous pressure from international Jewry, was actually sincere in his recent recantation regarding Israeli war crimes in Gaza. His first report for the United Nations asserted that Israel and Hamas had both been guilty of war crimes, but that the devastation produced by Israel far exceeded anything accomplished by Hamas. Israeli crimes included destroying clearly identified schools, hospitals, and United Nations food warehouses. White phosphorous artillery shells were used against civilian targets, generally regarded as completely unacceptable by most of the world’s militaries. It was collective punishment time with Israel’s Deputy Defense Minister declaring “The Palestinians are going to bring upon themselves a Holocaust.”

The UN report details how civilians were shot down when trying to surrender to advancing Israeli soldiers. Mostly civilians died, possibly as many as 1,000, including at least 300 children. The Goldstone report concluded that Israel had initiated a “deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate, and terrorize a civilian population.” It also called for the behavior of both Israel and Hamas to be thoroughly investigated in both Gaza and Israel and that the issue of possible war crimes be referred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for adjudication. But as the Goldstone report must first be referred to the court by the UN Security Council, a veto by the US to halt the proceedings is more-or-less a given.

In the more than two years since Cast Lead neither Israel nor Hamas has seriously investigated any aspects of it, and several independent reviews have concluded that Israel, which basically lets its army investigate itself, is institutionally incapable of an objective inquiry. The Israeli Defense Forces officer who oversaw the killing of 29 members of one Palestinian family has not been charged or even investigated. One soldier received a seven-month prison sentence for stealing a credit card while another who used a Palestinian child as a shield received a three-month suspended sentence.

Now Goldstone would have one believe that it is his modified viewpoint that Israel did not deliberately target the civilians, the only issue that he is seeking to “reconsider” in the 575 page report. That presumably means that there is no order on paper in his possession indicating that to be the intention. And since Goldstone has had no access to any official Israeli sources of information as Tel Aviv did not cooperate in the inquiry, even that conclusion can presumably be challenged. One has to suspect that Goldstone has bowed to pressure, possibly including Israel’s recent creation of a branch of military intelligence that has been tasked with seeking out and confronting individuals and groups suspected of “delegitimizing” Israel abroad. That knock on the door might be a magazine salesman or it might be a friendly IDF representative with a warning.

Israel has been increasing the pressure on Gaza over the past month and many believe that the reprieve provided by Goldstone will give the green light to another major incursion. Prime Minister Netanyahu has threatened to use all necessary force to stop the missiles being fired into Israel from Gaza, while other government officials and military sources suggest that another invasion of Gaza is being planned, possibly for next month. The Gazan authorities have declared a cease-fire, which apparently is holding from their side, but Israeli artillery barrages have continued. The tit-for-tat between Hamas in Gaza and Israel began, in fact, with the Israeli targeted killing of five Palestinians in Gaza between April 1st and 5th. Hamas retaliated on the 7th by firing mortars into Israel and Israel responded immediately with artillery that killed five Palestinians. Over the weekend, Israel killed thirteen more Gazans with artillery and rocket strikes. When Israel kills civilians, they are invariably described as terrorists.

If Israel unleashes its military on Gaza many Arab civilians will die and it is the United States that again will ultimately pay the piper. Congress will immediately support Israel, claiming that it has the right to defend itself and the mainstream media will also be on board. Even if the White House knows it is Israel that is cranking up the fighting, it too will quickly cave in and make itself available to stop any contrary resolution in the UN Security Council. American prestige in the Middle East will be mired in the single digits and the ability of Washington to act effectively in any country in the region if a vital interest seriously is threatened will be nullified. Judge Richard Goldstone might feel that he has mended fences with his coreligionists, but he has a lot to answer for among those who believe that truth and accountability truly matter.

(Courtesy Philip Giraldi and Antiwar.com)

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik

by Michael Gillespie

Speaking at a press conference aired nationally several hours after a mentally unstable young man killed six people and wounded 19 during an assassination attempt in which U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head in Tucson, AZ on Saturday, January 8, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik expressed the concerns and sentiments of many Americans regarding violence in media, cultural decline, and the dangerously divisive tone and content of our political discourse.

“I think it’s time as a country that we need to do a little soul-searching, because I think the vitriolic rhetoric that we hear day in and day out from people in the radio business and some people in the TV business and what we see on TV and how our youngsters are being raised, that this has not become the nice United States of America that most of us grew up in. And I think it’s time that we do the soul-searching,” said Dupnik.

