Obama's Outreach To Muslims: Empty Rhetoric, Same Old Policies

By Stephen Lendman

11 June, 2009

As well as anyone, Edward Said understood the West's long-standing antipathy to Islam - reflected in Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" article in the summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs and later a 1996 book.

He wrote that future conflicts won't be "primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural....the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future" - demagogically suggesting a benevolent, superior West confronting a belligerent, hostile, inferior Muslim world. In other words, good v. evil.

Said called him and others like him, "ignorant," a "clumsy writer," and an "inelegant thinker" using a "gimmick" to suggest a "war of the worlds" pitting good guys against bad ones.

Post-9/11, it was easier than ever for America to declare war on Islam, abroad and at home - a policy no different under Obama than for eight years under George Bush. Empty rhetoric changes nothing, in Cairo or elsewhere. Facts on the ground are clear, unequivocal, and hostile - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Occupied Palestine. Also toward Iran, Syria, elected Hezbollah Lebanese officials, the legitimate Palestinian Hamas government, and targeted Muslim Americans at home - for their activism, prominence, charity, religion and ethnicity. It's the wrong time to be Muslim in America and most anywhere else in the world.

Around 1.5 billion Muslims want change and the basic respect they deserve. In the spirit of noted US civil rights activist, Fannie Lou Hamer, they're "sick and tired of being sick and tired," colonized and exploited, targeted and slaughtered, vilified as terrorists, occupied and oppressed, falsely charged, convicted, and sentenced in kangaroo-court proceedings, imprisoned and tortured, or viewed the way Edward Said explained in his noted book, "Culture and Imperialism" - as "the strange (inferior, Orient, East, them)" v. "the familiar (superior, Europe, West, us)." They deserve much better, yet remain a political target of choice.

Until that changes and high-sounding speeches become policy, empty rhetoric will fall on deaf ears. We've heard it before, yet the more things change, the more they stay the same under Democrat and Republican administrations.

Obama's Cairo speech was profoundly disingenuous, much like others past and more recently. He decried the "killing of innocent men, women, and children," yet US forces slaughter them daily in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and supply Israel with billions of dollars and the latest weapons and technology to commit slow-motion genocide against millions of Palestinians, deny their legitimate self-determination, and right of their refugees to return home as international law demands.

Also, Iraq and Afghanistan remain occupied, the former with unchanged troop levels for the duration if necessary and thousands more for the latter under a new commander, general Stanley McChrystal, known for his brutality as leader of the Pentagon's infamous Joint Special (death squad) Operations (JSO). No exiting timelines are in sight for either country. Human rights abuses and war crimes occur daily, and torture, extraordinary renditions, and military tribunals remain official US policies as they did under George Bush.

America is a serial aggressor and abuser of binding human rights laws. High-sounding rhetoric changes nothing. Obama claimed America "did not go (to Afghanistan) by choice, we went of necessity....we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there....Iraq was a war of choice (but) I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."

"Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August (and) why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, (and) all our troops....by 2012."

Secret provisions in the Pentagon's 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) indicate otherwise. They flagrantly violate Iraqi sovereignty and authorize the building of permanent US bases, camps, and prisons inside the country. They immunize US forces, civilian security, and private contractors from criminal prosecution. They assure Iraqi "democracy" is illusory.

Their officials have no say over US operations, including incursions into other countries. They require Washington's approval before concluding any agreements with other countries. Key Iraqi ministries stay under US control, including defense, interior, and oil. No timeline is stipulated for America's withdrawal. Conditions depend on Iraqi force readiness, the removal of "security threats" in neighboring countries (namely, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine), and national reconciliation (meaning a defeated resistance). Unacknowledged is that America is in Iraq to stay, and the same holds for Afghanistan.

The historical record shows what Obama won't say. America came to Japan in 1945 and South Korea in 1950, both close US allies, and remained there ever since. Obama plans the same fate for Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other strategic countries where America intends permanent occupations towards its goal of "full spectrum dominance" globally, including by preemptive wars with first-strike nuclear weapons.

Obama also claimed he's "taking concrete actions to change course (and) unequivocally prohibited the use of torture" at a time the practice remains official policy and continues reprehensibly in US-run prisons, including Guantanamo, and secretly in ones in other nations doing our bidding.

Obama said nothing about the millions of Iraqi deaths, refugees, and mass human misery since the Gulf War, subsequent sanctions, and 2003 conflict. He ignored the destruction of the "cradle of civilization," subjugation of a sovereign state, and infliction of the same fate on Afghanistan. He declared his support for democracy, peace, human rights, mutual understanding, and social justice while bringing none to the region and backing its most reprehensible tyrants.

He declared an "unbreakable" bond with Israelis and demanded that Palestinians "must abandon violence." He acknowledged "more than 60 years" of their pain and dislocation but was silent on its cause, the vast slaughter and destruction from Operation Cast Lead, the daily incursions in the West Bank and Gaza, the latter Territory under a medieval siege, and the viciousness of a rogue occupier bringing death, destruction, and human misery to a civilian population in violation of binding human rights laws and norms.

He referred to a "stalemate" pitting "two people with legitimate aspirations" against each other in conflict. "It is easy to point fingers," he said, but "the only resolution (for peace is for) both sides" to accept a two-state solution as stipulated in "the road map" leading solely to isolated bantustans after Israel seizes all valued land, leaves worthless scrub patches behind, and ethnically cleanses large numbers of Palestinians to bordering countries if they'll have them.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," but supplies billions in aid to build them, opposes the legitimate right of Palestinian refugees to return home, backs the corrosiveness of a racist and belligerent Zionism, supports conflicts against an occupied people, and rogue Mahmoud Abbas Fatah elements to divide, conquer, and solidify Israeli hardline rule.

Obama mentioned nuclear weapons as another source of tension, "reaffirmed America's commitment (for) a world" without them, acknowledged Iran's right to "peaceful nuclear power," ignored Israel's nuclear arsenal (likely 200 - 400 warheads), and so far as known, Iran's full compliance with NPT. America and Israel are nuclear outlaws. Israel is the region's most destabilizing force. America has that "honor" globally.

Overall, Obama proposed no concrete measures to redress decades of Palestinian grievances, nor those of Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others in Eurasia - the region America covets for its vast energy and other resource riches.

He came, saw, spoke, made empty gestures and no promises, except about America's permanent imperial presence in partnership with Israeli rule. Obama puts a new face on long-standing policy, but no change of America's global aim - for unchallengeable dominance in this resource-rich part of the world with hardline militarism for enforcement. The Arab street harbors few illusions that it'll be otherwise going forward. Stay tuned.

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

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Beyond The Soaring Rhetoric Of Obama's Cairo Speech: A Toxic Innocence At Home

By Phil Rockstroh

11 June, 2009

Even as President Barrack Obama waxed eloquent in Cairo, Egypt, on the moral imperatives of the community of nations, public opinion polls released in the United States revealed that, by a substantial percentage, its citizens believe torture is an acceptable option for interrogation of suspects deemed terrorist by various US governmental agencies. In addition, other polls show a majority of the American public hold the opinion that the all American theme park of state torture, located at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should remain open for business and continue to welcome guests from around the globe, taking them for the ride of their lives through the dark id of the American psyche.

These revelations should not come as a shock. Torture, official secrecy, and other sundry apparatus and accouterments of the national security state are about the only viable enterprises remaining in this declining nation. Moreover, one of the defining traits of the insecure (both among men and nations) is to stand, bristling in a paranoid posture, with feet planted in stubborn defiance of changing circumstances, snarling at invisible threats and imagined affronts, as life moves on with indifferent grace.

Recently, in the latest in a series of setbacks and self-inflicted wounds, the national identity of the United States sustained another humiliating blow when General Motors was driven into a ditch, declared totaled, and then stripped and sold for spare parts. This event throws a rod into the smoking engine block of the nation's dream machine: The automobiles manufactured in Detroit were once symbols of American power, freedom of mobility, even sexual allure. But the world has sped ahead, leaving the US wheezing dust in its wake: The era of high horsepower and American ascendancy, with its glinting chrome conceit and reenforced steel illusions of unassailable power, now sits upon concrete blocks rusting in the automobile graveyard of history.

At present, and for many years now, the American automobile culture has meant little more than feckless commuters stalled in traffic, alternatively sullen and seething in their powerlessness. Yet, this is not the time to throw a populist pity party: The people of the nation face a future circumscribed by their own lack of self-awareness and their refusal of civic engagement. Year after year, they have displayed avidity for little more than the rigged, roadside attractions of the corporate carnival; hence, traffic is heavy on this lost highway, all lanes are jammed on the superhighway to Clowntown, U.S.A.

Seemingly, the nation's hopes are only being kept flickering by caffeine, antidepressants, and the naive belief that they -- accepting, as Americans have, since birth, the narcissistic mythos of the consumer state -- are a special breed whose God-kissed destiny would forever fall outside the failures and contretemps of earthly life. Therefore, Americans cling to the core conviction that there should not be any consequences for their own oceanic apathy, child-like credulity, and small time cupidity in regard to their relationship to the elitist power brokers whose financial chicanery and political scheming determined their hapless fate.

