By Sara Flounders
Published Jan 18, 2012 8:48 PM
There is growing apprehension that through miscalculation, deliberate provocation or a staged false flag operation, a U.S. war with Iran is imminent.
The dangerous combination of top U.S. officials’ public threats, the Pentagon’s massive military deployment, continued drone flights and industrial sabotage against Iran provides an ominous warning. The corporate media have been more than willing to cheer industrial sabotage, computer viruses and targeted assassinations. War maneuvers with Israel scheduled for mid-January were suddenly postponed Jan. 15 until May or later.
The U.S. Congress overwhelmingly voted to include binding provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, and President Obama signed the legislation Dec. 31 ordering Iran’s economic strangulation. These NDAA provisions demand that every other country in the world joins this economic blockade of Iran or face U.S. sanctions themselves. This itself is an act of war.
Iran has directly charged the CIA for the Jan. 11 assassination of physicist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, which has outraged Iranians. Roshan is the fourth scientist killed in five targeted assassination in two years.
Whether or not a war will actually erupt, it is essential to look at the powerful forces that lay the groundwork for such a conflagration.
A U.S. war would kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and create regionwide destabilization. It would cause a wild, speculative hike in oil and gas prices, devastating fragile economies of the poorest countries and unhinging the increasingly shaky eurozone.
Revolutionary Marxists like Fidel Castro, political leaders in China and Russia, and even a hardened Israeli general have joined many political commentators to warn that a U.S. or U.S.-supported Israeli attack on Iran could quickly become a far wider war.
While defending its sovereign right to develop energy self-sufficiency, Tehran has made every effort to deflect U.S. threats and charges. Iran has submitted to years of intrusive inspections of its research and industrial facilities to confirm its compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But Washington insists on stopping Iran’s development — and not only its nuclear energy development to assure its future as oil production declines. For decades Iran was forced to import refined oil. Washington has tried to stop Iran from importing parts to build oil refineries, as it has tried to stop all Iran’s development since the 1979 revolution.
The myth of stimulus from war
David Broder, Washington Post political correspondent for 40 years and news show pundit, described in an Oct. 31, 2010, article how Obama could deal with his weakened situation when the Republicans swept Congress. He argued that to fix the economy and regain popularity, the solution is obvious and unavoidable: “War with Iran.”
Broder had more than 400 appearances on “Meet the Press.” He even won a Pulitzer Prize. Broder could be counted on to reflect political thinking and planning in Washington. Only the war machine can pull the U.S. out of economic stagnation, Broder argued.
“Look back at FDR and the Great Depression,” wrote Broder. “What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II. [A showdown with the mullahs] will help [Obama] politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.”
Upon Broder’s death in March, Obama called him “the most respected and incisive political commentator of his generation.” (New York Times, March 9)
Broder’s statement shows an absolutely criminal mindset. It also shows a dangerous illusion. Broder calmly proposed the murder of tens of thousands of people, the devastation of entire cities, the destruction of a whole culture as a temporary economic fix to win a U.S. election.
Others commentators just as coldly argued with Broder that war with Iran would not be large enough, because all the weapons needed already exist and are in place. So no surge of military orders would follow. A larger war would be needed to give a big enough push!
In 1939 reviving shuttered U.S. steel, rubber and textile clothing plants with government orders for tanks, ships, jeeps, helmets, uniforms and life vests for sale to Europe was a big stimulus. The entry of the U.S. into World War II in 1941 provided an enormous surge of productive capacity that pulled the U.S. economy out of a 10-year economic depression. What worked as an economic stimulus 70 years ago, before the existence of the gargantuan, bloated, high-tech military-industrial complex, is long past.
Today the U.S. has a military machine and a military budget larger than that of the rest of the world combined, exceeding $1 trillion a year in stated and hidden costs, even without another war. It is guaranteed to grow at a rate of 5 percent to 10 percent a year. This is built into the Pentagon’s budget projections even without cost overruns.
World won’t bow to U.S. dictates
Washington’s plans to easily conquer Afghanistan and Iraq and set up stable puppet regimes were frustrated. The U.S. plan for economic war on Iran has also exposed U.S. weaknesses.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner launched a tour of East Asian nations in early January to convince south Korea, China, India and Japan to cut their massive Iranian oil imports and abide by the sanctions.
China and India — both major economies — refused directly. China buys a third of Iran’s oil exports.
The Obama administration said that the U.S. would offer countries that applied for a temporary waiver to continue oil purchases from Iran while they made other arrangements. An Indian cabinet minister said India will continue to do business with Iran. South Korea said it would apply for a U.S. waiver because it planned to increase oil purchases from Iran.
Japanese officials, when meeting with Geithner, seemed to agree. But after his departure Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba backtracked, saying, “The United States would like to impose sanctions. We believe it is necessary to be extremely circumspect about this matter.” (AFP, Jan. 13)
Russia announced its refusal to comply with sanctions. So did NATO member Turkey. The European Union insisted on a six-month delay, due to fears of the economic consequences to debt-ridden Italy, Spain and Greece. The Greek government said it needs at least a year.
Saudi Arabia’s crude oil contains more sulfur than lighter Iranian oil and requires substantially higher refining costs. In a time of global capitalist recession, this added cost is no easy sell.
Even outright U.S. collaborators are refusing Washington’s demands. Pakistan, for example, refused to abandon a pipeline to transport Iranian natural gas into Pakistan and in the future even into India.
All of this would be good news. But the danger is that U.S. corporate power, seeing on every side its declining ability to ram through its dictates, is increasingly driven to military solutions.
This is exacerbated by U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan that have weakened the U.S. superpower’s dominance of Southwest Asia relative to Iran. The more the U.S. loses its grip on the region, the more desperate imperialism may become to risk all in a mad adventure to recoup its past position.
Every voice must be raised at this urgent hour against sanctions and war.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Egyptian Masses Defy Military
By John Catalinotto
Published Nov 22, 2011 9:43 PM
Nov. 21 — The masses have opened a new chapter in the Egyptian revolution. They have stood strong in Tahrir Square for nearly four days against bullets and gas demanding that the military regime, which succeeded President Hosni Mubarak last Feb. 12, step down.