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government, the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous. And, unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the Mecca for prejudice and bigotry. … All I can tell you is that there is reason to believe that this individual may have a mental issue, and I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol,” said Dupnik.

Toward the end of press conference, Dupnik reiterated his criticism of inflammatory media programming: “Let me just say one thing, because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech. But it’s not without consequences.”

Dupnik, a sheriff for 30 years and an Arizona law enforcement officer for more than 50 years, directly addressed elements of a socially-destabilizing dynamic at the center of American cultural and political life. He was not the first to do so, and the questions Dupnik raised are not new ones. In her book, Mayhem: Violence as Public Entertainment, published in 1998 during a series of 15 school shootings across the USA that took more than 40 lives between 1995 and 2000, Sissela Bok noted, “The United States has the highest levels of homicide of any advanced industrial nation in the world.”

“Is it alarmist or merely sensible to ask about what happens to the souls of children nurtured, as in no past society, on images of rape, torture, bombings, and massacre that are channeled into their homes from infancy?” asked Bok, who received her B.A. and M.A. in psychology from George Washington University in 1957 and 1958, and her Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1970.

Formerly a Professor of Philosophy at Brandeis University, Bok is currently a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard School of Public Health. The accomplished philosopher and ethicist hoped for a wide-ranging debate about the mass marketing of violence as entertainment, a public discussion that would lead to effective remedies and a reduction in gun violence. As evidenced by continued high levels of gun violence in America, including a school shooting at Virginia Tech in April 2007 that took 32 lives, despite a general reduction in crime rates, that discussion never quite seems to find purchase or result in any significant reduction of violent programming in media. Instead, by many standards our nation falls ever more obviously into decline, becomes more and more violent, and our politics are increasingly polarized, more divisive than at any time since the Civil War.

Most Right-wing Big Media talk show celebrities and pundits, including Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Republican 2008 Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, mightily offended by Dupnik’s remarks, responded defensively and angrily during the following days as a media frenzy developed. Limbaugh, Beck, Palin, and others who fan the flames of angry political rhetoric have a lot to lose should Americans lift themselves out of their Big-Media-induced paralysis and demand effective action based on the sheriff’s concerns. Media giant Clear Channel pays Limbaugh about $38 million per year. That amount doesn’t include his income from speaking engagements, the stock market, or other investments. Beck’s annual income from Fox News, Premier Radio Networks, Simon and Schuster, and other sources has been reported to be some $32 million. Palin, who quit her job as governor of Alaska to pursue a lucrative career in Big Media, signed a multi-year contract with Fox News and is reported to have earned some $12 million since deciding that she didn’t want to become “a lame duck.” Those millions, a mere fraction of the amount of loot Limbaugh and Beck earn for inciting fear and loathing, is about one hundred times what Palin would have earned had she remained governor of Alaska.

“Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them,” said Palin on January 12, denying any connection between media violence, talk radio vitriol, and gun violence.

The vast majority of media figures involved in what is called the public discussion have chosen to ignore the issue of violence in media programming, preferring instead to cast doubt on any suggestion of a causative link between overheated political rhetoric and the Tucson shooting while focusing on mental illness and questions about gun control legislation.

On January 11, one of the nation’s most accomplished former law enforcement administrators, one whose area of expertise is motivation and behavior, commented on the issue of violent media programming and angry political rhetoric.

“I’ve been asked this question about the movies and the media and the negative impact of violence in these areas, which is much more profound and significant than a little political rhetoric,” said Roger Depue, a 21-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and a former chief of the FBI’s Behavioral Sciences Unit, during an interview conducted by Charlie Rose.

“What I basically say is, ‘Most people can handle it. Most people can deal with it, normal, stable individuals, they can see it for what it is, and they can deal with it. But if a person is predisposed, or if he is psychotic, or if he is having these dangerous fantasies and something like that comes along, it can trigger, it can cause him to go off in that direction,’” said Depue.

Though two of the nation’s most experienced law enforcement professionals, one at the local level and the other at the national level, voiced grave concern about violent media programming and its socially destabilizing effects in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, when President Barack Obama spoke in Tucson at the memorial service for the victims on January 12, he told the nation, “… none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired.”

As the President’s remarks suggest, it is most unlikely that what will pass for a national public discussion of violent media programming and bitter political rhetoric will, in reality, be wide-ranging, meaningful, or productive.