Both prole and plutocrat set the wheel in motion, and both wait for some kind of deux ex machina, whereby Fortuna will smile once again on the hobbled nation, and restore it and all its special children to their rightful place -- up above the world of regret, reflection, and amends -- back upon their highchairs of infantile entitlement. And while the populace waits in vain for the Goddess of Luck to rise from the wreckage of their vanity, they still have a glut of junk food, guns, and porn (some of the last remaining goods produced by the nation) to act as palliatives ... miserable substitutes -- that they are -- for sustenance, feelings of empowerment, and eros.

At present, the citizens of the US moan "poor us" as they stagger through this "time of crisis." The American people seem as helpless as pitiful puppies whimpering before the multiple and multiplying perils of the present. Yet, they are not wronged innocents, made blameless victims because of their hapless but well-meaning credulity. Nonsense. US consumers have been the beneficiaries of the mad dog policies of the American corporate/national security state nexus. Greedily, they devoured the scraps dropped from the tables of the oligarchs. This PitifulPup/Mad Dog Syndrome defines the era, and is the collective mode of being of citizens of the American Empire (regardless of the public relations makeover the Obama Administration is attempting to pull off worldwide).

For meaningful change to occur, Americans must look deeper into themselves and into the collective soul of the nation. Not far beneath the bristling ego structure of the torturer (and his enablers in the general population) is a quaking pup possessed of a monstrous need for absolute control. Incongruously, the torturer is terrified by his victim. The torturer, like the empire itself, cannot control the vastness of life (he sees the world's uncontrollability as a ticking time bomb somewhere near him he cannot locate) -- but his victim, the human fragment of the world quivering before him, can be (must be!) totally dominated. Or so it seems within the fear frothing mind of the Mad Dog torturer. But this does not suffice: The absolute domination of one solitary human being cannot bridle the uncertainty inherent in life. The torturer's dread cannot be assuaged. In the same manner an alcoholic cannot dominate a bottle of booze by will power, a power drunk nation cannot subdue its terror by practicing torture.

And what is it that invokes such fear in the people of America? Deep down, Americans are stricken with abject fear by the fact that it is impossible to continue being the dominate power on the planet and being indulged, like spoiled children, with all the benefits and privileges such a position affords. The United States tortures to maintain the global status quo. Remember: "Our way of life is non-negotiable." We'll torture or kill anyone (even ecologically, the planet) for a tank of gas and a bag of Cheetos (or any of an assortment of tasty, salt-rich snack foods).

If this preposterous way of life was a classic, Madison Avenue ad campaign, its catchphrase might be: "Bet you can't torture just one." Or: "Go for it!" Or the latest offering of glistening snake oil that has been marketed to the nation: "Yes, we can."

But, as far as investigating US governmental policies of torture and then prosecuting its architects and operatives goes, the Obama administration's mantra has degenerated from, “yes, we can,” to “no, can-do.” Unless President Obama reverses course, he will prove himself not to be an agent of change, but another water-board carrier for the psychopaths of the status quo.

Such a high level of denial only increases the intensity of the murderous libido that flows beneath the surface of American life -- that chthonic river of repressed rage surging within the psyches of the besieged laboring class, who, despite being burdened by debt slavery and chafed by ever diminishing prospects, still clutch the kitschy iconography of the god of the consumer state. Although that god has fallen, it will not go solemnly to the boneyard of dead myths.

In the contemporary US, debt slavery, a lack of future prospects, the constant threat of bankruptcy and homelessness, and the danger of gun violence are all very real; yet, day and night, alluring media mirages beckon Americans into a blinding wasteland of false hope. Daily existence feels unreal -- a constant, hollow communion with electronic phantoms. A chasm of alienation opens between the polarity of unreal expectations and degraded real life situations. Toxic shlock syndrome sets in.

The sense of alienation is so profound that many citizens on the political right believe that President Obama cannot in reality be a citizen of this country; his name is too foreign, his skin possesses a hue too different from their own. His birth certificate must be as bogus as an IOU from Bernie Madoff. He can't be a real American; he seems no more real, nor connected with the concerns of their lives, than any other ghost in the media hologram.

But guns feel real to these troubled folks. The weapon's weight in their hands wards off an unfocused sense of dread; its heft, momentarily, mitigates feelings of being helplessly adrift ... Looking down the precise beauty of its barrel distills down hazy hatreds into identifiable targets. Within their fog-shrouded minds, the very presence of that "slick-ass usurper" in the White House causes the ground to feel less than solid beneath their feet. Ergo, guns must be stockpiled; massive amounts of ammunition stored for ballast. These treacherous days, that are so muffled by the white noise of uncertainty, must yield to something as clear and decisive as the crack of a rifle shot.

A collective tantrum rages on the right, as their ranks hold their breath and hoard bullets. In the enveloping darkness of political powerlessness, they are sleeping with their Sarah Palin night-light on, then tossing fitfully awake attempting to mollify themselves by gazing mindlessly at Fox News crib mobiles, then scanning the heavens craving a Happy Meal apocalypse.

"I won't share my toys; they're mine! I want my tax cut lolly! Now!" Their sippy cups runneth over with rage. Overweight, evincing a junk food engendered, toddler-like waddle, and blubbering in their snit fit of thwarted id, they resemble heavily armed Teletubbies in the throes of an angel dust-induced psychosis.

The nation seethes with cranky, overgrown babies who kill. How could it not come to this, when the nation tortures like little boys plucking the wings from hapless flies? But the Empire of Perpetual Id cannot be sustained. What Obama apprehends, and was the underlying theme of his Cairo stem-winder: The people of the world have grown weary of our brattiness. They wish to rouse us from our long nappytime of exceptionalism. The world has moved on, while too many Americans sit bawling in their toxic innocence.

Meanwhile, the most special children whose privileged faces were ever touched by the golden light of the sun, the elite of Wall Street, bang their silver spoons on their skyscraper highchairs, whining, "We want more bonus candy, We want to go for a ride in my Gulfstream Jet stroller, We want to go play in our Dubai sandbox -- Gimme, gimme! -- Now!"

Every four to eight years, presidential elections are held in the United States of Infantile Omnipotence in which we attempt to personify the nation with an adult face. Usually we fail: Bush with his crankiness and his tantrums of mass destruction; Clinton with his oceanic overreach and his inability to delay gratification; Reagan with his senile, regressed-to-childhood naps ... He even called his wife, "mommy."

Barrack Obama appears to be an adult. Yet, in our childish national psyche, panicked and paralyzed because its arrested development has left it bereft of the ability to navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world, having Obama as the face of the nation is like The Portrait of Dorian Gray -- but played out in reverse -- and produced as a pop-up book.

Worse, it appears the nation's collective mode of being might proceed straight from infancy to decrepitude, only briefly stopping in puberty for a session of online porno-induced masturbation.

Phil Rockstroh, a self-described, auto-didactic, gasbag monologist, is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: phil@philrockstroh.com

Obama’s Cairo Speech - Lies, Spin And Holocaust Denial

By Gideon Polya

11 June, 2009

Obama’s speech in Cairo was full of nice politically correct (PC) expressions of love for Islam and Muslims but dishonestly evaded the central issue of ongoing US Alliance occupation and devastation of Muslim countries and abusive mass imprisonment of the conquered populations of these Occupied Territories including Occupied Somalia (not mentioned), Occupied Palestine, Occupied Syria (not mentioned), Occupied Lebanon (not mentioned), Occupied Iraq, Occupied Afghanistan and US robot-bombed NE Provinces of Pakistan.

In 1945 the Germans adopted a post-war protocol that can be summarized by the acronym CAAAA (C4A) and involving Cessation of the killing; Acknowledgment of the crimes; Apology for the crimes; Amends for the crimes; and Assertion “never again to anyone”.

Unfortunately the only Acknowledgement of any US crime that Obama actually admitted to in his speech was that about US involvement in the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953.

There is no Cessation of the killing in the American Empire from Occupied Somalia to robot-bombed Pakistan; there is no Acknowledgment of the horrendous human cost of the Bush (now Obama) wars against Muslims (9-11 million excess deaths associated with the Bush wars, 1990-2009); there is no Apology (the Iraqi Genocide is described ambivalently and offensively as a “war of choice”); there are no Amends (indeed Obama confesses to an enormous continuing war crime by indicating “aid” to Occupied Afghanistan of $2.8 billion that falls far short of the $180 billion annually demanded by the Geneva Convention, as detailed and explained below); and, of course, no Assertion of “never again to anyone” – indeed the butchery is unabated from US surrogate-invaded Occupied Somalia to the US robot-bombing and US-backed war in NW Pakistan that has generated 2.5 million new refugees in just 5 months of the Obama presidency (see: http://blog.taragana.com/n/donors-pledge-244-mn-for-swat-refugees-64956/ ) .

As for the Iraqi Holocaust and Iraqi Genocide (2.3 million post-invasion excess deaths, 0.6 million post-invasionunder-5 infant deaths, 6 million refugees) all that Obama acknowledged was that “Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world … events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible“ i.e. it’s just a learning curve for America and water under the bridge because some nice Americans didn’t think we should have done it and perhaps next time America may talk first before killing millions of people.