As the day ended in Egypt, the Health ministry reported that 23 people had been killed and more than 1,500 wounded by the Egyptian army and police. But the people keep filling Tahrir Square.
As a result of the mass determination to stay in the streets, as well as the spread of the struggle to other Egyptian cities, the civilian government — that is, the politicians who provide a civilian cover to the U.S.-backed military — offered to resign. It was an important concession to the strength of the mass movement.
The struggle comes at a tense time politically because national elections are scheduled to begin on Nov. 28. People expect the Muslim Brotherhood to do well in the elections, since it is the best organized of the many groups that opposed Mubarak.
For this reason, the Brotherhood, after calling the first protest demonstration in Tahrir Square on Friday, Nov. 18, then called its organized forces off the streets so as not to give the military government a pretext to postpone the elections, according to an AP report today.
However, the reports in the U.S. corporate media are unreliable. Until WW can get reports from independent, working class sources, it is best to review information that is reasonably reliable.
Last January and February, a massive uprising upended the Mubarak regime, surprising the world. The imperialist governments, in this case mainly the U.S., supported the general staff of the Egyptian army, with whom the Pentagon has had close relations since the late 1970s.
The New York Times calls the Egyptian army “longtime American allies and beneficiaries whose power survived Mr. Mubarak’s departure.” (Nov. 21) Washington looked to the officer corps to make cosmetic changes but to keep the old system virtually intact. It may be possible for the mass movement to win over the rank-and-file soldiers, but the upper officers are tied to the ruling class and to imperialism.
Now U.S. officials are worried. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said earlier in November that “If, over time, the most powerful political force in Egypt remains a roomful of unelected officials, they will have planted the seeds for future unrest, and Egyptians will have missed a historic opportunity.” (New York Times, Nov. 21)
Along with the military, the Muslim Brotherhood, as the best organized force and one that did not challenge property relations, is expected to play a role in the new government.
There is also a secular opposition both to Mubarak and to the military regime. This opposition has some elements that are conciliatory to imperialism and others that are decidedly anti-imperialist, and includes a minority of Marxist and other pro-socialist forces.
The imperialists and the Egyptian military have often tried to incite hostility between the Islamic and secular forces, or between Muslims and Coptic Christians. However, the latter have blamed the government, not the Muslims, for attacks that led to deaths within their community, like the dozens killed by security forces Oct. 9.
In this latest demonstration, secular forces joined the demonstration originally called by the Muslim Brotherhood. Coptic Christians stood guard in Tahrir Square against the army while the Muslim demonstrators took time out to pray. (New York Times, Nov. 21)
Both inside and outside these organizations are the tens of millions of workers and other poor people in Egypt, in unions or not, who have been the motor force of the revolution. None of their basic demands, that is, the social demands for higher wages, more social benefits, etc., have been won yet.
These powerful mass forces impact on all the organizations. Their demands cannot be won through any government that conciliates with world imperialism. This next phase of the Egyptian revolution has just begun.
Published Nov 22, 2011 9:43 PM
Nov. 21 — The masses have opened a new chapter in the Egyptian revolution. They have stood strong in Tahrir Square for nearly four days against bullets and gas demanding that the military regime, which succeeded President Hosni Mubarak last Feb. 12, step down.
As the day ended in Egypt, the Health ministry reported that 23 people had been killed and more than 1,500 wounded by the Egyptian army and police. But the people keep filling Tahrir Square.
As a result of the mass determination to stay in the streets, as well as the spread of the struggle to other Egyptian cities, the civilian government — that is, the politicians who provide a civilian cover to the U.S.-backed military — offered to resign. It was an important concession to the strength of the mass movement.
The struggle comes at a tense time politically because national elections are scheduled to begin on Nov. 28. People expect the Muslim Brotherhood to do well in the elections, since it is the best organized of the many groups that opposed Mubarak.
For this reason, the Brotherhood, after calling the first protest demonstration in Tahrir Square on Friday, Nov. 18, then called its organized forces off the streets so as not to give the military government a pretext to postpone the elections, according to an AP report today.
However, the reports in the U.S. corporate media are unreliable. Until WW can get reports from independent, working class sources, it is best to review information that is reasonably reliable.
Last January and February, a massive uprising upended the Mubarak regime, surprising the world. The imperialist governments, in this case mainly the U.S., supported the general staff of the Egyptian army, with whom the Pentagon has had close relations since the late 1970s.
The New York Times calls the Egyptian army “longtime American allies and beneficiaries whose power survived Mr. Mubarak’s departure.” (Nov. 21) Washington looked to the officer corps to make cosmetic changes but to keep the old system virtually intact. It may be possible for the mass movement to win over the rank-and-file soldiers, but the upper officers are tied to the ruling class and to imperialism.
Now U.S. officials are worried. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said earlier in November that “If, over time, the most powerful political force in Egypt remains a roomful of unelected officials, they will have planted the seeds for future unrest, and Egyptians will have missed a historic opportunity.” (New York Times, Nov. 21)
Along with the military, the Muslim Brotherhood, as the best organized force and one that did not challenge property relations, is expected to play a role in the new government.
There is also a secular opposition both to Mubarak and to the military regime. This opposition has some elements that are conciliatory to imperialism and others that are decidedly anti-imperialist, and includes a minority of Marxist and other pro-socialist forces.
The imperialists and the Egyptian military have often tried to incite hostility between the Islamic and secular forces, or between Muslims and Coptic Christians. However, the latter have blamed the government, not the Muslims, for attacks that led to deaths within their community, like the dozens killed by security forces Oct. 9.
In this latest demonstration, secular forces joined the demonstration originally called by the Muslim Brotherhood. Coptic Christians stood guard in Tahrir Square against the army while the Muslim demonstrators took time out to pray. (New York Times, Nov. 21)
Both inside and outside these organizations are the tens of millions of workers and other poor people in Egypt, in unions or not, who have been the motor force of the revolution. None of their basic demands, that is, the social demands for higher wages, more social benefits, etc., have been won yet.