America has become the most violent nation on earth and one of the most repressive. Even a cursory examination of the relevant statistical studies provides ample evidence. Though it incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens than any other country, the USA leads the wealthy nations of the world in gun deaths, murders, suicides, and accidental shootings, according to a 1998 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Another long-term CDC study found that while “the overall annual death rate for U.S. children aged less than 15 years declined substantially [primarily as a result of decreases in death associated with disease] during the same period, childhood homicide rates tripled, and suicide rates quadrupled.” The study of 26 high-income countries found that the overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined; the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher; and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher.

Why, one might ask, with this information widely available, do Americans not rise up and demand action to reduce violence in media programming, vitriolic political debate, and gun violence? The short answer is surprisingly simple—Big Media and Big Politics prevent a productive public discussion and the implementation of necessary reforms.  What the public will get instead is what it has always gotten in the past, a seeming sincere but brief and superficial debate designed to protect the status quo.  Real reform that would save lives might also negatively affect the profitability of criminally irresponsible Big Media corporations that are heavily dependent on ever more violent programming.

American life and culture are increasingly characterized by violence not because it must be so, but because Big Media corporations very deliberately make it so. Modern American life is saturated with violent entertainment fare produced by Big Media corporations that subject audiences to a relentless and ever-present barrage of media violence. Violent entertainment programming on screens of all sizes is enormously lucrative and socially destabilizing. Violent media programming is designed and carefully crafted to be exciting and especially attractive to younger, immature, politically and socially naive audiences. Typically combined with salacious story lines and images, media violence speeds up the heart rate and has an addictive quality, which allows corporations to capture and to hold the attention of large audiences, which are sold to advertisers for huge amounts of money.

Most violent media programming is freighted with political messages and content crafted to suit the agendas of powerful and influential special interest groups. Perhaps the most egregious example is the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias that has long been prevalent in Big Media entertainment and news—also known as infotainment—programming. Audiences thus accustomed to and enamored of the notion that violence is the response of first choice in challenging situations are far less likely to question their government’s unnecessary, illegal, and immoral wars abroad, or the “collateral damage”, torture, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and other war crimes that characterize neoconservative foreign policy. Big Media reporters, editors, and producers are trained to self-censor, to avoid information not in sync with the prevailing ethos of the Congressional-military-industrial-media-security-intelligence complex, to cooperate with the retired generals who serve as pundits in Big Media venues where they invariably publicize the Pentagon’s talking points while promoting the latest high-tech weapons system. So-called “defense industry” corporations work hand-in-glove with Big Media corporations, and indeed many of the largest are or have been jointly-owned and operated.

Though it desensitizes vast audiences to violence, few politicians object to the ubiquitous use of socially-destabilizing sexualized violence in entertainment media product because their political campaigns, which are enormously expensive, take place largely if not exclusively in Big Media environments. To say the least, politicians hesitate to criticize or attempt to regulate the powerful industry that controls the venues in which their political fortunes are decided. No critical, meaningful, productive public discussion of media violence or vitriolic political discourse—much of which is more about entertainment and partisan politics than about news—can take place in Big Media venues where it would be moderated by wealthy celebrity propagandists in the employ of Big Media corporations that control the public airways and use them with little or no regard for any legitimate public interest or the common good. Thus Americans are treated to the spectacle of our president ever so carefully tip-toeing around senior and former senior law enforcement professionals’ plainly stated, well-informed, and realistic concerns about the socially-destabilizing and too often deadly effects of media violence and violent political rhetoric.

Thus our country, our culture, and our economy deteriorate as Big Corporations wax fat, while our bankrupt and increasingly corrupt government lurches drunkenly into history, the most violent and destructive force on the planet, for now.

Crown thy good with brotherhood?

Or, How the mighty are fallen.