Before proceeding further with detailed analysis of Obama’s speech, it is useful to simply present the horrendous statistics detailing the human cost of the genocidal US-backed Apartheid Israeli occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the genocidal US Alliance occupations of Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan.

As of April 2009, in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories:

1. post-invasion non-violent excess deaths total 0.3 million, 1.0 million and 3.2 million, respectively;

2. post-invasion violent deaths total about 10,000, 1.3 million and 2-4 million, respectively;

3. total post-invasion violent and non-violent excess deaths total 0.3 million, 2.3 million and 3-7 million, respectively;

4. post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million, 0.6 million and 2.3 million, respectively; and

5. refugees total 7 million, 5-6 million and 3-4 million, respectively.

This constitutes a Palestinian Holocaust, an Iraqi Holocaust and an Afghan Holocaust; a Palestinian Genocide, Iraqi Genocide and Afghan Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention; and egregious war crimes due in part to Occupier war criminal non-supply of life-sustaining food and medical requisites demanded unequivocally by Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Thus the Gaza Concentration Camp has been under US-backed Israeli blockade for 2 years and according to WHO the “total annual per capita medical expenditure” permitted by the Occupiers in Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan is US$124 and US$29, respectively, as compared to US$6,714 for the US (see “Pro-Zionist Western holocaust denial”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/29844/26/ ).

Annual excess deaths can be estimated from UN data for the major sectors of the American Empire: Occupied Afghanistan (483,000), Occupied Haiti (30,0000), Occupied Iraq (59,000), the Occupied Palestinian Territory (6,000), and Occupied Somalia (77,000), for a total of 655,000 non-violent avoidable deaths per year and 1,795 each day. Obama has only been in office since 20 January 2009 but it can be been estimated that in his first 4 months alone excess deaths in these Occupied Territories totalled about 220,000 and avoidable under-5 infant deaths totalled about 140,000 (see “Hey, hey USA, how many kids did you kill today? Answer: 1,000”: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article18750 ). Obama’s War in Pakistan has created 2.5 million refugees this year
(see: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/
story.php?storyId=104967631 ).

Obama is doing in Pakistan what the British did in the Kenyan Holocaust in the 1950s and what Obama scrupulously ignores in a process of cowardly holocaust denial (1 million imprisoned in enclosed villages; 0.1 million killed in custody or otherwise; 1.1 million excess deaths) (for details see Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950. Chapter 7, 2007:
http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/
body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html and http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ).

Obama divided his speech into 7 sections and in order to systematically consider his lies, slies (spin-based untruths) and holocaust ignoring it is convenient to follow this division.

1. Violent extremism.

Obama says: “The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms” – however, you can’t get more violent extremism than the US alliance killing about 1,800 people every day (see Gideon Polya, “Hey, hey USA how many kids did you kill today? Answer 1,000”, Bellaciao, 2009: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?article18750 ).

Obama reiterates the Bush Allegation that Muslims did 9/11. However the discovery of unexploded nanothermite high explosive in all samples of World Trade Center dust analysed points the finger for responsibility squarely at the US and its “dirty tricks” Israeli terrorist helpmates (see “Is US responsible for 9-11? Scientists find nanothermite in WTC dust”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/29921/42/ ).

Even if you accept the Bush-Obama version of 9/11 (men in caves killing 3,000 Americans) does that justify the US killing 1,800 people per day (1,200 infants per day forever? What happened to Obama’s Cairo motherhood statement of “the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible“ ? And why mass murder Afghans when the official Bush-Obama version of 9-11 states that no (0) Afghans were actually directly involved in the events of 9-11?

The 2.3 million under-5 year old Occupied Afghan infants who have died since the US invasion in 2001 (90% avoidably and due to US Alliance war crimes) certainly had nothing to do with 9-11 – and neither did their millions of bereaved mothers, fathers and siblings.

The minimum estimate of post-invasion Occupied Afghan excess deaths is 3 million and accordingly the reprisals death ratio justified by Obama is 3,000,000 Afghans/3,000 9-11 victims = 1,000, about 100 times higher than the “enemy civilians”/”dead Germans” reprisals death ratio of merely 10 ordered by Nazi leader Adolph Hitler in 1944 and executed precisely in the 1944 Rome Ardeatine Caves Massacre. However if we take the upper estimate of 7 million non-violent and violent post-invasion excess deaths then the Obama “death ratio” becomes 7 million/3,000 = 2,333.

As discussed above, Obama made no apology for the Iraq War (“ a war of choice”), made no Acknowledgement of the 2.3 million post-invasion excess deaths and calmly told the Muslim World that he will keep the killing going for another 3 years or so.

Obama actually makes a confession of war criminality in his speech, alluding to “aid” of $7.5 billion for Pakistan and $2.8 billion for Occupied Afghanistan – yet Articles 55 and 56 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War demand that the Occupier does everything “to the fullest extent of the means available it” to keep its Conquered Subjects alive and that means for 27 million Occupied Afghans at least the same annual per capita medical expenditure as for metropolitan USA i.e. $6,714 per person per year x 27 million Afghans = $180 billion every year rather than the paltry $2.8 billion offered.

Obama is currently the World’s #1 violent extremist, the World’s #1 killer of children - and the World’s #1 holocaust denier because he absolutely ignores the horrendous human cost of US invasion, occupation and devastation of the Muslim World.

2. Apartheid Israel and Palestine.

Obama makes no criticism of Apartheid Israel and its violent, illegal, war criminal , abusive 41 year imprisonment of the Occupied Palestinians (now 4 million prisoners) but adopts the standard dishonest pro-Zionist line of “two sides to the argument” - ignoring the inequality of the 1.5 million Palestinians incarcerated in the Gaza Concentration Camp, 2.5 million Occupied Palestinians incarcerated in the West Bank Bantustans, the 1.5 million Palestinian Israelis subject to Nazi-style, race-based Apartheid laws and over 7 million Palestinian refugees (over 4 million registered with the UN).

Obama states that “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied” - but this violates Orthodox Jewish theology (which says that it is heresy and blasphemy to advocate return to Zion before the Messiah comes) and to any decent , anti-racist this should not involve ethnic cleansing of the indigenous inhabitants.

Thus outstanding Jewish American scholar Professor Jared Diamond in his book “Collapse” (Prologue, p10, Penguin edition) unequivocally enunciates the “moral principle, namely that it is morally wrong for one people to dispossess, subjugate, or exterminate another people.”

Obama also states that “Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland”. Yet the Indigenous Palestinians are no more “pursuing a homeland” than Indigenous French of France are “pursuing a homeland”. The fact of the matter is that 100% of their continuously Palestinian inhabited homeland for over 3,000 years has been in the hands of genocidal, racist Zionist colonizers for 61 years and about 78% has been in the hands of Apartheid Israel for 61 years – whereas in 1880 Jews represented a mere 5% of the population of Palestine and even now after 6 decades of Palestinian Genocide represent only about 50% of the population of the Holy Land.

While making no criticism of the egregiously violent and murderous racist Zionists (RZs), Obama was trenchant in his criticism of Palestinian “violence” – the world’s #1 current state terrorist and mass murderer Obama was telling the Palestinians to suffer peacefully: “Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.”

Notwithstanding the egregious dishonesty of war criminal Obama, as a person committed to Peace and Non-violence I actually agree with this call of Obama for non-violence (this from the safety of my armchair in distant Australia while recognizing the horrible reality of continuing US and Israeli mass murder of Muslims and Israel’s murderous attempts to kill or imprison all members of the Hamas Government that was overwhelmingly democratically elected under Israeli guns in 2006).

Some more key statistics are required at this point to counter Obama’s egregious lying by omission and commission about Palestinian “violence”.

In December 2008-January 2009 the Israelis murdered about 1,400 Palestinians in what the Catholic Church describes as Israel’s Gaza Concentration Camp in response to zero (0) Israeli deaths from Gaza rockets in the previous year. The ostensible excuse for Apartheid Israel’s latest Gaza Massacre was “Gaza rocket terror”. However “terror” is directly proportional to “proportion of people killed” and the actual number of Israelis killed by Gaza rockets and mortars since the start of the Second Intifada 8.25 years ago was twenty eight (28), this corresponding to a 21st century “annual homicide rate” in units of “persons killed per million of population per year” of 0.5 (Israelis killed by Gaza missiles) – as compared to 0.5 (rapist husbands murdered by raped wives), 1.0 (violent husbands murdered by battered wives), 15 (Israelis by Israelis), 56 (Americans), 100 (Americans by guns), 164 (Palestinians killed violently by Israelis), 200 (African-Americans), 473 (citizens of Detroit, Michigan, USA) and 1,429 per million per year (annual Palestinian non-violent deaths through war criminal, Geneva Convention-violating Israeli-imposed deprivation) (updated statistics from “Palestinian-Israeli death ratios. Nazi-style Israeli Gaza war crimes”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/27795/42/ ).