These powerful mass forces impact on all the organizations. Their demands cannot be won through any government that conciliates with world imperialism. This next phase of the Egyptian revolution has just begun.
Major Political Forces in Yemen
From: Xinhua News Agency
SANAA, Nov. 23 (Xinhua) -- When North and South Yemen reunified in 1990, Yemen became a democratic republic enjoying political pluralism. At the beginning, about 60 parties were formed and the number decreased to 23 officially recognized parties in 2003. Most of these parties have no representation in the parliament.
Here are the major political forces: the General People's Congress (GPC), the ruling party, and the Joint Meeting Parties ( JMP), the main opposition bloc that includes seven parties.
The GPC was founded in August 1982 by President Ali Abdullah Saleh based on the ideology of the 1962 revolution. It was founded according to the real Yemeni cultural, intellectual and organizational needs and is seen as one of the important parties with Arabism and moderate Islam trends.
The GPC continued to be the only party till 1990. Other parties in north Yemen remained under its umbrella or practiced their activities secretly because the GPC banned political activities.
Most of the JMP parties were within the GPC till 1990 when the north and the south reunified. The GPC has the majority in the Yemeni House of Representatives with 229 members according to the 2003 elections. With the goal of ensuring the participation of the parties in the parliament, the JMP was formed on Feb. 6, 2003.
The JMP included the main opposition parties in the country, including those which remained under the GPC till 1990.
The principal agreement of the JMP called for serving the main goal of the bloc, increasing their representation in the parliament, and banning competition among these parties and coordination with other parties.
The JMP included seven parties: the Yemeni Congregation of Reform Party; the Yemeni Socialist Party; the Nasserite Unionist People's Organization; the National Arab Socialist Baath Party; the Haq Party; the September Congregation Party; and the Popular Forces Union Party.
The Yemeni Congregation of Reform Party (Islah Party) was recognized on Sept. 13, 1990. It became an opposition party in May 1997.
In the first parliamentary elections after the unity, this party won 64 seats, in the 1997 elections 53 seats and in the 2003 elections 46 seats out of 301, the total seats of the parliament.
The second important party within the JMP is the Yemeni Socialist Party, which was founded in 1978 in South Yemen. Several deadly events took place in the south that badly weakened its organizational and internal structure as well as its popularity.
In 1990, it was a partner in the reunification of the north and the south. After the civil war in 1994, this party lost its popularity due to some reasons including the separation war and ideology that conflicted with the culture and religious fanaticism of the Yemeni society.
It participated in the 1993 elections and won 56 seats, boycotted the 1997 elections, and resumed its participation in the 2003 elections and got seven seats.
The third main party within the JMP is the Nasserite Unionist People's Organization, founded in 1965.
With an Islamic ideology, the party dates back to 1952 when the Arab revolution against colonialism started in Egypt. The " Nasserite" in its name refers to Gamal Abdel Nasser, the former Egyptian president who founded the Arab Nasserite movement.
This party continued to expand and exist despite that political activities were banned in south and north Yemen before the unity. It was the first party to be officially recognized as an opposition party in 1989.
It struggles to deepen democracy, build a new civil Yemen, achieve social justice and defend the Yemeni unity within the path of achieving an Arab unity. In the 1993 elections it won a single seat, and in the 1997 elections three seats.
Another main party in Yemen is the Arab Socialist Baath Party, which dates back to the 1950s. Its ideology is a combination of socialism and Arabism. In 1972, the party divided into two groups: the Baath Party and the Popular Front.
The Baath Party then held two names: the Arab Socialist Baath Party of Iraq and the National Arab Socialist Party of Syria. The first is now an ally of the GPC and the second is one of the JMP components.
In the 1993 elections it won seven seats, and in the 1997 elections two seats.
Other parties have no major ideological and organizational differences as they struggle to exist and be active in the political landscape in Yemen.
SANAA, Nov. 23 (Xinhua) -- When North and South Yemen reunified in 1990, Yemen became a democratic republic enjoying political pluralism. At the beginning, about 60 parties were formed and the number decreased to 23 officially recognized parties in 2003. Most of these parties have no representation in the parliament.
Here are the major political forces: the General People's Congress (GPC), the ruling party, and the Joint Meeting Parties ( JMP), the main opposition bloc that includes seven parties.
The GPC was founded in August 1982 by President Ali Abdullah Saleh based on the ideology of the 1962 revolution. It was founded according to the real Yemeni cultural, intellectual and organizational needs and is seen as one of the important parties with Arabism and moderate Islam trends.
The GPC continued to be the only party till 1990. Other parties in north Yemen remained under its umbrella or practiced their activities secretly because the GPC banned political activities.
Most of the JMP parties were within the GPC till 1990 when the north and the south reunified. The GPC has the majority in the Yemeni House of Representatives with 229 members according to the 2003 elections. With the goal of ensuring the participation of the parties in the parliament, the JMP was formed on Feb. 6, 2003.
The JMP included the main opposition parties in the country, including those which remained under the GPC till 1990.
The principal agreement of the JMP called for serving the main goal of the bloc, increasing their representation in the parliament, and banning competition among these parties and coordination with other parties.
The JMP included seven parties: the Yemeni Congregation of Reform Party; the Yemeni Socialist Party; the Nasserite Unionist People's Organization; the National Arab Socialist Baath Party; the Haq Party; the September Congregation Party; and the Popular Forces Union Party.
The Yemeni Congregation of Reform Party (Islah Party) was recognized on Sept. 13, 1990. It became an opposition party in May 1997.
In the first parliamentary elections after the unity, this party won 64 seats, in the 1997 elections 53 seats and in the 2003 elections 46 seats out of 301, the total seats of the parliament.
The second important party within the JMP is the Yemeni Socialist Party, which was founded in 1978 in South Yemen. Several deadly events took place in the south that badly weakened its organizational and internal structure as well as its popularity.
In 1990, it was a partner in the reunification of the north and the south. After the civil war in 1994, this party lost its popularity due to some reasons including the separation war and ideology that conflicted with the culture and religious fanaticism of the Yemeni society.