By: Frank Scott

Our heads are filled with stories about the danger of trillions of dollars in debt and deficits with little if any mention of the real problem they represent. It is not the debt but what we are indebted for that threatens the future of our nation. If we owed hundreds of trillions of dollars – which may soon be the case – and every American was employed, housed, educated, cared for without question in time of ill health or economic need and safe from warfare and violence from inside the nation or out, such debt would not be any problem at all.
Borrowing today and paying back tomorrow shouldn’t mean we lavishly spend most of the borrowed money on weapons, waste, cosmetics and pets, causing us to scrimp on health, education and social life while complaining that we have too much debt. We have to control our spending on things only a minority of us actually want or really need, and begin changing priorities to satisfy the shared needs and wants of the great majority. This can’t happen under the domain of forces that mislead us into social divisions that exaggerate differences and minimize similarities to protect a perverse commodity culture and a degenerate political order that defines minority rule as democracy.
The present renewal of the drive to dismantle Social Security and turn it over to private profiteers is one among many of the lies and distortions offered as solutions for our problems which will only make them much worse. Increasing budgets for inhuman war and decreasing budgets for human service only make sense to anti-social forces which profit from divide and conquer policies. These reduce Americans, especially the working majority, to special interest and identity groups whose common cause is sacrificed to private competition while ruling minorities practice a lucrative socialism at their expense.
Our imposed common condition of privately shaped ignorance needs to become a liberated common cause of social democracy in order to transform our economy before it transforms us into a totally failed society.
All people need housing, safe communities, health care, education, transportation and the free time necessary to pursue interests other than simply working to maintain those needs. But we are socialized to accept a lack of any and all of those things for far too many of our number, believing that those who don’t have them are simply undeserving. This divisive condition is part of the political economy that replaces citizenship with consumerism and substitutes anti-social competition for social cooperation.
When people seek community in religious gatherings where they worship deities that call for solidarity and love among humanity, and leave those places to practice competitive individualism and economic warfare amongst themselves, the society in which they practice this split personality is suffering more than a collective mental disorder. That disorder is part of the economic foundation that is taught to us as a natural order of what is called god’s universe, except when god is being communed with at church, ashram, temple or other place of worship of the beautiful immaterial ideal in order to escape the ugly material reality. This fractured dualism makes it possible for a society to be in great debt in order to make war, create poverty and destroy the natural environment, while lacking the material and spiritual sustenance of life for a majority of the human community.
If we are all god’s children, as many believe, we need to stop treating some of our kin folk like excrement. The human family is dysfunctional under profit and loss rules in which values that sound good in words about love, compassion and brotherhood turn out to be deeds of hate, waste and mass murder. We cannot be ethical people practicing high minded morals in the midst of a collectively immoral economy that trashes ethical behavior with murderous attack on humans and all other parts of the natural environment.
The earth is treated as a profit making commodity and we see it erupting in gushers of oil that threaten far more than the profit margin of one petroleum company. Humans are treated as nothing more than commodities by the same system, and it cannot and should not be blamed on individual corporate CEOs or political and media gas bags who simply follow the systemic dictates of creating profit for some at the expense of all. That is the religion of the market under private control, creating benefit for a minority at enormous cost for the great majority. That cost is being reflected in greater numbers of personal lives as this economy suffers what is called a recession, but even more telling signs are revealed in the rapid breakdowns in life support systems that can no longer withstand the ravages of being treated like marketable commodities rather than what they are; the substance of our lives.
Nature is our nature and not some product which we can simply market and sell for profit at the mall. When we incur colossal debts in order to create massive destruction of nature, we are destroying the very substance of ourselves. That cannot go on and will only be changed by a motivated and informed public that demands service to humanity – itself – before service to a private commodity market. The growing numbers who profess that another world is possible are voicing the necessity, not just the possibility. We will have that other world or we will not have any world at all. And creating that future organism is worth going into far more debt than any we have incurred for generating this present grotesque antihuman and rapidly failing mechanism.

BY Rashad Al-Dabbagh
“What do Costa Migra Mayor Allan Mansoor and the city of Anaheim have in common? They both do a poor job of recognizing their Arabic heritage!” wrote Gabriel San Roman on the popular Orange Juice blog.

        Mansoor, who is currently running for California State Assembly’s 68^th district, is known for his tough anti-immigration stance as Costa Mesa Mayor.  He also tends to hide his Egyptian heritage. 

        The district – which includes all or parts of Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Westminster, Garden Grove, Stanton, Anaheim and Newport Beach – is home to a large Arab American community, interesting given that Mansoor tends to hide his Egyptian heritage. Though they are not known to be vocal, Arab Americans continue to grow rapidly in the cities that make up the district. Mansoor cannot afford to continue to ignore Arab Americans, let alone be ashamed of his Egyptian heritage as he tries to emphasize his Swedish half.

        So will Arab Americans stand aside or will they take action during November’s elections?

        Many view political newcomer Phu Nguyen, a Little Saigon businessman, as the right candidate to support. “Phu cares about us,” says Fountain Valley resident Alan Abdo. “Not too many candidates pay attention to the needs of the Arab American community, and Phu is one of few who are reaching out to us.”