Yet Obama makes no mention of the ongoing Israeli mass murder of Indigenous Palestinians (Apartheid Israel passively murders about 3,600 under-5 year old Occupied Palestinian infants each year by deliberately and war criminally withholding life-sustaining food and medical requisites demanded unequivocally by the Geneva Convention) (for the latest data see UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/index.html ).

3. Nuclear weapons

In his Cairo Speech Obama made no mention of Apartheid Israeli nuclear weapons (believed to number about 200) but reiterates the “terrorism” canard against Iran , a country under attack from US-enabled heroin smugglers from Occupied Afghanistan and US-backed Baluchi terrorists from Baluchistan in SW Pakistan. And of course, if Iran did have nuclear weapons would they use then to commit suicide by attacking the US or Apartheid Israel? Of course not.

Obama stated “The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons. This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran” – yet Iran has repeatedly stated that it does not want nuclear weapons; US intelligence confirms that they gave up any such intentions 6 years ago; Iran has repeatedly voted for a nuclear-free Middle East (this being repeatedly opposed by nuclear terrorist states of Apartheid Israel and the US); Iran has not attacked any other country for centuries whereas the US has attacked, threatened or subverted almost every country on the planet and Apartheid Israel has attacked numerous countries (Tunisia, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Uganda and even the US per the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty) as well as playing a “dirty tricks” US surrogate role in Central America, South America, Africa and the South Pacific).

Obama uses the following spin and motherhood device in avoiding mention of Israeli nuclear weapons [my additions in square brackets] : “I understand those who protest that some countries [e.g. Israel] have weapons that others do not [e.g. Iran, Palestine]. No single nation [e.g. the US] should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations [except America?] hold nuclear weapons.”

4. Democracy

In this part if his Cairo Speech Obama moved from egregious lying by omission to lying by commission. Thus Obama stated “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians” – denying the reality that in 2006 Hamas won an overwhelming victory by winning 76 seats out of 132 in the Occupied Palestinian Territory legislature in elections held under racist Zionist (RZ) guns (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas ).

Obama stated that “I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other” – yet that is exactly what the US and its allies are doing in Occupied Haiti, Occupied Somalia, Occupied Palestine, Occupied Iraq, and Occupied Afghanistan, Occupied Territories in which the formerly dominant parties (e.g. Hamas that overwhelmingly won the 2006 Occupied Palestinian elections held under Occupier guns, winning 76 seats out of 132: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas ) have been declared to be “terrorists” and hunted down and killed leaving only the “acceptable” remaining Indigenous parties to participate in “democracy” under foreign guns.

Indeed in Occupied Diego Garcia, Occupied Lebanon (the Shebaa farms zone) and Occupied Syria (the Golan Heights) US-style “democracy” is assured because these Occupied Territories have been completely ethnically cleansed of Indigenous inhabitants.

While Obama made an admission of US responsibility for overthrowing democracy in Iran in 1953, he did not have the courage (or the time in one speech) to admit to America’s appalling role in subversion of democracy in virtually every country around the World from Fiji (1987 US-backed military coup) to Haiti (2004 US-backed military coup) (for details see William Blum’s “Rogue State” and Gideon Polya’s “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”).

Of course, in this core part of his speech Obama egregiously lied by omission (ignoring US subversion of democracy world-wide except in relation to subversion of Iranian democracy in 1953) and also lied by commission. Thus Obama stated : “Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist” – but the reality is otherwise: Hamas overwhelmingly won the Occupied Palestinian elections in 2006 but the Hamas MPs have been variously imprisoned, killed or besieged in the Gaza Concentration Camp; Hamas does not deny the right of Israel to exist but (like Mandela and the ANC in Apartheid South Africa) wants observance of international law and non-racism; and Hamas versus Israeli violence is underscored by Apartheid Israel’s recent killing of 1,400 Gaza inmates in retaliation for zero (0) Israeli deaths from Gaza rockets in the preceding year.

Democracy is fundamentally the practical expression of the will of the people and perhaps the most fundamental wish of all human beings is to see the survival of their children. Yet infant mortality is shockingly high in the Occupied Territories of the American Empire (Occupied Haiti, Occupied Somalia, Occupied Palestine, Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan). In contrast, in impoverished, US-sanctioned and US-threatened Cuba – free of US hegemony for 50 years – the infant mortality rate is the same as in the US (see “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”:
http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/08/
body-count-global-avoidable-mortality.html and http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ). Cuban democracy indeed.

5. Religious freedom

Obama ignores the reality that one of the most holy cities for 2 billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims (Jerusalem) is illegally occupied and violated by racist Zionist-run Apartheid Israel in violation of numerous UN Resolutions, notably the 1968 UN Security Council Resolution 252 that expressly forbids genocidal Israeli dispossession of East Jerusalem Palestinians and indeed of all other Occupied Indigenous Palestinians. Indigenous Palestinians are frequently forbidden to worship at their holy shrines in Occupied Palestine and going on the Haj runs the risk of never being able to return to their homes and families in Occupied Palestine.

In his Cairo Speech Obama made a contemptibly dishonest statement about Muslim freedom of religion: “We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfil their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfil zakat”.

Yet recently in the United States of America (aka the United States of Israel) the founder members of what was once the biggest Muslim charity in the US were jailed for 65 years for giving money to aid the orphans from Israeli killings of Occupied Palestinians i.e. the US has made the core Muslim obligation of alms-giving (zakat) a criminal offence attracting an effective life sentence in prison (see “anti-Arab anti-Semitism. US and Australia make Muslim charity a major crime”: http://mwcnews.net/content/view/30871/42/ ) .

6. Women’s rights

Obama concentrated on the wearing of the hijab and female literacy - but ignored the fundamental biological desire and “right” of women to see the survival of their offspring, a “right” variously denied by mass paedocidal polices of US imperialism and US-backed surrogates in the Occupied Territories of Haiti, Somalia, . Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and robot-bombed NW Pakistan.

Thus UNICEF, WHO and UN Population Division data inform us that in the Occupied Palestinian, Iraqi and Afghan Territories the “annual death rate” is 0.6%, 0.9% and 7.0%, respectively, for under-5 year old infants – as compared to 0.1% for Israeli or White Australian infants and 10% for Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese in World War 2 (for which war crimes Japanese generals were tried and hung).

Obama’s words are hollow indeed – he is the effective ruler of Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan, devastated countries in which the equal rights for women obtaining in 2003 and 1978, respectively, (i.e. prior to massive, malignant and violent US involvement) has been supplanted by gross abuse of women’s rights by US-backed Puppet Governments.

7. Economic development and opportunity

Obama’s pontifications about “economic development and opportunity” represent a massive lie. The US with 4.7% of the world’s population consumes 25% of the world’s wealth. Obama is responsible for 655,000 non-violent avoidable deaths from deprivation each year in the US Overseas Empire (and an unknown number of violent excess deaths but his Nazi-style generals “don’t do body counts”). However the global avoidable mortality carnage on Spaceship Earth under US hegemony with Obama at the wheel is horrendous: 16 million avoidable deaths annually (9.4 million being under-5 infants) from deprivation and deprivation-exacerbated disease (2004 data; see Gideon Polya’s “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”: http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya ).

Obama and the pro-Zionist Mainstream media and politicians of the Western Murdochracies scrupulously avoid seeing the horrendous consequences of First World hegemony. Thus using UN Population Division data one can estimate “avoidable mortality” (excess mortality, avoidable deaths, excess death, deaths that did not have to happen) for every country in the world, avoidable mortality being the difference between actual deaths in a country and deaths expected for a peaceful, decently run country with the same demographics.

Thus for all countries (excepting Germany and Japan) occupied by the US as a major occupier since 1945, the 1950-2005 avoidable deaths have totalled 82 million. The breakdown (expressing avoidable deaths as a ratio of the 2005 population and including the value for the US itself) is as follows (m = millions; * indicates other major co-occupiers): US [8.455m/300.038m = 2.8%] - Afghanistan* [16.609m/25.971m = 64.0%], Cambodia* [5.852m/14.825m = 39.5%], Dominican Republic [0.806m/8.998m = 9.0%], Federated States of Micronesia [0.016m/0.111m = 14.4%], Greece* [0.027m/10.978m = 0.2%], Grenada* [0.018m/0.121m = 14.9%], Guam [0.005m/0.168m = 3.0%], Haiti* [4.089m/8.549m = 47.9%], Iraq* [5.283m/26.555m = 19.9%], Korea* [7.958m/71.058m = 11.2%], Laos* [2.653m/5.918m = 44.8%], Panama [0.172m/3.235m = 5.3%], Philippines [9.080m/82.809m = 11.0%], Puerto Rico [0.039m/3.915m = 1.0%], Somalia* [5.568m/10.742m = 51.8%], US Virgin Islands [0.003m/0.113m = 2.4%], Vietnam* [24.015m/83.585m = 28.7%], total = 82.193m/357.651m = 23.0% (see “Global avoidable mortality” : http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/ ).

The 1950-2005 avoidable mortality has totalled 1.3 billion (the World), 1.2 billion (the non-European World) and 0.6 billion (the Muslim World) – a Muslim Holocaust 100 times greater than the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (5-6 million deaths, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation) or the “forgotten” WW2 Bengal Famine (6-7 million Indians deliberately starved to death by the British in this WW2 Bengali Holocaust).