It participated in the 1993 elections and won 56 seats, boycotted the 1997 elections, and resumed its participation in the 2003 elections and got seven seats.
The third main party within the JMP is the Nasserite Unionist People's Organization, founded in 1965.
With an Islamic ideology, the party dates back to 1952 when the Arab revolution against colonialism started in Egypt. The " Nasserite" in its name refers to Gamal Abdel Nasser, the former Egyptian president who founded the Arab Nasserite movement.
This party continued to expand and exist despite that political activities were banned in south and north Yemen before the unity. It was the first party to be officially recognized as an opposition party in 1989.
It struggles to deepen democracy, build a new civil Yemen, achieve social justice and defend the Yemeni unity within the path of achieving an Arab unity. In the 1993 elections it won a single seat, and in the 1997 elections three seats.
Another main party in Yemen is the Arab Socialist Baath Party, which dates back to the 1950s. Its ideology is a combination of socialism and Arabism. In 1972, the party divided into two groups: the Baath Party and the Popular Front.
The Baath Party then held two names: the Arab Socialist Baath Party of Iraq and the National Arab Socialist Party of Syria. The first is now an ally of the GPC and the second is one of the JMP components.
In the 1993 elections it won seven seats, and in the 1997 elections two seats.
Other parties have no major ideological and organizational differences as they struggle to exist and be active in the political landscape in Yemen.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Free Tarek Mehanna!
By Frank Neisser
Boston
Published Oct 24, 2011 9:44 PM
Dr. Tarek Mehanna is a 28-year-old Muslim, an Egyptian-American and a graduate of the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences. He has been held in solitary confinement 23 hours a day since his arrest in 2009.
Mehanna’s trial begins with jury selection on Oct. 24 at the Moakley Federal Court House in Boston. The Free Tarek Mahanna Support Committee is calling on supporters to pack the court on Oct. 27 at 9:00 a.m. Supporters can get information on the defense campaign at www.freetarek.com
Mehanna’s supporters say he is a respected leader in his community who has done nothing other than be critical of the foreign policy of the United States, particularly as it impacts Muslim countries and the Muslim community. Because of his stature in the Muslim community, he was repeatedly pursued by the FBI to be an informant on others in the community.
When he steadfastly refused, he was arrested in 2008 and charged with making “false statements to the FBI.” Arrested again in 2009, the charge was “material support for terrorism,” with no new information about any actions on Mehanna’s part.
The sum total of actions Mehanna is charged with involve having conversations, translating books, traveling to the Middle East and posting to websites. Yet he faces life in prison if convicted. He has been denied bail twice, even though the FBI released him to the community after his first arrest and presented no information as to why or how he had since become so much more dangerous.
The entire case follows the alarming pattern of persecution of Muslims that has emerged since 9/11: the use of secret evidence; inflammatory accusations fed to the press by government prosecutors in advance of trial; manipulation of informants and cooperating witnesses through threats and rewards; and the use of “material support of terrorism” charges to criminalize dissent.
Mehanna’s case has garnered wide community support. Supporters have packed each and every hearing on the case over the last two years. On Sept. 24 at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the case was featured in a program presented by the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms. Mehanna’s brother Tamer explained the case.
Supporters are urged to call 617-748-3159 or fax 617-748- 3694, the office of U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz, to express outrage at this fraudulent prosecution and to demand that all charges be dropped.
Similar cases involving the FBI’s pattern of preemptive prosecution and Cointelpro-style entrapment, lying and brutal mistreatment, including “special administrative measures” and Communication Management Units, were presented by Project SALAM and family members of the victims.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
An Anti-Imperialist, Marxist Perspective: Why U.S. Wants Regime Change in Syria
Published Oct 14, 2011 10:59 PM
Following are excerpts from a talk given by Joyce Chediac at a Workers World Party forum in Detroit on Oct. 1.
The U.S. government claims it supports the huge social explosion rocking the Arab world and northern Africa. A closer look shows that it is trying to take advantage of these struggles to consolidate its stranglehold there.
U.S. “support” of movements opposed to Arab governments is selective. The government of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen killed 100 people last week. It was a massacre, but no U.S. administration official called Saleh “a monster murdering his own people.” There was no move in the United Nations for a no-fly zone. In fact, U.S. drones regularly bomb Yemen, a U.S. client regime located on strategic waterways. Instead, in his U.N. speech on Sept. 21 Obama made the mildest of comments and called for “seeking a path that allows for a peaceful transition” in Yemen.
The White House, Congress and the Pentagon are going after the few Arab governments with some independence from imperialism: Libya, and now Syria.
In Syria there is a great deal at stake for the workers and rural poor as there is throughout the Middle East. Syria is in a strategic anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist alliance with Iran, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and with Hamas in Gaza. This alliance is crucial in holding back the predatory Zionist state [of Israel] from taking over the whole area. Washington would like to break up this alliance and move against them all.
Yet some progressives in the Middle East are opposed to the Syrian government, much as some were opposed to Gadhafi. Why is this so?
Marxist political perspective needed
Governments like those in Syria are called “bourgeois nationalist” by Marxists. They are nationalist because they seek to develop their countries free from imperialist domination. They are bourgeois because they are ruled by an exploiting class — capitalists. Marxists support these governments against imperialism because they are manifestations of self-determination of the oppressed. This does not mean that Marxists support every policy of these governments.
Marxists also recognize that these regimes have a dual character. They are bourgeois nationalist because they seek to push out the imperialists so they can better exploit their workers. But they have common interest with their workers when imperialism threatens the country’s sovereignty. These governments cannot consistently fight imperialism, as the working class can.
For example, Syria is a “front line state” with a border with Israel. This fact affects every aspect of Syria’s history, has made it an object of constant imperialist and Zionist pressure, and links the fate of the Syrian people to the Palestinian struggle.
Syria’s nationalization of a U.S. oil pipeline precipitated the 1967 war, with Israel attacking and occupying Syria’s Golan Heights, the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. The Golan Heights has since been annexed by Israel.
