From the Sacramento Bee:
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Proposition 19, which would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the state, but he offered a consolation Thursday by signing a bill that would downgrade possession of an ounce or less from a misdemeanor to an infraction.
"Notwithstanding my opposition to Proposition 19, however, I am signing this measure because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction in everything but name," Schwarzenegger wrote in a signing message.
"In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket."
This new law is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2011 even though Proposition 19 is expected to pass overwhelmingly.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The Palestinian Authority message: Live by the Law of the Jungle
29/9/2010
Translation from Arabic to English, Palestine press release dated 29/9/2010
هذه ترجمة للبيان الصحفي الصادر عن حزب التحرير- فلسطين المؤرخ في
{وَلَوْ يَرَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا إِذْ يَرَوْنَ الْعَذَابَ أَنَّ الْقُوَّةَ لِلَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعَذَابِ}
{If those who do evil had but known, (on the day) when they behold the doom, that power belongeth wholly to Allah, and that Allah is severe in punishment!} [Al-Baqara: 165]
Translation from Arabic to English, Palestine press release dated 29/9/2010
هذه ترجمة للبيان الصحفي الصادر عن حزب التحرير- فلسطين المؤرخ في
For the past month, the Palestinian Authority’s Security Enforcement Agency has been refusing to implement the Palestinian High Court verdict; case number: 2010/583, release date: 2010/8/30. The verdict calls for the immediate release of detainee: Mohammad Khateeb, a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. According to the High Court’s verdict, “the military prosecutor’s decision to arrest the accused, Mohammad Khateeb, is arbitrary to the authority.”
Active Human Rights Organizations and certain influential politicians have been contacted since the date of the High Court verdict. A copy of the High Court verdict was distributed to all those contacted, including the Minister of Justice, and to the Minister of Interior. Khateeb’s defense attorney also delivered a copy to Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad's office. In a press assembly, P.M. Fayyad was asked about Khateeb’s dilemma and he promised to resolve the issue.
All this came to nothing when the law of the jungle prevailed, against which neither law nor High Court could intervene on the political prisoner’s behalf. The wall of contemptuous intransigence set up by the PA ensured its deafness to any politician’s criticism; all government bodies were indifferent to the fact that the Security Enforcement Agency disregarded and even defied the Higher Court verdict and the efforts of the Human Rights Organizations were like ashes blown into the wind.
Active Human Rights Organizations and certain influential politicians have been contacted since the date of the High Court verdict. A copy of the High Court verdict was distributed to all those contacted, including the Minister of Justice, and to the Minister of Interior. Khateeb’s defense attorney also delivered a copy to Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad's office. In a press assembly, P.M. Fayyad was asked about Khateeb’s dilemma and he promised to resolve the issue.
All this came to nothing when the law of the jungle prevailed, against which neither law nor High Court could intervene on the political prisoner’s behalf. The wall of contemptuous intransigence set up by the PA ensured its deafness to any politician’s criticism; all government bodies were indifferent to the fact that the Security Enforcement Agency disregarded and even defied the Higher Court verdict and the efforts of the Human Rights Organizations were like ashes blown into the wind.
The Security Enforcement Agency, which holds Khateeb captive, stated that they do not recognize the High Court and that its decisions do not interest them. In addition, the Security Enforcement Agency stated, “no one could twist the arm of the intelligence.” Thus the intelligence considers the High Court verdict an instance of twisting its arm. This statement demonstrates the utter defiance in the face of the highest law agency, proving that the law is used as a tool against the Palestinian people and If perchance the law happens to fall in favor of its citizens, then the PA is swift to trample on it.
This confirms that personal whim and interest is what prevails in the land, not the law, And this is true especially when battling against Islam and its sincere dawah carriers. Rendered by the PA as null and void are all the laws of man and God, in capricious adherence to the corrupt doctrine that the end justifies the means.
There are many examples like this, such as the targeting of Hizb ut-Tahrir members in the Bidya/ Salfeet district by the Security Enforcement Agency that is motivated solely by malice and personal vendettas . The unusually large numbers of arrests and extensive lengths of detainment against the Bidya members of HT have surpassed all other cases in Palestine. A case in point is the persecution of Shaher Assaf, a school teacher, who is widely known and respected in his community and school system: Assaf has been unjustly detained nine times in the past two years, and has endured months at a time in jail.
The exploitation of power that is rife throughout the various ranks of the Security Enforcement Agency is not limited to the pursuance of the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir; any member of the general public may be eligible to suffer a vendetta of personal vengeance and hatred. Most recently, the media reported the farcical arrest of the Abu Saada brothers who were so heinously tortured that they almost died at Junaid Prison in Nablus. They were arrested because one of them had a purely personal dispute with a National Security officer.