However it gets worse. The US and its extreme right wing Anglo allies Canada and Australia, are among the worst greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters in the world as revealed by the following figures: “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 2.2 (India), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 24 (Canada) , 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included (see Wikipedia, “List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_
by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita ).

Obama has offered a mere 2% off 2000 GHG pollution by 2020 whereas top UK experts say an annual 6-8% reduction in GHG pollution is required just to maintain the current damaging atmospheric CO2-equivalent of 450 ppm . Obama’s cowardice is committing the World to a worsening Climate Genocide that, according to top UK climate scientist Professor James Lovelock FRS, will mean that fewer than 1 billion will survive the century i.e. about 10 billion will die, mostly non-European, and including 2 billion Indians and 3 billion Muslims in a Muslim Holocaust that will dwarf the 0.6 billion Muslim Holocaust of the past 6 decades (see: http://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/
climate-disruption-climate-emergency-climate-genocide-
penultimate-bengali-holocaust-through-sea-level-rise ).

In summary, Obama’s speech to the Muslim World had some useful positives - admission of US overthrow of democracy in Iran (but no admission of the horrendous subversion of democracy by the US in virtually all countries around the world); US support for a Palestinian State (but in practice only when genocidal, thieving, racist Zionist-run Apartheid Israel agrees); and opposition to nuclear weapons (while the nuclear terrorist rogue states of the US and Apartheid Israel have 15,000 and 200 nuclear weapons, respectively).

For the rest, Obama ‘s speech was a dishonest, Orwellian and Goebbelsian mix of pro-Zionist propaganda, obfuscation, spin, outright lies, slies (spin-based untruths) and massive lying by omission about the carnage of the Bush (now Obama) War on Muslims ( 7-9 million excess deaths, so far, since 2001; 9-11 million excess deaths since 1990), the post-war, US-complicit Muslim Holocaust (0.6 billion Muslim excess deaths) and the worsening, US-complicit Climate Genocide that will kill 3 billion Muslims this century in a final, terminal Muslim Holocaust due to unaddressed man-made climate change.

Who does lying, racist, pro-Zionist, pro-war, holocaust-denying, war criminal Obama think he is? While many people take heart that Obama started moving away from murderous Bush intransigence, the horrible reality is that Obama’s Cairo Speech involves pro-Zionist lies, slies (spin-based untruths) and outrageous holocaust denial.

Obama has quickly revealed himself as a war criminal and a mass murderer, a holocaust committer and a holocaust denier. Decent humanity will not be satisfied until this monster is arraigned before the International Criminal Court.

Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text "Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds" (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003: http://www.amazon.com/Biochemical-Targets-Plant-Bioactive-Compounds/dp/0415308291 ). He has recently published “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2007: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/ and http://mwcnews.net/Gideon-Polya) and an updated 2008 version of his 1998 book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History, Colonial rapacity, holocaust denial and the crisis in biological sustainability” (G.M. Polya, Melbourne, 2008: http://janeaustenand.blogspot.com/ ). He is currently teaching Biochemistry theory and practical courses to second year university agricultural science students at a very good Australian university.

Jewish Town In Galilee Demands ‘Loyalty Oath’

By Jonathan Cook

11 June, 2009

Misgav: A community in northern Israel has changed its bylaws to demand that new residents pledge support for “Zionism, Jewish heritage and settlement of the land” in a thinly veiled attempt to block Arab applicants from gaining admission.
Critics are calling the bylaw, adopted by Manof, home to 170 Jewish families in Galilee, a local “loyalty oath” similar to a national scheme recently proposed by the far-Right party of the government minister Avigdor Lieberman.
Other Jewish communities in the central Galilee -- falling under the umbrella of a regional council known as Misgav -- are preparing similar bylaws in response to a court petition filed by an Arab couple hoping to build a home in Misgav.
“It looks very much like this is being co-ordinated by the Misgav council in an attempt to pre-empt the court ruling,” said Ronin Ben Ari, resident of another Misgav community, Mikhmanim, and an opponent of the bylaw change.
Manof’s move comes in the wake of efforts by Ahmed and Fatina Zbeidat, who live in the neighbouring Arab town of Sakhnin, to win admission to the Misgav community of Rakafet.
Traditionally some 700 rural communities in Israel, including 30 in Misgav, have weeded out Arab applicants by issuing automatic rejections through special vetting committees. Arab citizens make up one-fifth of the country’s population.
According to a legal rights group, rural communities, which are home to only five per cent of the population but have control over four-fifths of the countryside, are seen by the state as a bulwark against Arabs gaining access to what are called “national lands”.
However, the vetting system has been under threat since a court ruling in 2000 that required the committees to consider Arab applicants and justify their decisions.
In line with the ruling, the Zbeidats demanded the right to take a suitability test when their application was turned down in 2006. Examiners found Fatina too “individualistic” for life in a small community while her husband lacked “knowledge of sophisticated interpersonal relations”.
The Zbeidats then petitioned the courts against the use of vetting committees, saying they enforced “blatant discrimination” against Arab applicants.
Earlier this year, in an indication that the court was preparing to back them, it demanded that the attorney-general explain why the vetting committees should continue.
“There is little doubt that many residents of Misgav are panicking about the court case,” said Mr Ben Ari, who heads a small dissident group called Alternative Voice in the Galilee.
He added that Ron Shani, who was elected Misgav’s mayor late last year, made opposition to the Zbeidats’ bid to live in Rakafet a major platform in his campaign.
Mr Shani defended the bylaw change last week to the Israeli media. “The council’s position is that it is appropriate to strengthen the character of the community -- a community in which Zionist values and Jewish heritage stand at the heart of its way of life. We don’t see this as racism in any way.”
Mr Ben Ari said: “There is a widely held feeling in Misgav that changing the bylaws is a legitimate way for the Jewish minority in the Galilee to defend itself against an Arab and Islamic danger.
“The residents here are not right-wing types like Lieberman. They see themselves as liberals and in fact are made very uncomfortable by the Lieberman comparison.”
A bill proposed by Mr Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party that conditioned citizenship on declaring loyalty to a Jewish state was rejected by a ministerial committee last week. Mr Lieberman campaigned in February’s general election on a platform of “No loyalty, no citizenship”.
Such views are widely held, according to polls. One in 2006 found that 68 per cent of Israeli Jews would refuse to live next to an Arab and 46 per cent would not allow an Arab to visit their home.
The bylaw, accepted by an overwhelming majority in Manof, stipulates that applicants must share “the values of the Zionist movement, Jewish heritage, settlement of the Land of Israel ... and observance of Jewish holidays”.
It also proposes that local children be encouraged to join the Zionist youth movement and the Israeli army.
A similarly worded proposal will come before another Misgav community, Yuvalim, later this month.
One resident opposed to the change, Arik Kirschenbaum, told the liberal Haaretz newspaper last week: “It suddenly seems as if we adopted bylaws from the settlements.”
Residents of Manof have been quoted in the Israeli media decrying accusations of racism.
“It’s unpleasant and even offensive to wake up one morning and find that you’ve turned into Lieberman,” said Alon Mayer, pointing out that Yisrael Beiteinu won only 2.5 per cent of Manof’s vote in the February general election.
Several residents were reported to fear that living alongside Arabs might lead to ethnic tensions and sectarian violence.
Suhad Bishara, a lawyer with the Adalah legal rights group who is representing the Zbeidats, said: “There is nothing unique or special about the way of life in these communities to justify this kind of restriction on admission.
“Rather, the purpose of the selection system is to make sure 80 per cent of the territory inside Israel is not accessible to Arabs, that the control of public resources stays exclusively in Jewish hands.”
The Zbeidats’ application was submitted after they were unable to find a building plot in Sakhnin. The town’s young couples face increasing difficulties building homes after much of Sakhnin’s land was turned over to Misgav’s jurisdiction.
Sakhnin officials point out that its 25,000 inhabitants have only one-twentieth of the land available to the 20,000 residents of Misgav’s 30 communities. An appeal by Sakhnin that it be awarded some of Misgav’s land was rejected by a boundary commission in 2005.
Misgav promotes itself, in the words of its website, as a model of “ethnic pluralism” because it includes 5,000 Bedouin.
However, critics note that Misgav’s Bedouin live in a handful of separate communities deprived of the land available to the Jewish communities.
The Bedouin inhabitants are generally denied basic services such as water and electricity, as well as schools and medical clinics. In one, Arab al Naim, the inhabitants are forced to live in tin shacks because permanent structures are demolished by the state.
Last week, three members of the Israeli parliament introduced a bill stipulating that vetting committees should assess candidates’ “suitability to the community’s way of life and social fabric”. The legislators said the bill would help in “maintaining the Zionist vision”.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net.
A version of this article originally appeared in The National (www.thenational.ae), published in Abu Dhabi.