While Syria plays a regionally progressive role right now, this was not always the case. In 1976, the Syrian government intervened in Lebanon’s civil war on the side of Lebanon’s fascists, who were armed by Israel, against a revolutionary Palestinian-Lebanese alliance. The Syrian capitalists feared that a revolutionary Lebanon might lead to their overthrow by Syrians dominated by the Arab Socialist Baath Party. The current head of state in Syria is Bashir Assad.
Relentless pressure from the U.S. and Israel, and Israel’s refusal to return the Golan Heights, has Syria’s rulers back towards an anti-imperialist stance.
Syria, like other bourgeois nationalist governments, has neither broken with the capitalist world market, nor has the perspective to do so. Instead, it seeks a better deal in this market, which is completely dominated by Western banks.
During economic downturns, nationalist governments like Syria are forced by Wall Street to make economic concessions which attack the workers and establish a pro-imperialist elite, a comprador bourgeoisie, which undermines the government’s independence from imperialism and isolates it from the workers.
In 2006, Syria adopted an International Monetary Fund plan calling for austerity measures, a wage freeze, opening the economy to foreign banks, and privatizing government-run industries. For workers this has meant unemployment, inflation and deterioration in social conditions. These policies have benefited a group of elite businessmen close to the Assad family.
Nature of imperialist intervention
“The Syrian state once brought electricity to every town, but … can no longer afford the social contract of taking care of people’s needs.” (New York Times, April 30) The social contract among religious minorities has been “We will protect you but stay out of politics.” The government apparatus has been run by the same family, the Assad family, for 40 years. Those who disagreed suffered repression.
Many Syrians are fed up with the Assad government, and for good reason. But imperialism has not imposed sanctions on Syria because the government there has impoverished the workers and because few have a voice in the government.
U.S. imperialism hates Syria for hosting leaders of the Palestinian resistance; for refusing to give up its claims to the Golan Heights; for refusing to sign a peace treaty with Israel; for refusing to end its relationship with Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance movement and with Iran; and for refusing to be part of the attack on Iraq in 2003.
In short, imperialism is sanctioning the Syrian government and increasing pressure on it not for the bad things it has done, but for the good things.
Imperialism is a thoroughly reactionary and oppressive system. When the imperialists come to “help,” it is to help themselves. Imperialist intervention is always meant to benefit the imperialists, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of workers.
Just look at what NATO’s “help” for the people of Libya has meant: The destruction of the civilian infrastructure and economy; cancer-causing radioactive residue from depleted uranium weapons; and using Libya to get its predatory Africom military command on African soil.
A U.S. and NATO intervention in Syria would be the worst thing for all the oppressed people in the Middle East and must be vehemently opposed. A win for imperialism abroad emboldens the capitalists in their attacks on workers at home.
Following are excerpts from a talk given by Joyce Chediac at a Workers World Party forum in Detroit on Oct. 1.
The U.S. government claims it supports the huge social explosion rocking the Arab world and northern Africa. A closer look shows that it is trying to take advantage of these struggles to consolidate its stranglehold there.
U.S. “support” of movements opposed to Arab governments is selective. The government of Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen killed 100 people last week. It was a massacre, but no U.S. administration official called Saleh “a monster murdering his own people.” There was no move in the United Nations for a no-fly zone. In fact, U.S. drones regularly bomb Yemen, a U.S. client regime located on strategic waterways. Instead, in his U.N. speech on Sept. 21 Obama made the mildest of comments and called for “seeking a path that allows for a peaceful transition” in Yemen.
The White House, Congress and the Pentagon are going after the few Arab governments with some independence from imperialism: Libya, and now Syria.
In Syria there is a great deal at stake for the workers and rural poor as there is throughout the Middle East. Syria is in a strategic anti-imperialist and anti-Zionist alliance with Iran, with Hezbollah in Lebanon, and with Hamas in Gaza. This alliance is crucial in holding back the predatory Zionist state [of Israel] from taking over the whole area. Washington would like to break up this alliance and move against them all.
Yet some progressives in the Middle East are opposed to the Syrian government, much as some were opposed to Gadhafi. Why is this so?
Marxist political perspective needed
Governments like those in Syria are called “bourgeois nationalist” by Marxists. They are nationalist because they seek to develop their countries free from imperialist domination. They are bourgeois because they are ruled by an exploiting class — capitalists. Marxists support these governments against imperialism because they are manifestations of self-determination of the oppressed. This does not mean that Marxists support every policy of these governments.
Marxists also recognize that these regimes have a dual character. They are bourgeois nationalist because they seek to push out the imperialists so they can better exploit their workers. But they have common interest with their workers when imperialism threatens the country’s sovereignty. These governments cannot consistently fight imperialism, as the working class can.
For example, Syria is a “front line state” with a border with Israel. This fact affects every aspect of Syria’s history, has made it an object of constant imperialist and Zionist pressure, and links the fate of the Syrian people to the Palestinian struggle.
Syria’s nationalization of a U.S. oil pipeline precipitated the 1967 war, with Israel attacking and occupying Syria’s Golan Heights, the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. The Golan Heights has since been annexed by Israel.
While Syria plays a regionally progressive role right now, this was not always the case. In 1976, the Syrian government intervened in Lebanon’s civil war on the side of Lebanon’s fascists, who were armed by Israel, against a revolutionary Palestinian-Lebanese alliance. The Syrian capitalists feared that a revolutionary Lebanon might lead to their overthrow by Syrians dominated by the Arab Socialist Baath Party. The current head of state in Syria is Bashir Assad.
Relentless pressure from the U.S. and Israel, and Israel’s refusal to return the Golan Heights, has Syria’s rulers back towards an anti-imperialist stance.
Syria, like other bourgeois nationalist governments, has neither broken with the capitalist world market, nor has the perspective to do so. Instead, it seeks a better deal in this market, which is completely dominated by Western banks.
During economic downturns, nationalist governments like Syria are forced by Wall Street to make economic concessions which attack the workers and establish a pro-imperialist elite, a comprador bourgeoisie, which undermines the government’s independence from imperialism and isolates it from the workers.
In 2006, Syria adopted an International Monetary Fund plan calling for austerity measures, a wage freeze, opening the economy to foreign banks, and privatizing government-run industries. For workers this has meant unemployment, inflation and deterioration in social conditions. These policies have benefited a group of elite businessmen close to the Assad family.