What then about the High Court verdict, issued a month ago, that calls for the immediate release of Mohammad Khateeb? The newspapers, Internet sites, and Human Rights Organizations’ files were filled with reports of his detainment, and yet the Security Enforcement’s Spokesperson refused to answer any questions; two separate rounds of visits were made by HT delegations to all of the District Governors,and yet the Prime Minister and all other officials persist in turning a deaf ear to the issue that is now 30 days and counting.
Isn’t it a logical conclusion from all this that the PA at all political and security levels are accomplices to a violation of law and that they have no respect for the rule of law? Does it also indicate that this collusive act is because Mohammed Khatib is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which America is fighting by using all her tools? Isn’t it evidence of a conspiracy against Islam and those who call for it regardless of the party that they are affiliated with?
Perhaps this points to the fact that the release of Mohammad Khateeb does not lay in the hands of the Palestinian government agencies or officials , but rather in the hands of a U.S. official who cares as much for PM Fayyad's opinion as for that of any low-ranking Employee.
Whatever the reason, the message the Palestinian Authority and its various agencies send to the general public rings loud and clear: the system does not bring you justice; take the law into your hands for yourselves.
This confirms that personal whim and interest is what prevails in the land, not the law, And this is true especially when battling against Islam and its sincere dawah carriers. Rendered by the PA as null and void are all the laws of man and God, in capricious adherence to the corrupt doctrine that the end justifies the means.
There are many examples like this, such as the targeting of Hizb ut-Tahrir members in the Bidya/ Salfeet district by the Security Enforcement Agency that is motivated solely by malice and personal vendettas . The unusually large numbers of arrests and extensive lengths of detainment against the Bidya members of HT have surpassed all other cases in Palestine. A case in point is the persecution of Shaher Assaf, a school teacher, who is widely known and respected in his community and school system: Assaf has been unjustly detained nine times in the past two years, and has endured months at a time in jail.
The exploitation of power that is rife throughout the various ranks of the Security Enforcement Agency is not limited to the pursuance of the members of Hizb ut-Tahrir; any member of the general public may be eligible to suffer a vendetta of personal vengeance and hatred. Most recently, the media reported the farcical arrest of the Abu Saada brothers who were so heinously tortured that they almost died at Junaid Prison in Nablus. They were arrested because one of them had a purely personal dispute with a National Security officer.
What then about the High Court verdict, issued a month ago, that calls for the immediate release of Mohammad Khateeb? The newspapers, Internet sites, and Human Rights Organizations’ files were filled with reports of his detainment, and yet the Security Enforcement’s Spokesperson refused to answer any questions; two separate rounds of visits were made by HT delegations to all of the District Governors,and yet the Prime Minister and all other officials persist in turning a deaf ear to the issue that is now 30 days and counting.
Isn’t it a logical conclusion from all this that the PA at all political and security levels are accomplices to a violation of law and that they have no respect for the rule of law? Does it also indicate that this collusive act is because Mohammed Khatib is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which America is fighting by using all her tools? Isn’t it evidence of a conspiracy against Islam and those who call for it regardless of the party that they are affiliated with?
Perhaps this points to the fact that the release of Mohammad Khateeb does not lay in the hands of the Palestinian government agencies or officials , but rather in the hands of a U.S. official who cares as much for PM Fayyad's opinion as for that of any low-ranking Employee.
Whatever the reason, the message the Palestinian Authority and its various agencies send to the general public rings loud and clear: the system does not bring you justice; take the law into your hands for yourselves.
{وَلَوْ يَرَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا إِذْ يَرَوْنَ الْعَذَابَ أَنَّ الْقُوَّةَ لِلَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعَذَابِ}
{If those who do evil had but known, (on the day) when they behold the doom, that power belongeth wholly to Allah, and that Allah is severe in punishment!} [Al-Baqara: 165]
© PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011
Intellectual Rights Retained
Overcoming AIPAC is not enough
By Lawrence Davidson
2 October 2010
Lawrence Davidson outlines a strategy for unshackling the United States from Israel, based on melding the liberation of the US from AIPAC with the revival of American national interests in the broader Middle East and Muslim world, and with the viable future of Palestine.
Two stories have recently appeared, each discussing a different approach to overcoming the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobby that presently has enough clout to substitute its own parochial interests for the US national interest.
As John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's 2007 book, The Israel lobby and US foreign policy, demonstrated, there is a direct connection between AIPAC's level of influence in Congress and the White House and the recent disasters that have befallen the US in the Middle East.
Indeed, the connection is one of sufficient intensity to have led to the creation in 2008 of a new “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby called J Street. J Street calls for Israel to accept, “borders based on the 1967 line with reciprocally agreed land swaps”, thus allowing for a two-state formula settlement.