It's All About The Children

By Eileen Fleming

11 June, 2009

[Tel Aviv, Israel June 6, 2009] Out of 120 seats in the Israeli parliament 11 are held by Arab-Israelis. One of them is Hannen Zoubi, the first woman representative of an Arab party to be elected to the Kennest. The outspoken advocate against the occupation of Palestine greeted the group from CODE PINK with, "It's a great pleasure to meet so many US citizens as most of our problems come as a result from USA policies. What we need is a direct relationship with all people of the world as we Palestinians daily struggle for human values, freedom and justice which are international values."
Regarding the proposal of a law by Avigdor Lieberman's party that would strip Israeli Palestinians of their citizenship unless they pledge loyalty to a Jewish state, "Lieberman did not say anything new and racism has become legitimatized. From 1948 until now, loyalty to Zionism was enforced by policy. With the introduction of the loyalty law, anyone who would say Israel is not a Jewish State and a democracy would be jailed for three years! But we are optimistic for just by suggesting such a law it indicates the crisis that after 60 years we will never forget who we are.
"What Israel is attempting to demand is that I must be loyal to the Zionist dream. Loyalty to a state should require obeying the laws but Israel does not take our citizenship seriously. We cannot accept their Zionist dream, we have our dreams. We cannot accept the Zionist vision, we have our vision. I am a citizen of Israel but I am not an Israeli and I am not Jewish. Israel did not give me my identity and Israel cannot be a Jewish state and a democracy."
According to Jeff Halper, American-Israeli, Founder and Coordinator of ICAHD/Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, "Israel is an Ethnocracy, meaning a country run and controlled by a national group with some democratic elements but set up with Jews in control and structured to keep them in control."
Zoubi continued, "In 1948, 750,000 Palestinians were expelled, we were thrown out of our homes. The most educated left and the 150,000 who remained were the weakest part of society. In 1948, the Jews had 4% of the land and they have confiscated 93% more and we have 3% of our homeland.
"There are three times more settlements now than in 1995. Today there are 600,000 settlers and 800 checkpoints. Israel negotiates only to block a peace agreement. Hamas won because after 13 years of negotiations the people wanted a change. The rockets are stupid and illegitimate, but they carry a political meaning; we want our freedom and we do not accept the way Fatah negotiates. The dispute between Hamas and Fatah is not over power-it is about two different political ways. I cannot be pro-Hamas, but they were democratically elected and are now more powerful than in 2006. We are very critical of Abbas and we don't think he cares about the Palestinians in Gaza, he just wants to keep his position. The people know he put down spontaneous demonstrations in the West Bank in support of Gaza.
"Resisting occupation is legitimate and our goal is not one or two states, our goal is to end the occupation. The goal is freedom, equality and justice.''
Later in the day, CODE PINK joined the annual Tel Aviv demonstration against the occupation that gathered at Rabin Square. Approximately a thousand people of conscience turned out, who chanted in Hebrew, "Stop the Occupation" and "Children in Sderot, children in Gaza both deserve to be free" to the beat of a twelve piece percussion band and entertained by anarchist clowns. When the demonstrators stopped too long as the clowns performed, two dozen border police rushed in to disperse the artists, who stood their ground until the police commanded the demonstrators own security staff move the crowd.
Third generation Israeli, Yoel Admi, wearing an Obama t-shirt said, "Obama represents the type of leadership we want to see all over the world. We have had enough corruption and lack of leadership."
Second generation Israeli, Batya Aviran, stated, "We need American people to help us help ourselves. We want you to encourage Obama to push the Israeli government to get rid of the settlements and end the occupation."
Sebastian Rodrigus' family migrated to Israel in the 1970's from South America, "We need America to stop supporting Israel in the UN. Obama's courage should be an example to the Israeli government, but we are afraid he has no partner here. Obama is approaching the radicals that Bush was suppressing and when I heard his speech I had the shivers.
"I was a First Sargent in a combat unit and about 70% of the troops are insensitive to the daily humiliations the Palestinians are subjected to. I became an activist when I got out because the first action I was involved in has never left me. It was 4 AM in the morning and we had good intelligence that a terrorist was in this house. I was in charge of keeping the rest of the family in a separate room and the look I saw in the children's eyes has never left me. The look on those kids faces I will never forget. For me, it's all about the children."
Within the last ten days, 120 CODE PINK activists have made their way into Gaza through Egypt and have built three playgrounds, played with hundreds of children. Today, over forty more CODE PINK activists will converge at Erez Checkpoint with hope to build playgrounds and it's all about the children. "The fierce urgency of now" [MLK] should compel all people of conscience to petition their governments to force an end to the occupation of Palestine Gaza, in this, the final year of the UN's Decade of Creating a Culture of Nonviolence for all the children of the world.

Eileen Fleming is an author, a feature correspondent for The Palestine Telegraph and Arabisto.com. and she founded WeAreWideAwake.org, and produced "30 Minutes with Vanunu" and "13 Minutes with Vanunu" because corporate media has been MIA all during a freedom of speech trial in Israel.

Only in Solidarity do "we have it in our power to begin the world again."-Tom Paine http://www.wearewideawake.org/

Political Options For Jerusalem's Future

By Dan Lieberman

11 June, 2009

Israel's latest strategy for complicating the peace process is to delay discussions of Jerusalem's future. Steering debate to other agendas enables Israel to establish more "facts on Jerusalem ground," which consists of annexing lands, constructing bypass roads and housing and preparing for the decisive moment that will allow expansion of the Maale Adumim settlement and the development of the E1 corridor.

From a Palestinian perspective, the extensive E1 corridor will join settlements in a ring that separates East Jerusalem from the West Bank. This corridor will divide the northern and southern West Bank and will impede direct transit between Palestine Bethlehem, which is south of E1 and Palestine Ramallah, which is north of E1. Construction of the E1 corridor, portions of which are owned by Palestinians, could prevent the formation of a viable Palestinian state.

The serious aspect of the Israeli maneuver has not gone unnoticed by the Jerusalem activists who support a peace process that has legs and will arrive at a destination. A panel of Jerusalemites expressed their convictions in a meeting organized by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information ( ipcri.org ) at the Ambassador hotel in East Jerusalem on May 20, 2009.

Dr. Gershon Baskin, CEO and founder of the IPCRI, chaired the meeting. Meron Benvenisti, well known iconoclastic political commentator and a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Rami Nasrallah, Director of the International Peace and Cooperation Center, and Sarah Kreimer, Associate Director of Ir Amim, constituted the panel. The incendiary content ignited many surprising and explosive statements.

Dr. Baskin started the proceedings with a controversial remark: "Jerusalem is the most segregated city in the world. Common spaces of Jews and Moslems don't exist and each Jerusalem space has a distinct identity. Even Catholic institutions, which are physically close, remain socially apart." According to Baskin, the hospitals of Notre Dame and St. Louis, which are next to one another, emphasize the separation. Notre dame caters to Palestinian Catholics and St. Louis accepts Israeli Catholics. From these observations, Dr; Baskin concluded: "It is easy to draw lines of separation." The Palestinians and Israelis can manage legal sovereignty without promoting physical separation.

Meron Benvenisti , an early and consistent critic of Israel's policies, politely contradicted some of Baskin's well known assertions. The former deputy mayor expressed displeasure with what he called a 'peace industry.' "The peace process is only a psychological process; established to give hope but no concrete results. Meanwhile Israel has expanded Jerusalem's boundaries to assure the city cannot be easily divided. As a matter of fact, there is now no concept of what is Jerusalem." A bombshell - Many Palestinians, especially those who don't relish losing their Israel residency, don't want East Jerusalem to be detached form Israel. These individuals are major supporters of a united Jerusalem. Benvenisti also questioned the importance of sovereignty. He claimed the division is only sociological and that no demographic threat to Israel exists. Why? The Israelis are well united against the 'other,' and the Palestinians, although increasing in numbers, remain fragmented and constrained.

Despite his less than positive attitude, Meron Benvenisti proposed a significant plan: "The Palestinians should establish a 'shadow government.' They should take advantage of their legal and social arrangements to form a quasi government that provides services and needs for the Palestinian community in East Jerusalem." How that would be done, from where the finances would arrive, and how to gain acceptance from an Israeli government that sends its police to deter Palestinian cultural expression, were not adequately explained.

Rami Nasrallah sees the conflict in more specific terms. " The Palestinians are struggling daily with survival. The Middle class and 'elite' have tired of the struggle and are fleeing to other places. This phenomenon reduces East Jerusalem to a city of the impoverished. Previously the undeclared capital of Palestine that contained one-third of the Palestinian economy, East Jerusalem has been severely crippled since the Oslo,'peace accords.' Those spurious accords, by which East Jerusalem lost its autonomy, is the reason for the economic decline. " He added that Israel's present thrust is to have the Holy Basin become the center of Judaism. Nasarallah's statement coincides with many Israeli published statements that characterize ancient Israel as the center of the world and Jerusalem as the center of ancient Israel. He foresees only a shift from a harsh occupation to a harsher occupation.

The peace center director noted that Israel wants to avoid a bi-national state, which means either expulsion of Palestinians or acceptance of two independent states. His observation that Israel has not been able to obtain a Jewish character of Jerusalem might be correct. Central Jerusalem, close to and within the Holy Basin, reveals more identifiable Christian institutions and buildings than those of Jewish identity, and, except for the Haram al-sharif/Temple Mount complex, than those of the Muslim faith. He fears the conflict is shifting form a national conflict to a religious war.