        During the 2009 “Meet the Professionals” dinner held by the Network of Arab American Professionals of Orange County (NAAP-OC), keynote speaker Gustavo Arellano, known for his witty “Ask a Mexican!” column, expressed his disappointment the lack of Arab American involvement in Orange County politics.  During the 2008 elections, the only Arab American running for political office in Orange County was, sadly, Allan Mansoor, Arellano pointed out.

        The lack of Arab American participation in the Orange County political process will only further alienate the community. “There are perceived misunderstandings of the Arab American community that, in certain times, might lead to intolerance and prejudices,” Nguyen said in an interview with The Independent Monitor.  “The way to overcome these misunderstandings is to participate in politics so that you can have the voice and leverage to better educate people about Arab American issues.”

        It appears that this year, Arab Americans are more enthusiastic about the election, especially in Anaheim, where candidate Bill Dalati, an Arab American, is running for city council with high chances of winning.

        While Mansoor publicly refused to be called an “Egyptian American” on his own blog, Nguyen recognizes the value of cultural diversity. “We have a very diverse district … my opponent has chosen to take extremely anti-immigrant positions,” he said. In July 2005, Mansoor disbanded the 18-year old Costa Mesa Human Relations Committee, a group of volunteers who sought to promote peace and tolerance amongst communities and addresses acts of discrimination.

        Nguyen wants to bring communities together and is in touch with the diverse cultures in the district. He runs a family-owned money transfer business servicing the Vietnamese community in Little Saigon, and he supports NAAP-OC’s initiative to designate Anaheim’s Brookhurst corridor as “Little Arabia.”

        Phu is the breath of fresh air this district needs. If you live in the district, vote for him. If not, donate to his campaign or volunteer. I’m doing both. 

        To donate or volunteer, visit http://www.votephu.com.

By Amira Hass
The IDF’s Civil Administration destroyed a Palestinian village Monday morning that had earlier been cleared out when its water supply was cut off.
The IDF demolished about 55 structures in the West Bank village of Farasiya, including tents, tin shacks, plastic and straw huts, clay ovens, sheep pens and bathrooms. These structures served the 120 farmers, hired workers and their families who lived in the Jordan Valley village.
The Civil Administration said they had declared the area a live fire zone and posted eviction orders for 10 families in tents on June 27.
“Since no appeal was filed in the following three weeks, and given the danger posed by the location of the tents, they were removed,” they said in response.
The villagers made a living by sheep farming and working land owned by families in the town of Tubas. Some of them have been living in Farasiya for decades.
A packaging warehouse that was built together with Agrexco in the late 1970s was also torn down.
Atef Abu al-Rob, a photographer for the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, who arrived at the village hours after the demolition, said mattresses, pipes and broken furniture were lying on the ground in the debris.
Since 1967, Israel has prevented Palestinian communities in the Jordan Valley from growing, whether by cutting off their water supply, declaring large areas as live fire zones or banning all construction.
About a year ago the IDF set up hundreds of warning signs near Palestinian farming communities, marking them closed military areas. Such a sign was set up at the entrance to Farasiya.
The families had recently been forced to leave the village when the Israeli authorities cut it off from its water sources, said the popular committees’ coordinator in the valley, Fathi Hadirat. The villagers were forbidden to use the water wells the Mekorot Water Company had dug in the area.
Hadirat said a few years ago the Civil Administration destroyed the pipe the villages had laid from a nearby stream used for drinking water and irrigation.
Since then they have been watering the sheep and fields with water unfit for human consumption, pumped from a salt water source. They received drinking water in tanks.
About four months ago the IDF confiscated their pumps. On Sunday, 10 families from Bardala, a village north of Farasiya, were given demolition notices.
A farmer who owns 300 sheep was told to leave in 24 hours or his herd would be confiscated.