The optimistic view here is that in the relatively near future J Street will become strong enough to displace AIPAC and its hard line “we must keep it all” stance on the occupied territories. While this prognosis might be a tad premature, the situation has progressed enough that folks involved in this effort are now discussing tactics and approaches that might speed up AIPAC's demise. And so, our two stories.
Indeed, the connection is one of sufficient intensity to have led to the creation in 2008 of a new “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby called J Street. J Street calls for Israel to accept, “borders based on the 1967 line with reciprocally agreed land swaps”, thus allowing for a two-state formula settlement.
The optimistic view here is that in the relatively near future J Street will become strong enough to displace AIPAC and its hard line “we must keep it all” stance on the occupied territories. While this prognosis might be a tad premature, the situation has progressed enough that folks involved in this effort are now discussing tactics and approaches that might speed up AIPAC's demise. And so, our two stories.
George Soros, J Street and lobby politics
The first story appeared in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz on 26 September 2010 and is entitled “Billionaire George Soros revealed as mystery J Street donor”. It is now public information that Soros sees AIPAC as “too hawkish” and so he and his family have thrown their weight behind the more compromising, “dovish” J Street.
They have done so to the tune of 245,000 dollars a year. Soros has in fact been making these contributions since J Street’s founding in 2008. This is certainly not all the money the Washington-based lobby obtains per year. J Street has about 10,000 donors and they provide about 11 million dollars annually.
What is important is that a man like George Soros, who is dedicated to using some of his fortune to move the world in what he feels is a progressive direction, has put his money behind the traditional approach to influencing American policy formulation. He appears to accept as a working assumption that interest group politics plays a central role in both domestic and foreign policy making. Thus, if you want to change policy you have to out-lobby the fellow who is helping to shape the one now in place.
What is important is that a man like George Soros, who is dedicated to using some of his fortune to move the world in what he feels is a progressive direction, has put his money behind the traditional approach to influencing American policy formulation. He appears to accept as a working assumption that interest group politics plays a central role in both domestic and foreign policy making. Thus, if you want to change policy you have to out-lobby the fellow who is helping to shape the one now in place.
In the case of J Street this means the organization must not only be able to win the politicians' allegiance through reasoned argument, but be capable of providing them with enough money to counter any AIPAC effort to unseat them in an election. Soros knows this and his aim is to help J Street achieve this status.
Changing public opinion
The second story comes in the form of a short essay by the Irish writer Maidhc O'Cathail that appeared in the Salem-News.com. It is entitled “The truth will set US free: breaking Israel’s stranglehold over American foreign policy”. O'Cathail quotes Philip Giraldi, who is executive director of the Council for the National Interest (an organization critical of the American-Israel alliance), a former CIA officer and also a contributer to the American Conservative.
Giraldi's position is that overcoming AIPAC “must be done from the bottom up as Israel cannot be challenged in the mainstream media, Congress, and in the White House”.
The tactic here is to convince enough American voters that “Israel is and always has been a strategic liability that has done immense damage to the United States and its worldwide interests” so they will be led to demand that the Congress and political parties abandon AIPAC. This has proven anything but easy. According to Jeff Gates, a former counsel for the Senate Committee on Finance, the present lack of transparency on the various sources of lobby money means that “the American public is ignorant of Israel's all-pervasive influence”.
However, this opaqueness might also be slowly dissipating. A multiplicity of advocacy groups, both Jewish and non-Jewish, have grown up in the last 10 years to publicize the brutal policies of the Israelis and US complicity in them. Despite Giraldi's opinion that challenge in the mainstream media is impossible, there has been movement even in this unlikely arena.
However, this opaqueness might also be slowly dissipating. A multiplicity of advocacy groups, both Jewish and non-Jewish, have grown up in the last 10 years to publicize the brutal policies of the Israelis and US complicity in them. Despite Giraldi's opinion that challenge in the mainstream media is impossible, there has been movement even in this unlikely arena.
For instance, consider the relatively wide coverage of Israel's recent decision not to extend its settlement freeze and thereby threaten an end to the Obama administration's efforts at peace talks. So, unlike 10 years ago, one now can find articles and op-ed pieces critical of Israel and, by extension, AIPAC as well. And, while they do not yet appear frequently enough to create a tipping point in public awareness, they are beginning to contribute to a slow but perceptible shift in public opinion.
Even a recent poll conducted by the American Jewish organization, The Israel Project, suggests a steady decline in the number of American citizens who feel that the US must continue to support Israel.
The truth is that the two approaches, one centered on the national capital and the other centered on main street, have to be pursued simultaneously. And, there is now movement at both levels.
Yet the pace of change is agonizingly slow. And that fact raises the question of just how much of Palestine will be left when AIPAC's influence is finally overcome? If the Israelis have their way what will be left is an emaciated Gaza and a rump area of the West Bank. Even though the Obama administration has promoted talks and called, unsuccessfully, for a continued settlement freeze, one suspects that it, and other foreseeable US administrations, would be accepting of such a final outcome.