Nature of imperialist intervention
“The Syrian state once brought electricity to every town, but … can no longer afford the social contract of taking care of people’s needs.” (New York Times, April 30) The social contract among religious minorities has been “We will protect you but stay out of politics.” The government apparatus has been run by the same family, the Assad family, for 40 years. Those who disagreed suffered repression.
Many Syrians are fed up with the Assad government, and for good reason. But imperialism has not imposed sanctions on Syria because the government there has impoverished the workers and because few have a voice in the government.
U.S. imperialism hates Syria for hosting leaders of the Palestinian resistance; for refusing to give up its claims to the Golan Heights; for refusing to sign a peace treaty with Israel; for refusing to end its relationship with Hezbollah, the Lebanese resistance movement and with Iran; and for refusing to be part of the attack on Iraq in 2003.
In short, imperialism is sanctioning the Syrian government and increasing pressure on it not for the bad things it has done, but for the good things.
Imperialism is a thoroughly reactionary and oppressive system. When the imperialists come to “help,” it is to help themselves. Imperialist intervention is always meant to benefit the imperialists, whose interests are diametrically opposed to those of workers.
Just look at what NATO’s “help” for the people of Libya has meant: The destruction of the civilian infrastructure and economy; cancer-causing radioactive residue from depleted uranium weapons; and using Libya to get its predatory Africom military command on African soil.
A U.S. and NATO intervention in Syria would be the worst thing for all the oppressed people in the Middle East and must be vehemently opposed. A win for imperialism abroad emboldens the capitalists in their attacks on workers at home.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Roberto Quesada: Honduras & Israel
By Roberto Quesada
From: Honduras Weekly
Palestine will undoubtedly again be the center of attention at the United Nations' upcoming General Assembly, as in the days when Yasser Arafat would arrive in New York City to make the case for the Palestinian struggle before that international body. Already, you can start to feel a climate of "arm twisting" taking hold, especially against the poorer and weaker member nations. In response to President Lobo's announcement that Honduras will now support Palestine's bid to join the UN, the current Israeli Ambassador to Honduras, Eliahu López, yesterday referred to the policy as "a stab in the heart of Israel". This view, however, only serves to demonstrate Israel's confusion and short memory of who has inflicted damage on who, and who has had to endure the pain.
Ambassador López has already forgotten that if any nation has stabbed another, it was Israel, when it participated directly in the coup d'état in Honduras.
Just a few days after Manuel Zelaya was overthrown on June 28, 2009, Venezuelan Congressman Adel El Zabayar revealed reports implicating Israel's Mossad intelligence agency in the conspiracy to remove the Honduran president. He stated, "There is strong military participation [by the Mossad] from the standpoint of equipment and espionage."
Now that is truly a stab, if we take into account the fact that the coup left many Hondurans dead, hurt, gassed, expatriated, and exiled. It also caused the near-collapse of Honduras' economy and the country's isolation in the world. And all these are not things of the past. The Honduran people are still having to deal daily with the damaging consequences of the coup. Therefore, those who were involved (both inside and outside of Honduras) in this barbarism are complicit in the stabbing of the Honduran nation.
But the Lobo government's decision to back Palestine is not a case of an eye for eye. It has nothing to do with stabbing back. The issue of Palestine and Israel is an international matter because the stability of the world is closely tied to the situation in the Middle East. Finding a peaceful political solution to this conflict is not only the responsibility of Israelis and Palestinians, but also that of anyone who is concerned about human rights and the preservation of our planet.
The truth is that if Israel really wanted peace, it would not oppose recognition of Palestine as an independent nation. This would contribute to helping negotiate a permanent peace between the two countries, with the commitment and oversight of the international community.
Supporting Palestine in its inalienable right to become a nation and assume its place within the UN does not signify being an enemy of Israel, but rather a friend of peace. (8/4/11) (photo of the "Screamer" sonic canon provided by the Israeli Army courtesy La Tribuna)
alt
Note: The author is a Honduran novelist living in New York. He has written numerous books, including "The Big Banana", "Never Through Miami", "When the Road is Long Even Slippers Feel Tight", and "The Ships". He also writes regularly for El Tiempo newspaper. His column reflects his own views and not necessarily those of Honduras Weekly.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Exposing the Truth and Lies of Obama Middle East Pro-War Speech
By Abayomi Azikiwe
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published May 31, 2011 11:30 AM
President Barack Obama delivered a foreign policy address related to developments in the Middle East on May 19. The speech — which avoided addressing the uprisings throughout North Africa, the Palestinian question and the U.S./NATO war against Libya — created even more hostility toward his administration domestically and internationally.
Obama stated, “Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there.”
Yet the truth is that nearly 50,000 U.S. troops still remain in Iraq, along with more than 100,000 private contractors. The war of occupation against the country continues with an escalation in casualties among U.S. forces since the beginning of 2011.
Obama claimed that “in Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan leadership. And after years of war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, we have dealt al-Qaida a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.”
Nonetheless, the war of resistance against the U.S. and NATO has escalated in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Afghanistan there have been more deaths among U.S./NATO occupation forces as well as civilians since the administration intensified the war in December 2009.
In Pakistan, there have been mass demonstrations against the U.S. raid that brought the execution of Osama bin Laden and against the continuing drone attacks that kill more civilians than Taliban and al-Qaida fighters hunted down by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon. More attacks on NATO’s fuel supply lines are taking place in Pakistan and the military operations by the resistance forces in Afghanistan have hit key installations of the occupation forces.
Obama’s speech claims that the U.S. supports the democratic movements that have swept North Africa, but says nothing of the decades-long U.S. backing of neocolonial client regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. The administration’s response to the existing military-backed governments in Tunis and Cairo is a “Trade and Investment Partnership,” which will only increase debt and dependency for the masses within these North African states.