So what to do? Rami Nasrallah's suggestion is to create a "city of Bridges.' Jerusalem needs two strong governments for two capitals. The city can be politically divided, enable cross-border cooperation and become an 'open city.' One problem: His admirable suggestion substantially contradicts Israel's stated policies.

Sarah Kreimer, whose organization Ir Amim provides educational resources that realistically describe Israel's settlement policies around Jerusalem but does not provide realistic solutions for halting the settlements, presented a legal position: "The Israelis and Palestinians should have an amicable divorce." Her statement was later contradicted by Baskin, who noted that before a divorce there must have been a marriage and love.

The Ir Amim director contradicted her innocent statement with innocent remarks:
"The Israeli government is using divide and conquer techniques. It is trying to make the Old City more Jewish and capture it by using the usual 'facts on the ground' that will entwine the Palestinians. She suggested that Israel develop a transparent and inclusive process. The Palestinian institutions that were closed after 2001 should be reopened. Sarah Kreimer noted that her suggestions "were opposite to what is being done." The unanswered question: Why would the present Israeli leaders change previous arrangements and modify anything to accommodate her suggestions?

Gershon Baskin, never short on words, very decisive and specific, added his own highly charged comments:.

"The Palestinians didn't realize that by signing the Oslo agreement they were agreeing to close many cultural centers. Israel claimed that the closings respected the Oslo agreements. Now, Israel claims that reopening requires a law from the peace agreement. As for the Holy Basin, the issue of who controls the Holy Basin only arose from the 'peace agreements.' And the constructions related to City of David and the ancient cemetery on the Mount of Olives are only excuses for expansion."

Baskin summarized his views, which coincided with a later article by him in The Jerusalem Post .
"There is a change in Washington, which means the quartet will be used as the primary mechanism for resolving the conflict. The issue of Palestinian statehood has already been decided by the international community. Its directives will unfold over the years. The Security Council has stated it will replace Resolution 242 as a reference point .The Council has also decided on the size of the Palestinian state and that its borders be based on the 1967 demarcation line. Israel will no longer be able to annex territory, which includes land in a Jerusalem that will be the capital of two states."

An interesting discussion that leads to this writer's personal conclusions.

The significance of arriving at a just and agreeably acceptable solution to the status of Jerusalem in any peace accords cannot be underestimated. Jerusalem, the City of Peace, has always proved the 'not theory' of political discourse. Jerusalem has not been the City of Peace. The present trajectory of events has the debate on the future of Jerusalem serving to expand a constrained conflict to a wider Holy War. The present trajectory of events have the construction of a new Jerusalem leading to the destruction of the historical Jerusalem.

Dan Lieberman is editor of Alternative Insight, a monthly web based newsletter.
Dan's many articles on the Middle East conflicts have circulated on websites and media throughout the world. He can be reached at: alternativeinsight@earthlink.net

Obama's Era of Openness Is Closed

Published on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 by Consortium News

by Robert Parry

An "era" used to last, but not so much anymore. We've already heard GOP Chairman Michael Steele proclaim that "the era of apologizing for Republican mistakes" was over (when many of us didn't know it had begun), and now it appears that Barack Obama's era of openness has closed, too.

That era began on the new President's first working day in office when he rescinded some of George W. Bush's imperial edicts granting himself and his family - along with other former presidents and vice presidents - broad control over historical records.

On Jan. 21, President Obama spoke eloquently about "a new era of open government," declaring that "a democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency."

Regarding whether to release documents under the Freedom of Information Act, he added, "In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."

However, the Obama administration is now moving aggressively to prevent federal courts from ordering the release of photographic and other evidence of crimes and misconduct committed by the CIA and U.S. military forces during George W. Bush's "war on terror."

On Monday, Obama's lawyers submitted an affidavit signed by CIA Director Leon Panetta claiming that a federal judge must not release documents relating to the destruction of 92 CIA videotapes regarding interrogations of terrorism suspects.

To do so, Panetta said, could "result in exceptionally grave danger to the national security by informing our enemies of what we know about them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence we possessed."

Panetta insisted that the continued secrecy regarding the documents about the destroyed videotapes was "in no way driven by a desire to prevent embarrassment for the U.S. government or the CIA, or to suppress evidence of any unlawful conduct." Rather, he cited concerns about revealing "sources and methods" and other potential harm to U.S. national security.

The ACLU has sought the documents in an attempt to ascertain who in the Bush administration was responsible for torturing detainees and for destroying the videotapes, which detailed the treatment of two terrorism suspects.

The Obama administration's objection to the document release follows Obama's personal decision in May to withhold photographs showing abuse of detainees at U.S. military prisons. Obama said releasing the photos could enflame tensions in the Middle East and endanger American soldiers. He also has reaffirmed the government's right to kill court cases by asserting a "state secrets privilege."

What Obama apparently has realized is that a commitment to openness requires courage and a readiness to take some political hits. Republicans - and parts of the U.S. news media - attacked Obama in April for releasing the Bush administration's four legal memos justifying torture of detainees.

Stung by that criticism - and accusations from former Vice President Dick Cheney that the disclosures had endangered national security - Obama began his retreat on openness.

Disclosed Scandals

Yet, virtually every major disclosure of serious U.S. government wrongdoing has entailed some risk of damaging the national image or increasing risks faced by U.S. soldiers deployed around the globe.

For instance, the disclosure of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War - including photos of women and children slaughtered in a drainage ditch - surely reflected negatively on the U.S. military. So, too, did the leaking of photos showing abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.

Indeed, in scandals as diverse as Richard Nixon's Watergate cover-up and Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra Affair, the government's reflex has been to insist that any aggressive effort to get at the truth would harm national security.

In both Watergate and Iran-Contra, a refrain heard from Republicans and even some Democrats was that full accountability for the abuses would "not be good for the country." On a superficial level at least, it always seems easier to sweep the scandals under the rug and move on.

But cover-ups carry risks as well - not only to the health of a democracy but to the emotional issue of troop safety.

If the My Lai massacre had been successfully concealed from the public, the Vietnam War might have dragged on longer causing more American and Vietnamese casualties. If the Abu Ghraib abuses had been hidden, the U.S. electorate - blissfully unaware of why the ungrateful Iraqis were rebelling against American beneficence - might have elected a new President like John McCain who was eager to extend Bush's war. Thus, more U.S. soldiers might get killed.

Arguably, one of the reasons that Bush's desire to invade Iraq drew initial American support was the decision of major U.S. news organizations in 1991 to shield the American people from the worst carnage of the first Persian Gulf War. News outlets spiked photos of smoldering corpses and downplayed the civilian deaths from heavy U.S. bombing raids in and around Baghdad.

The thinking of many U.S. editors was that such grisly photos and unpleasant stories would dampen the national joy over a successful military campaign - and might lead to complaints that the news outlets were not behaving in a sufficiently patriotic manner.

Even then, President George H.W. Bush saw the feel-good triumph over Iraq as an important palliative for the lingering downer of Vietnam. As the 100-hour U.S. ground offensive ended, he exulted: "We've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

With war made fun again - and with most of the complaints coming from neoconservatives who wanted U.S. forces to march on to Baghdad - the American people were primed for another adventure 12 years later when President George W. Bush decided to finish the job that his dad hadn't. The expectation was for another fun-filled "shock and awe" romp.

Reagan and Powell

As for Official Washington's unwillingness in the late 1980s to get to the bottom of the Iran-Contra scandal, the consequences included leaving the reputations of prominent icons, like Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell, in place and thus a threat to the health of the American Republic.

In the Iran-Contra Affair, the idolized President Reagan essentially got away with restoring the imperial presidency and its concept that the nation's chief executive could ignore the law, setting the stage for George W. Bush's abuse of those same theories.

Powell's important behind-the-scenes role in Iran-Contra escaped any sustained scrutiny, protecting his status as a trusted national figure who could be believed when he made the case for invading Iraq in February 2003. [For details on Powell, see Neck Deep.]

In these cases and many more, the challenge to get at and to tell the truth was daunting. It was always easier and far more comfortable to acquiesce to the lies and the myths.

After all, Americans don't want to think about U.S. troops murdering children and other civilians in My Lai or sexually humiliating Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. It's so much nicer to see the Vietnam War as a noble undertaking or to feel good about the United States bringing "democracy" to Iraq -- or to slide into the bathos that surrounds Ronald Reagan's legacy or to admire Colin Powell as an exceptional role model.

Like many Democrats who preceded him, President Obama is finding it's politically more popular to adopt a "patriotic" posture, keeping unpleasant photographs secret to safeguard "the troops" and hiding documents about torture to "protect sources and methods."

By doing so, however, Obama is keeping from the American people a full understanding of the depravity that George W. Bush unleashed in their name. That might make them feel better; some might even thank Obama for sparing the United States more humiliation.

But Obama's cover-up of the Bush administration's crimes also enables the Republicans to gloss over the abuses of the past eight years and makes a GOP comeback more likely in the not-too-distant future. It's also a sure bet that the Republicans will do Obama no reciprocal favors, anymore than they did for Bill Clinton, who similarly concealed Reagan-Bush-I abuses. [See Secrecy & Privilege.]