It should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to see that ruination is the preferred fate for any Middle East country that challenges either the US or Israel. It is the adage “bomb them back to the stone age” made real. If you do not believe that, just ask an Iraqi refugee about what is left of their homeland now that the Americans have redone the landscape. Ask someone familiar with the present state of affairs in Gaza as well as the West Bank. Perpetual weakness and poverty is the fait accompli that Israel has in mind for Palestine on the day when AIPAC goes by the board. On that day they plan to have taken all that they desire and so even if Washington is persuaded to change its policies, it will no longer matter in Jerusalem.
Yet the pace of change is agonizingly slow. And that fact raises the question of just how much of Palestine will be left when AIPAC's influence is finally overcome? If the Israelis have their way what will be left is an emaciated Gaza and a rump area of the West Bank. Even though the Obama administration has promoted talks and called, unsuccessfully, for a continued settlement freeze, one suspects that it, and other foreseeable US administrations, would be accepting of such a final outcome.
It should be pretty clear to anyone who cares to see that ruination is the preferred fate for any Middle East country that challenges either the US or Israel. It is the adage “bomb them back to the stone age” made real. If you do not believe that, just ask an Iraqi refugee about what is left of their homeland now that the Americans have redone the landscape. Ask someone familiar with the present state of affairs in Gaza as well as the West Bank. Perpetual weakness and poverty is the fait accompli that Israel has in mind for Palestine on the day when AIPAC goes by the board. On that day they plan to have taken all that they desire and so even if Washington is persuaded to change its policies, it will no longer matter in Jerusalem.
Unshackling the USA
What does all this mean for those involved in the fight against AIPAC's influence in American foreign affairs? It means that the goal of displacing the Israel lobby is really not sufficient. The J Street people and those who are presently campaigning at the grassroots have to argue the fate of US national interests in broader terms. For instance:
1. It must be made clear that a rejuvenation of American interests in the Middle East and Muslim world is linked much more directly to the fate of Palestine than to Israel. If any final settlement fails to insure the creation of a viable Palestinian state, the US will be blamed and our interests will continue to suffer whether we are still allied to Israel or not. It must be made clear that, as an advocate for the destruction of Palestine, AIPAC advocates the destruction of US interests as well.
2. Why is this so? This is the way it is because the issue of justice is first and foremost in the minds of a billion Muslims and at the core of this issue stands Palestine (and not head scarfs). If US interests are to be promoted in the lands with Muslim majorities, then the question of Palestine must be faced honestly and objectively. This simply cannot happen as long as a Zionist lobby has the power to monopolize policy formulation. The problem is not Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. The problem is Israel and its American agents. They are the ones complicit in past disastrous policy decisions and they are the ones pushing for equally disastrous future ones.
3. In the face of these truths, J Street presently operates as if it is afraid of its own shadow. If J Street feels it cannot directly advocate for justice for Palestinians, then it should do so indirectly. That is, the organization should get specific about the fact that the Israel which AIPAC so strongly defends is in the hands of leaders who represent a harshly antiAmerican ethic.
2. Why is this so? This is the way it is because the issue of justice is first and foremost in the minds of a billion Muslims and at the core of this issue stands Palestine (and not head scarfs). If US interests are to be promoted in the lands with Muslim majorities, then the question of Palestine must be faced honestly and objectively. This simply cannot happen as long as a Zionist lobby has the power to monopolize policy formulation. The problem is not Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. The problem is Israel and its American agents. They are the ones complicit in past disastrous policy decisions and they are the ones pushing for equally disastrous future ones.
3. In the face of these truths, J Street presently operates as if it is afraid of its own shadow. If J Street feels it cannot directly advocate for justice for Palestinians, then it should do so indirectly. That is, the organization should get specific about the fact that the Israel which AIPAC so strongly defends is in the hands of leaders who represent a harshly antiAmerican ethic.
Men like Avigdor Lieberman and the leaders of the Shas party are racists who want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from as much territory as they can. For these Israeli leaders this is not a matter of security, it is a matter of religious purity. This is an utterly un-American goal. This has to be said loudly to both the American public and the Congress.
So you see that as we move ahead we must meld the liberation of the United States from AIPAC's wholly negative influence with the revival of US national interests in the broader Middle East and Muslim world, and that in turn with the viable future of Palestine. All three must be promoted as an interlinked package. If they are not, Washington will certainly some day be free of AIPAC, but Palestine will be left under the pernicious shadow of Israel. For this we will always be blamed and our interests will always suffer.
Lawrence Davidson is professor of history at West Chester University. He is the author of numerous books, including Islamic Fundamentalism and America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood.
© PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011
Intellectual Rights Retained
Construction fever on the West Bank
October 1 2010
Israeli triumphalism at the ending of a temporary ban on settlement construction contrasts with the muted, and confused, Palestinian and Arab response, writes Khaled Amayreh from the occupied territories.
Photo capture; Israeli earth-moving equipment works in the illegal Jewish settlement
of Kiryat Netafim, near the West Bank village of Salfit
With the Arab world and Palestinian Authority seemingly caught in a spiral of weakness and vacillation, and the Obama administration unwilling or unable to pressure Israel, the Israeli government has allowed anti-peace Jewish settlers to embark on all-out drive to build as many settler units as possible.
The audacious move came hours after a 10-month moratorium on settlement expansion expired Sunday night, 26 September.
Gleeful celebrations continued for hours as settler leaders and government officials delivered speeches with bulldozers, concrete mixers and other construction equipment in the background. During the celebrations, thousands of balloons were released into the air, signifying the number of units settlers intend to build.
With nearly all restrictions on settlement expansion now removed, the settlers, with the explicit backing of the government, are vowing to "compensate" for the 10-month hiatus by intensifying settlement construction to an unprecedented degree.
Settler leaders say they intended to build "tens of thousands of units" in addition to opening new roads and other forms of infrastructure which will require the seizure of large swathes of Palestinian land.
Initially, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed a modicum of consternation at what was happening. His ostensible dismay would have been more convincing had the Israeli premier not resisted American and international pressure to extend the settlement freeze even for a few months so staunchly.
Netanyahu has been trying to give a false impression that what the settlers are doing is beyond his power and contrary to his will. Yet it has become crystal clear that the settlers are carrying out Netanyahu's desires if not his declared instructions. How else to explain remarks by Netanyahu made earlier this week in which he asked his cabinet ministers to refrain from commenting on the settlement expansion? Netanyahu had also urged settler leaders to "build quietly without making a big noise".
According to Israeli sources, Netanyahu is taking advantage of "the political predicament" facing President Barack Obama, whose ability to pressure Israel is heavily restricted by the proximity of congressional elections in November.
The Obama administration reacted to the provocations of West Bank settlers by expressing "disappointment" and promising to keep up efforts to push the peace process forward.
US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters earlier this week that US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell was in touch with both sides. Mitchell has paid numerous visits to the region, achieving very little progress.
"We recognise that given the decision yesterday we've still got a dilemma that we have to resolve and there are no direct negotiations scheduled at this point but we will be in touch with the parties to see how we move ahead," Crowley said.
Crowley hinted that the United States might press the Arab League to pressure the Palestinian leadership to remain engaged in peace talks with Israel despite the resumption of settlement activities.
In recent years, especially since Mahmoud Abbas succeeded Yasser Arafat as leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the US has repeatedly used its Arab allies to coerce the Palestinian leadership into making concessions to Israel. It is a policy on which Washington is relying on yet again, with Washington relying on friendly Arab capitals close to convince Abbas to swallow his "reservations" and return to the hopelessly futile talks with Israel while watching as his contemplated state is devoured piece by piece.
Meanwhile, Arab League Secretary- General Amr Moussa said Arab states would not press the Palestinian leadership to indulge in futile talks which can lead nowhere.
Moussa accused the Obama administration of failing to take a firm stance with Israel and instead adopting a soft-glove approach towards the Jewish state irrespective of its policies.
"We respect President Obama and the way he is dealing with the peace process, however it should be sufficiently clear that a policy based on treating Israel with absolute flaccidity while pressuring the Arab side to foot the bills will not work," said Moussa.
In an interview with the Arabic daily Al-Ahram earlier this week, Moussa added that it was illogical to ask the Arabs for yet more concessions while the Jewish state was stealing additional chunks of Arab land and indulging in illegal settlement activities.
Other Arab leaders have castigated the US for pressuring the Arabs in order to compensate for its inability and failure to pressure Israel. According to the Israeli press, the US had offered Israel "unprecedented inducements" in return for extending the settlement freeze for a few months.
The audacious move came hours after a 10-month moratorium on settlement expansion expired Sunday night, 26 September.
Gleeful celebrations continued for hours as settler leaders and government officials delivered speeches with bulldozers, concrete mixers and other construction equipment in the background. During the celebrations, thousands of balloons were released into the air, signifying the number of units settlers intend to build.
With nearly all restrictions on settlement expansion now removed, the settlers, with the explicit backing of the government, are vowing to "compensate" for the 10-month hiatus by intensifying settlement construction to an unprecedented degree.
Settler leaders say they intended to build "tens of thousands of units" in addition to opening new roads and other forms of infrastructure which will require the seizure of large swathes of Palestinian land.
Initially, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu expressed a modicum of consternation at what was happening. His ostensible dismay would have been more convincing had the Israeli premier not resisted American and international pressure to extend the settlement freeze even for a few months so staunchly.