BY SAMI BISHARA MASHNEY
Editor-in-Chief, Anaheim, CA
 
  When I immigrated to the United States at age 23, I arrived in Jacksonville, Florida, in the height of the Iranian hostage crises when Americans were being held in Tehran in the aftermath of the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 I have to admit that I was quickly unnerved by the anti-Iranian-and-Muslim frenzy, maliciously whipped by the so-called “mainstream” media whose one of its major objectives is to create animosity and hostility between the American People, and the various peoples of the Middle East—Israel, of course, the “Chosen” State, is exempted as usual.
 Although I’m neither Iranian nor Muslim, as a Palestinian Arab recent immigrant, I looked Middle Eastern enough to be concerned with the high-pitched xenophobia, whose flames were fanned every 15 minutes with an unstoppable barrage of more and more “Breaking News,” etc.
 Being naive and fresh of the boat, I thought then that if I pretended to be Greek, I would face less hostility from an average uninformed Jacksonville redneck, who, after consuming several Budweisers, engages me in an unsolicited and heated political debate at the local discotheque.
 So my name became Sam Mashnikopolous who just emigrated from Greece. Of course, I was secretly loathing the likelihood that some random Greekophile would checkmate me by engaging me in a spontaneous Greek conversation, because, Greek, for lack of a better term, was still Greek to me.
 A few months went by and I regained my self-assurance, dropped the Greek act, and started and continue to audaciously refer to myself as an Arab American.
 To me, being an Arab is congruous with being an American. Both characteristics are compatible without any contradiction or dual loyalty problems, in the same manner as being Italian, Irish, Russian, are compatible with also being an American. As a matter of fact, our law allows naturalized Americans to have dual nationality.
Throughout my life in the USA, I infrequently encountered fellow Arab Americans who vehemently deny their Arab heritage. Some do so on myopic religious grounds, some on mindless regional ones, and some out of shear and unadulterated misguidance.
 When I founded the Network of Arab American Professionals of Orange County (NAAP-OC), I had to do a lot of convincing to persuade a fellow Arab American professional of Arabic Christian extraction that he can be a Christian, an Egyptian, a Lebanese, an Iraqi, an Arab, and an American, all at the same time since none of these designations are mutually exclusive to each other.
 I always use myself as a textbook example of someone who is a Palestinian, an Arab, a lapsed Catholic Christian, an American, and a human citizen of Earth.
While I’m very proud of choosing to be an American,   I am also equally proud of being Palestinian and Arab. When I look around me and see successful immigrant Americans, I can’t help but notice that no community reached its maximum potential by denying its very own existence!
 I once dealt with a government agent investigating my Lebanese Christian client for alleged membership of Hezbollah, the Lebanese Muslim Party of God. When I attempted to explain to the agent that my Christian client cannot be a member of an Islamic party, he laughed at me and said, “Christian, Muslim, Shiite, Sunni, all Arabs are the same!” The funny thing is that my client had no affiliation or affinity whatsoever to Hezbollah and was someone who would have considered Hezbollah a rival!
 So, irrespective of how we feel about our religious and regional differences, when we live in America, we are all perceived as “Arabs,” whether we like or not. So, we might as well positively assert our Arabness as a rallying point instead of apologizing for it and hiding it in the dark ethnic closet.
 This brings me to Allan Mansoor, Mayor of Costa Mesa, CA and candidate for the 68th Assembly District of California. Mansoor descends from an Arab father and a Swedish mother.
Mansoor wrote on his blog: “My father, though born in Egypt and with an Arabic name, was greatly influenced by European culture.” “I am taking exception to being classified as ‘one of three Arab-American candidates in city elections.’”
 I lived in Egypt five years when I went to Pharmacy School at Cairo University. There, I met all sorts of Egyptian People whom I liked and quickly became accustomed to. As an inexperienced 16 year old coming from sleepy Ramallah, I was quickly befriended by many Egyptian friends who quickly made it clear to me that they are Coptic Christians. I later learned that my Christian middle (father’s) name “Bishara” announced my Christianity to them and that’s why they befriended me!
 I got to know these friends very well and they were all proud to be Egyptians, Arabs and Coptic Christians. They did not consider being Christian inimical to being an Arab.
Well, Allan Mansoor, excuse me but I too take exception to your taking a weenie exception to being called an ‘Arab’ American. I am giving my vote to Phu Nguyen, a candidate who is not afraid to refer to himself as a “Vietnamese” American.
 As we say in Arabic, he who forgets his origin has no origin. That is the case of Allan Mansoor, who, in pursuit of success and influence, made the conscious decision to deny his origin, just like Peter and Judas denied Christ. Peter repented and went to heaven. Will Mansoor repent and stop denying his Arabic heritage?!

By Aluf Benn

Courtesy of Haartz.com

 The United Nations fact-finding mission into the Gaza offensive describes Israel as perpetrating war crimes – a police state which persecutes minorities – and tars the Palestinian leadership in the Gaza Strip and West Bank with similar accusations. Read the full story

By William Khury

Staff Writer

These days more than ever, we as business owners need to watch what we spend.

We keep an eye out for special deals, negotiate with sales people, and stretch supplies and resources to the max – But at what point does being financially savvy mean you’re just being cheap – and more importantly, what is the true cost of being cheap to your business? Read the full story