In response to the Obama speech, Dr. Gideon Polya wrote, “Obama’s speech on the Middle East is extraordinary for its comprehensive dishonesty involving egregious deceit, lying by commission and lying by omission. Obama’s ignoring of the U.S.-imposed Muslim genocide (about 12 million indigenous deaths in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan) is far worse than genocide denial or holocaust denial because at least ‘denial’ admits the possibility of public discussion.” (The Nation, May 23)
U.S. foreign policy is still guided by imperial aims, which is reflected in the backing of the counterrevolutionary rebels in Libya and the more than two months of bombing of that oil-rich state. In relationship to Libya, Obama stated, “As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force — no matter how well-intentioned it may be.”
Nonetheless, the bombing of Libya is not the result of an international coalition but rather an alliance of imperialist states in North America and Western Europe. The rebel destabilization campaign and the U.S./NATO bombing have resulted in the displacement of nearly 1 million people and the deaths of thousands.
United Nations Resolution 1973 was merely a cover for launching a full-scale war designed to overthrow the Libyan government and to impose a puppet regime compliant with imperialist objectives in the region. This war against Libya is also attempting to place on hold any genuinely revolutionary movement in either Tunisia or Egypt since the naval blockade, sanctions and bombings imposed by U.S./NATO military forces threaten the entire region.
Obama said of the leadership in Libya, “Now, time is working against Gadhafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gadhafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.”
However, the so-called “credible” counterrevolutionary forces would have been weakened and possibly defeated had it not been for the military intervention of U.S./NATO forces. Therefore, despite the stated reason for the bombing being to “protect” civilians, the administration’s real agenda is regime change.
U.S. gov’t violates War Powers Act
Just as the U.N. resolutions against Libya were in actuality designed to destroy the political and economic system inside the country, the flagrant disregard of U.S. law has gained almost no response from Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was a byproduct of the popular opposition inside the U.S. to the genocidal war in Vietnam during the post-World War II period, has been blatantly violated in the Libyan war.
A recent online petition initiated by the International Action Center states that the War Powers Act “requires a president involved in a military conflict lasting longer than 60 days to come before Congress for authorization to continue the war. We believe the people of Libya, North Africa, the Middle East, the U.S. and the world deserve a debate on the need to immediately end this war.” (www.iacenter.org)
The petition explains that a May 13 NATO bombing that resulted in the deaths of 11 Islamic religious leaders and the injuring of 47 others, who were part of a peace delegation to end the war, represented “a most grievous war crime. It is an unprecedented new level of international lawlessness and it reveals a dangerous escalation of the war on Muslim people. It comes on top of the ongoing criminal assassination attempts on Col. Gadhafi, which have already killed his son and three of his grandchildren.”
Obama did submit a request for authorization to continue the war to the U.S. Congress, which has yet to act on it. Even though the 60 days that the War Powers Act allowed the president expired the day after his speech, the attacks against Libya are escalating. Jeffrey Feltman, Washington’s assistant secretary of state for the Near East, traveled to Benghazi and met with representatives of the rebel National Transitional Council in a further provocation against the government in Tripoli, which is being bombed daily.
Irrespective of the outcome of the congressional discussion on the U.S./NATO war against Libya, the imperialist states are committed to the ongoing destruction of this North African country, which had the highest income level and standard of living on the continent. The only real hope for ending the war is the continuing resistance of the people in Libya against this military onslaught and the opposition to the regime-change strategy by people in the U.S. and around the world.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Published May 31, 2011 11:30 AM
President Barack Obama delivered a foreign policy address related to developments in the Middle East on May 19. The speech — which avoided addressing the uprisings throughout North Africa, the Palestinian question and the U.S./NATO war against Libya — created even more hostility toward his administration domestically and internationally.
Obama stated, “Now, already, we’ve done much to shift our foreign policy following a decade defined by two costly conflicts. After years of war in Iraq, we’ve removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there.”
Yet the truth is that nearly 50,000 U.S. troops still remain in Iraq, along with more than 100,000 private contractors. The war of occupation against the country continues with an escalation in casualties among U.S. forces since the beginning of 2011.
Obama claimed that “in Afghanistan, we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue a transition to Afghan leadership. And after years of war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, we have dealt al-Qaida a huge blow by killing its leader, Osama bin Laden.”
Nonetheless, the war of resistance against the U.S. and NATO has escalated in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Afghanistan there have been more deaths among U.S./NATO occupation forces as well as civilians since the administration intensified the war in December 2009.
In Pakistan, there have been mass demonstrations against the U.S. raid that brought the execution of Osama bin Laden and against the continuing drone attacks that kill more civilians than Taliban and al-Qaida fighters hunted down by the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon. More attacks on NATO’s fuel supply lines are taking place in Pakistan and the military operations by the resistance forces in Afghanistan have hit key installations of the occupation forces.
Obama’s speech claims that the U.S. supports the democratic movements that have swept North Africa, but says nothing of the decades-long U.S. backing of neocolonial client regimes in Tunisia and Egypt. The administration’s response to the existing military-backed governments in Tunis and Cairo is a “Trade and Investment Partnership,” which will only increase debt and dependency for the masses within these North African states.
In response to the Obama speech, Dr. Gideon Polya wrote, “Obama’s speech on the Middle East is extraordinary for its comprehensive dishonesty involving egregious deceit, lying by commission and lying by omission. Obama’s ignoring of the U.S.-imposed Muslim genocide (about 12 million indigenous deaths in Palestine, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan) is far worse than genocide denial or holocaust denial because at least ‘denial’ admits the possibility of public discussion.” (The Nation, May 23)
U.S. foreign policy is still guided by imperial aims, which is reflected in the backing of the counterrevolutionary rebels in Libya and the more than two months of bombing of that oil-rich state. In relationship to Libya, Obama stated, “As I said when the United States joined an international coalition to intervene, we cannot prevent every injustice perpetrated by a regime against its people, and we have learned from our experience in Iraq just how costly and difficult it is to try to impose regime change by force — no matter how well-intentioned it may be.”
Nonetheless, the bombing of Libya is not the result of an international coalition but rather an alliance of imperialist states in North America and Western Europe. The rebel destabilization campaign and the U.S./NATO bombing have resulted in the displacement of nearly 1 million people and the deaths of thousands.