Netanyahu has been trying to give a false impression that what the settlers are doing is beyond his power and contrary to his will. Yet it has become crystal clear that the settlers are carrying out Netanyahu's desires if not his declared instructions. How else to explain remarks by Netanyahu made earlier this week in which he asked his cabinet ministers to refrain from commenting on the settlement expansion? Netanyahu had also urged settler leaders to "build quietly without making a big noise".
According to Israeli sources, Netanyahu is taking advantage of "the political predicament" facing President Barack Obama, whose ability to pressure Israel is heavily restricted by the proximity of congressional elections in November.
The Obama administration reacted to the provocations of West Bank settlers by expressing "disappointment" and promising to keep up efforts to push the peace process forward.
US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told reporters earlier this week that US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell was in touch with both sides. Mitchell has paid numerous visits to the region, achieving very little progress.
"We recognise that given the decision yesterday we've still got a dilemma that we have to resolve and there are no direct negotiations scheduled at this point but we will be in touch with the parties to see how we move ahead," Crowley said.
Crowley hinted that the United States might press the Arab League to pressure the Palestinian leadership to remain engaged in peace talks with Israel despite the resumption of settlement activities.
In recent years, especially since Mahmoud Abbas succeeded Yasser Arafat as leader of the Palestine Liberation Organisation and president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the US has repeatedly used its Arab allies to coerce the Palestinian leadership into making concessions to Israel. It is a policy on which Washington is relying on yet again, with Washington relying on friendly Arab capitals close to convince Abbas to swallow his "reservations" and return to the hopelessly futile talks with Israel while watching as his contemplated state is devoured piece by piece.
Meanwhile, Arab League Secretary- General Amr Moussa said Arab states would not press the Palestinian leadership to indulge in futile talks which can lead nowhere.
Moussa accused the Obama administration of failing to take a firm stance with Israel and instead adopting a soft-glove approach towards the Jewish state irrespective of its policies.
"We respect President Obama and the way he is dealing with the peace process, however it should be sufficiently clear that a policy based on treating Israel with absolute flaccidity while pressuring the Arab side to foot the bills will not work," said Moussa.
In an interview with the Arabic daily Al-Ahram earlier this week, Moussa added that it was illogical to ask the Arabs for yet more concessions while the Jewish state was stealing additional chunks of Arab land and indulging in illegal settlement activities.
Other Arab leaders have castigated the US for pressuring the Arabs in order to compensate for its inability and failure to pressure Israel. According to the Israeli press, the US had offered Israel "unprecedented inducements" in return for extending the settlement freeze for a few months.
Submitted by Khaled Amayreh via
Ahram Weekly © PalestineFreeVoice Copyright reserved 2003 - 2011
Intellectual Rights Retained
Means launches Thune lawsuit
Coming across CENSORED NEWS is a video of Republic of Lakotah activist, Russell Means, announcing "a pending lawsuit" accusing potential presidential contender, Senator John Thune (R-SD), of a breach in his fiduciary duty as sworn in his oath of office. Mr. Means believes the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), part of the US Department of the Interior, is violating Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statutes within Mr. Thune's full view. View it here.
This on the heels of an ACLU lawsuit seeking evidence of Indian Health Services (IHS) coercion in Pitocin-induced births on the Cheyenne River reservation. IHS is administered through the US Department of Health and Humans Services.
Thune abandoned Native Americans by voting against funding the landmark Cobell Indian trust class action.
As of this post time, nothing has appeared in regional mainstream sources.
This on the heels of an ACLU lawsuit seeking evidence of Indian Health Services (IHS) coercion in Pitocin-induced births on the Cheyenne River reservation. IHS is administered through the US Department of Health and Humans Services.
Thune abandoned Native Americans by voting against funding the landmark Cobell Indian trust class action.
As of this post time, nothing has appeared in regional mainstream sources.
Wise Reguly, Wise Quebec : le Canada, quand sera-t-il une nation comme les autres?