Obama also risks offending many of his supporters and other Americans who simply want to know the truth. They will view him as just another politician who talked big but then took a dive on the difficult work of accountability, a guy who ended his promised "era of open government" barely before it began.  

© 2009 Consortium News

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat. His two previous books are Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'.

How Civilized, Law-Abiding Countries Imprison Terrorists

Published on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 by Salon.com

by Glenn Greenwald

While the U.S. continues to debate whether it must imprison accused terrorists without charges or trial -- and now even refuses to say whether it will release those who are given trials but then acquitted -- numerous other countries are, with their actions, adhering to the values and principles which we, with words, righteously claim to embody:

From The Associated Press today:

ANKARA, Turkey (AP) -- A Turkish appeals court has upheld a verdict sentencing six al-Qaida militants to life in prison for the deadly 2003 bombings in Istanbul.

The court in Ankara says Wednesday it has approved the life sentence for the six of the 74 suspects for their involvement in the attacks on Nov. 15 and Nov. 20, 2003. Those bombings killed 58 people and targeted two synagogues, the British consulate and a London-based bank. . . .

The court has sentenced 33 other suspects to between three years and nine months in prison to 18 years. It acquitted 15 of them, citing lack of evidence, while ordering a retrial for the rest, requesting further investigation.

From The New York Times yesterday:

BERLIN - The defendants in Germany's largest terrorism case in a generation announced in a Düsseldorf courtroom on Tuesday that they were ready to confess to plotting a series of deadly bombings.

The trial was expected to last two years and had been billed as the biggest terrorism case since leaders of the far-left Red Army Faction were prosecuted in the 1970s. . . .

German authorities arrested three of the suspects in September 2007 with 26 military detonators and 12 drums of hydrogen peroxide, more explosive material than was used in the 2004 bombings of commuter trains in Madrid.

German security officials said the suspects had visited terrorist training camps in the tribal areas of northwest Pakistan. They are accused of being members of the Islamic Jihad Union, a radical group based in Central Asia with roots in Uzbekistan. The four men are accused of planning attacks against a list of targets, including the airport in Frankfurt and Ramstein Air Base, an American installation in Germany.

Numerous countries that aren't the U.S. -- including those targeted by Terrorist threats at least as serious as those faced by the U.S. -- have routinely and repeatedly given what are called "trials" and "due process" to those it accuses not merely of harboring terrorist wishes, but also actually having carried out atrocious terrorist attacks.  During the Bush era, even the U.S. -- when we were moved to do so -- successfully did the same.

Giving real trials to people whom the state wants to imprison -- even accused Terrorists -- is what civilized, law-respecting countries do, by definition.  By contrast, lawless and tyrannical states -- also by definition -- invent theories and warped justifications for indefinite detention with no trials.  Before the U.S. starts talking again about "re-claiming" its so-called leadership role in the world, it probably should work first on catching up to the multiple countries far ahead of it when it comes to the most basic precepts of Western justice -- beginning with what ought to be the most uncontroversial proposition that it will first give due process and trials to those it wants to imprison.  Shouldn't the claim that the U.S. cannot and need not try Terrorist suspects be rather unconvincing when numerous other countries from various parts of the world -- including those previously devastated by and currently targeted with terrorist attacks -- have been doing exactly that quite successfully?

UPDATE:  The Washington Independent's Daphne Eviatar has a good summary of yesterday's Senate hearing on Obama's proposed policy of indefinite, preventive detention.  The hearing was shaped by an odd (though quite revealing) spectacle:   the most vigorous defenders of Obama's proposal were a far right GOP Senator  (Tom Coburn) and two of the most right-wing, Bush/Cheney-loyal lawyers in the country (former Reagan DOJ official David Rivkin and Ken Starr acolyte Richard Klinger).  Meanwhile, Obama's proposal was vigorously criticized by the two Democratic Senators in attendence (Russ Feingold and Benjamin Cardin), along with the civil libertian and human rights advocates who testified and a former Bush DOJ federal prosectuor, David Laufman, who detailed the ongoing success the U.S. has had in prosecuting accused terrorists in real courts ("[E]xperience has shown that terrorism prosecutions in Article III courts work. . . . Congress should reject any proposal to establish a legal regime authorizing indefinite detention without charge or trial").

© 2009 Salon.com

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.

Afghan Woman Knows Why US Policy is Failing

Published on Wednesday, June 10, 2009 by The Capital Times (Wisconsin)

by John Nichols

OSLO -- The debate about the Obama administration's plan to surge more than 20,000 additional troops into Afghanistan has been so vapid that you will still hear suggestions that this approach is necessary to protect the people -- particularly the women -- of Afghanistan from oppression.

Those who argue this brief would be well to consult Malalai Joya. Selected to serve in Afghanistan's Constitutional Loya Jirga in 2003 and then elected to the Wolesi Jirga (parliament) in 2005 as one of the top vote-getters in the western province of Farah, she is widely seen as the most courageous political figure in the country. This is because, from the start, she has dared to object to the crude political calculus -- imposed and supported by the U.S. -- which grants amnesty to warlords who have been linked to well-documented war crimes and ongoing corruption.

Joya has also sought -- sadly, without success -- to block the restoration by the U.S.-backed Afghan government of laws restricting the legal rights of women. And she has complained, loudly and consistently, about U.S. bombing raids that are responsible for horrifying death tolls among civilians.

For her dissents, the youngest member of the parliament has been banned from the Jirga, threatened with rape by fellow legislators, and hounded by violent groups and individuals closely tied to the ruling establishment. She must move from house to house in Kabul and requires constant protection. Even when she travels abroad, she is in danger.

Yet Joya continues to speak out, as she did last Wednesday at the opening ceremony of the Global Forum on Freedom of Expression, where we were both among the speakers.

Despite six years of U.S. presence, Joya says, "In Afghanistan, religious extremism controls the society ... human rights and democracy are omitted."

Joya's message is blunt and uncompromising.

"Billions of dollars spent in our country only make the warlords and the abusers of human rights more powerful," she says.

Joya is withering in her criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who she dismissed as "the choice of the White House" and "another puppet" who fails to seriously challenge violent warlords at home or the failed policies of foreign countries that provide military and political support to some of the worst players in the country.

As a result, she says, "There are no human rights or democracy in Afghanistan because (the government) is infected with fundamentalism."

This remarkable woman, who pleads the cause of liberal democracy, pluralism and women's rights in her homeland with a passion that is as inspiring as it is well-reasoned, has received support and encouragement from six women Nobel Peace laureates. Shirin Ebadi, Mairead Maguire, Rigoberta Menchum, Betty Williams, Jody Williams and Wangari Maathai -- who joined us at the Oslo conference -- have issued a joint appeal for Joya's reinstatement in the parliament.

The Global Forum on Freedom of Expression was sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the foreign ministries of Norway and Finland and the Open Society Institute, among others, and a wide range of international human rights and free speech groupings. The conference highlighted dissident voices that should be heard.

In truth, Joya is heard in much of the world.

But she is not heard enough in the United States, and that is a dangerous disconnect.

It is true that the mess of U.S. policy in Afghanistan was stirred up by George Bush and Dick Cheney, in collaboration, it should be noted, with many Democrats who adopted the fantasy that the Afghan conflict was America's "good war" -- in contrast to the "bad war" in Iraq. The ethical and logical compromises of the Bush/Cheney era created a situation where, Joya explains, "In our country, to express your point of view is to risk violence and death."

But President Barack Obama's expansion of a misguided occupation will ultimately give him ownership of the mess.

Obama's instincts may be noble. But to surge more troops into Afghanistan without a plan, and without taking serious steps to address the failures of the occupation up to this point, is folly.

There is no question that the United States has profound responsibilities to the people of Afghanistan. But those responsibilities are not met by maintaining flawed policies of empowering extreme fundamentalists, supporting corrupt warlords and inept politicians, and encouraging a circumstance where one of the most worldly members of the country's parliament says that "there are no human rights or democracy in Afghanistan."

Obama and his advisers should listen to Malalai Joya before they presume that expanding the occupation along the lines established by the Bush administration -- or, frankly, along any lines -- is going to help the great mass of people in Afghanistan.

The same goes for members of Congress -- especially those who say they are concerned about the women of Afghanistan -- who, for the most part, have gone along with the Bush and Obama administrations rather than asking the right questions or mounting the necessary dissents.

There is much that can be done to help Afghanistan repair itself. There are smart aid and development initiatives -- many of them grass-roots based -- that can expand access to education for women and girls and that can build respect for human rights and democracy. But an occupation that serves the interests of the occupiers rather than the people of Afghanistan has created what Malalai Joya refers to as "a mafia state."

© 2009 The Capital Times

John Nichols is Washington correspondent for The Nation and associate editor of The Capital Times in Madison, Wisconsin. A co-founder of the media reform organization Free Press, Nichols is is co-author with Robert W. McChesney of Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy - from The New Press. Nichols' latest book is The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure for Royalism.