With the Globe seemingly intent on jettisoning all their interesting writers for bores, and boors, it is heartening to see that Reguly, a reliable source of serious commentary, is still around. It probably helps he has some idea of the world beyond the anglosphere (too much time spent in any hothouse can lead to mildew). Bracingly smart and realistic, not constrained by a dogmatic mindset like the Manjis of this world, he gets it, and always has, before most others. Everyone should read his latest (well, he's always worth reading), which, as we'll see, must aggravate him, knowing he was right, to no avail. Some highlights from It’s time Ottawa plays hardball:
WE HAD ALL THE LEADING COMPANIES, HEAD OFFICES, R&D, etc., to fully profit from this, and we threw it away, thanks to mindless infatuation with ideological dogmatism, lack of curiosity, and limited minds & psyches. Sure, the resources are still here, but we'll just be the hewers of wood and drawers of water, and the really great valued-added stuff will be elsewhere (and I'm not even talking transformation and manufacturing, just fully profiting from our own resource extraction, from our own expertise, dammit). Those fools who propagandised for such a fate, and helped bring it about, are, in a pan-Canadian sense, as guilty of hurting their society as the Catholic priests who told French Canadians for generations they should stick to their farms, as that was God's plan, they should be pure in an unpure world, for their souls' sakes and to serve as an example to the rest of the world. So the anglos had the cities, and business, and the francos were the simple hewers of wood and drawers of water. It took the Quiet Revolution for everyone to wake up, and decide we should be masters in our own house. And so we have traded the priests' sermons on the invisible hand of God for true believers preaching for the perfect, rational, invisible hand of the market. And neither is aware of the harm they have done.
It is past time for all Canadians to become masters in their own house. Canada is indeed a French country, born of Champlain's genius, and Quebec has long lent its genius to make Canada. French Canadians made Canada and Canadian federalism. To ask them to separate from Canada would be like asking beavers to leave their dams, to leave the very lands they made. It is nonsensical and a denial of a people's own souls. Canada needs their clearheaded ambition and idealism more than ever. But for that to happen, Quebeckers must, once again, sing the songs that make Canada dream, and provide the hardheaded wisdom needed when dreamtime is over, and the cold light of day is upon us. Quebeckers are Canadians too, part of the Canadian nation, and no-one knows how to protect a nation's interest better than Quebecers, as all seem to agree, most intently, even.
One must take one's inspiration where one can find it, and when separatists sing their siren song "why can't we be a nation like all others", I think, yes, indeed, as Quebeckers know themselves to be part of the Canadian nation, why can't Canada be a nation like all others? Why can't we, why shouldn't we, put our self-interest, especially in economics, above appeals of self-sacrifice on behalf of noble but impossible capitalist fundamentalist ideals. Blessed be the fundamentalists, for their souls are pure, but even more blessed are the wordly righteous, with the strength to hold on to their ideals while living in the flawed, imperfect real world, and working to improve it.
What does this mean in a worldly sense? Well, as I wrote somewhere or other, here, as an example, are some questions to keep in mind the next time one feels almost overwhelmed by flashing-eyed fundamentalists.
The free-marketers would argue that Canada is an open-market economy and should stick to its principles. Open markets lead to the most effective use of capital, and while the loss of a head office is undeniably bad, there is no sense protecting companies that are uncompetitive. If lame Canadian bosses can’t add value, let someone else do it, and don’t get your knickers in a twist if that someone comes from abroad.Now, having read that, consider how aggravating it must be for Reguly and others who foresaw (fairly obvious, to be honest) long-term trends and tried to warn governments to position themselves for them, only for such advice to go unheeded, in light of the following report from Bloomberg, also in the same ROB - Caisse Pension Fund to Target Energy, Resources Investments, Sabia Says:
The counterarguments are equally powerful, perhaps more so. If protecting companies from takeovers encourages slothful management and subpar value creation, how do you explain the success of Canada’s banks? Their 20 per cent ownership restriction makes them takeover proof, yet they emerged from the worst financial crisis since the Second World War in better shape than any of the other national banks.
Yes, BHP has promised Investment Canada that its Potash Corp. takeover would provide a “net benefit” to Canada. But the inward investment agency is about as effective as a toy gun. It has rejected only one foreign takeover in its 25-year history and obviously has a flexible interpretation of “net benefit.” Did Inco’s takeover by Vale provide help to Canada? How about the takeovers of Stelco (owned by U.S. Steel) or Dofasco (ArcelorMittal). Forget it. Each of them has become an ailing branch plant.
BHP may be a fine owner of Potash Corp. Then again, it may not. If Investment Canada won’t block the takeover of a company that doesn’t need taking over, it has to ensure “net benefit” means as much. BHP can afford to deliver what the agency demands. It’s just that its demands for the last quarter century have been laughable. As a result, Canada is turning into a branch plant, A Mari usque ad Mare.
The Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec, Canada’s biggest pension fund manager, plans to increase investments in energy and minerals to benefit from an expected commodities boom, Chief Executive Officer Michael Sabia said.
“Natural resources, energy, those are areas where we think there’s an opportunity to play offense because of what the structural trends are and what our capabilities are,” Sabia said in an interview at Caisse headquarters in Montreal yesterday.
“When the Marshall Plan was launched after World War II there was a 20- to 25-year run in natural resources and infrastructure and in our view we are right at the start of another period like that,” Sabia said.
By 2015, emerging nations will account for a bigger portion of the global economy than developed countries as middle-class populations from Southeast Asia to Latin America expand while public and private investment grows, according to a Sept. 27 World Bank report.
“You are going to see massive urbanization and the emergence of a very large middle class in places like China, Brazil and Turkey,” Sabia said. “Because of those things, you are going to see demand for natural resources, whether it’s iron ore or copper, and demand for products that enhance the productivity in agriculture.”
“Because of our exposure to the Canadian economy, we have built a lot of capabilities around understanding natural resources and energy-related industries,” Sabia said.
WE HAD ALL THE LEADING COMPANIES, HEAD OFFICES, R&D, etc., to fully profit from this, and we threw it away, thanks to mindless infatuation with ideological dogmatism, lack of curiosity, and limited minds & psyches. Sure, the resources are still here, but we'll just be the hewers of wood and drawers of water, and the really great valued-added stuff will be elsewhere (and I'm not even talking transformation and manufacturing, just fully profiting from our own resource extraction, from our own expertise, dammit). Those fools who propagandised for such a fate, and helped bring it about, are, in a pan-Canadian sense, as guilty of hurting their society as the Catholic priests who told French Canadians for generations they should stick to their farms, as that was God's plan, they should be pure in an unpure world, for their souls' sakes and to serve as an example to the rest of the world. So the anglos had the cities, and business, and the francos were the simple hewers of wood and drawers of water. It took the Quiet Revolution for everyone to wake up, and decide we should be masters in our own house. And so we have traded the priests' sermons on the invisible hand of God for true believers preaching for the perfect, rational, invisible hand of the market. And neither is aware of the harm they have done.
It is past time for all Canadians to become masters in their own house. Canada is indeed a French country, born of Champlain's genius, and Quebec has long lent its genius to make Canada. French Canadians made Canada and Canadian federalism. To ask them to separate from Canada would be like asking beavers to leave their dams, to leave the very lands they made. It is nonsensical and a denial of a people's own souls. Canada needs their clearheaded ambition and idealism more than ever. But for that to happen, Quebeckers must, once again, sing the songs that make Canada dream, and provide the hardheaded wisdom needed when dreamtime is over, and the cold light of day is upon us. Quebeckers are Canadians too, part of the Canadian nation, and no-one knows how to protect a nation's interest better than Quebecers, as all seem to agree, most intently, even.
One must take one's inspiration where one can find it, and when separatists sing their siren song "why can't we be a nation like all others", I think, yes, indeed, as Quebeckers know themselves to be part of the Canadian nation, why can't Canada be a nation like all others? Why can't we, why shouldn't we, put our self-interest, especially in economics, above appeals of self-sacrifice on behalf of noble but impossible capitalist fundamentalist ideals. Blessed be the fundamentalists, for their souls are pure, but even more blessed are the wordly righteous, with the strength to hold on to their ideals while living in the flawed, imperfect real world, and working to improve it.
What does this mean in a worldly sense? Well, as I wrote somewhere or other, here, as an example, are some questions to keep in mind the next time one feels almost overwhelmed by flashing-eyed fundamentalists.
Point of information: Canada is virtually unique in its lack of both meaningful investment review and industrial policy. We are uniquely right and everyone else is wrong?Donc, je pose la question, lorsqu'il s'agit de protéger et de promouvoir nos intérêts socio-économiques : le Canada, quand sera-t-il une nation comme les autres?
Treatment of Foreign Investment in Other Countries:
Like Canada, most countries around the world have mechanisms in place, whether formal or informal, to review at least some elements of foreign investment. While investment flows have increased, and the economic importance of foreign investment has been accepted, MOST NATIONS ARE SENSITIVE TO THE CONTROL OF THE MORE STRATEGIC ELEMENTS OF THEIR DOMESTIC ECONOMY. As such, most governments retain a degree of control over who invests and controls firms active in these strategic sectors. Recent U.S. legislation affecting foreign investment and national security is an example of a formal mechanism.
Australia has a general investment screening system similar to Canada's that reviews foreign investments based on monetary thresholds. Unlike the net benefit test in Canada, Australia's policy is framed such that it can block any foreign acquisition that is judged contrary to "national interest." Most other industrialized countries have general legal authority to block any mergers on the basis of national security considerations. The United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and China all have such powers."
The global revival of industrial policy - Picking winners, saving losers:
"Nearly every large economy has plans to win global market share and create green jobs.(...)Fourth, rich countries are responding to the apparently successful policies of fast-growing economies, notably China and South Korea.(...)Third, industrial policy works best when a government is dealing with areas where it has natural interest and competence, such as military technology or ENERGY SUPPLY"
And from a fine publication, on a tangential note - Who’s the smartest? A new ranking of European countries places the Nordic nations at the top of the list. As for the bottom . . .: "Recent economic events prove that the institutions and policies that enable a country’s competitiveness are not merely facilitators of productivity, but are also the mechanisms preventing social and economic collapse.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)