United Nations Resolution 1973 was merely a cover for launching a full-scale war designed to overthrow the Libyan government and to impose a puppet regime compliant with imperialist objectives in the region. This war against Libya is also attempting to place on hold any genuinely revolutionary movement in either Tunisia or Egypt since the naval blockade, sanctions and bombings imposed by U.S./NATO military forces threaten the entire region.
Obama said of the leadership in Libya, “Now, time is working against Gadhafi. He does not have control over his country. The opposition has organized a legitimate and credible Interim Council. And when Gadhafi inevitably leaves or is forced from power, decades of provocation will come to an end, and the transition to a democratic Libya can proceed.”
However, the so-called “credible” counterrevolutionary forces would have been weakened and possibly defeated had it not been for the military intervention of U.S./NATO forces. Therefore, despite the stated reason for the bombing being to “protect” civilians, the administration’s real agenda is regime change.
U.S. gov’t violates War Powers Act
Just as the U.N. resolutions against Libya were in actuality designed to destroy the political and economic system inside the country, the flagrant disregard of U.S. law has gained almost no response from Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was a byproduct of the popular opposition inside the U.S. to the genocidal war in Vietnam during the post-World War II period, has been blatantly violated in the Libyan war.
A recent online petition initiated by the International Action Center states that the War Powers Act “requires a president involved in a military conflict lasting longer than 60 days to come before Congress for authorization to continue the war. We believe the people of Libya, North Africa, the Middle East, the U.S. and the world deserve a debate on the need to immediately end this war.” (www.iacenter.org)
The petition explains that a May 13 NATO bombing that resulted in the deaths of 11 Islamic religious leaders and the injuring of 47 others, who were part of a peace delegation to end the war, represented “a most grievous war crime. It is an unprecedented new level of international lawlessness and it reveals a dangerous escalation of the war on Muslim people. It comes on top of the ongoing criminal assassination attempts on Col. Gadhafi, which have already killed his son and three of his grandchildren.”
Obama did submit a request for authorization to continue the war to the U.S. Congress, which has yet to act on it. Even though the 60 days that the War Powers Act allowed the president expired the day after his speech, the attacks against Libya are escalating. Jeffrey Feltman, Washington’s assistant secretary of state for the Near East, traveled to Benghazi and met with representatives of the rebel National Transitional Council in a further provocation against the government in Tripoli, which is being bombed daily.
Irrespective of the outcome of the congressional discussion on the U.S./NATO war against Libya, the imperialist states are committed to the ongoing destruction of this North African country, which had the highest income level and standard of living on the continent. The only real hope for ending the war is the continuing resistance of the people in Libya against this military onslaught and the opposition to the regime-change strategy by people in the U.S. and around the world.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Monday, May 30, 2011
The Basics on Libya w/ Harpal Brar
Below is a Marxist-Leninist Critique of the U.S. Imperialism's Latest "Intervention."
The above video contains a brilliant analysis of China, Palestine, and the weakness of the "Stop the War Coalition" as well.
The above video contains a brilliant analysis of China, Palestine, and the weakness of the "Stop the War Coalition" as well.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Good Interview, Bad Venue: Cynthia Mckinney From Libya (Via Alex Jones)
Cynthia Mckinney, live from Libya, tells the truth about what is going on there, and the lie of U.S. intervention. Sadly, though, she does it on the show of fascist conspiracist Alex Jones.
At one point she starts talking about the reasons Libya is being attacked, and the "Islamic Socialist" policies of the government, despite Jones reassuring his audience about how anti-Socialist he is.
The interview brings out some amazing things.
At one point she starts talking about the reasons Libya is being attacked, and the "Islamic Socialist" policies of the government, despite Jones reassuring his audience about how anti-Socialist he is.
The interview brings out some amazing things.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Palestinians Storm Israel's Borders
By Joyce Chediac
Published May 18, 2011 3:55 PM
Thousands of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza surged across fenced off borders and into Israel on May 15, asserting their right to return home. The unarmed protesters were fired upon by Israeli soldiers, killing 16 and wounding hundreds.
These brave, coordinated, “Return to Palestine” marches by the Palestinian people marked “al Nakba,” the Catastrophe, the anniversary of the expulsion by force and terror of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes by Zionists in 1948, and the establishment of Israel in its place.
Inspired by protests in much of the Arab world, this was the first time in 63 years that Palestinian refugees marked their expulsion by going to the border in the tens of thousands and calling for their right to go home. It electrified the Arab world and showed that, no matter what forces are arrayed against them, the Palestinian people will not abandon their right to return.
Palestinians marching from Jordan were attacked and stopped by Jordanian soldiers before they reached the border. The Egyptian military fired into crowds to repress them after three days of actions in solidarity with Palestine in Egypt, culminating in a protest in front of the Israeli Embassy. Jordan and Egypt are the only Arab countries that have signed a peace treaty with Israel.
Coordinated actions reflect Hamas-Fatah agreement
Speaking from Gaza, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haneyya said that Palestinian and Arab blood spilt during Nakba marches suggests that Nakba is being marked with a new spirit and that the Palestinians have begun to “bury the Nakba” for good. He said that the situation marked the “first application” of the recent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation practiced on the ground, as differences were set aside for the greater national interest.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah lauded those Palestinians mowed down as “martyrs” killed by “the Israeli occupation while they were in a demonstration commemorating the Nakba inside the nation.”
No Western governments condemn Israeli killings
The Israeli government responded with deadly force against the unarmed protesters, who certainly posed no physical danger. This bloody response made clear who the terrorists are in this continuing struggle. But neither the U.S. government nor its European allies have issued even one word condemning the murder of Palestinians by Tel Aviv. In fact, while Palestinians mourn their dead, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be greeted by President Barack Obama in Washington on May 20, and Netanyahu has been asked to address a joint session of Congress!
Meanwhile, on May 16 the Israeli and Egyptian navies together opened fire in international waters on a Gaza freedom flotilla ship, the Spirit of Rachel Corrie, carrying plastic sewage pipes to help restore the devastated sewerage system in Gaza. None of the anti-war activists and journalists, from Malaysia, Ireland, India and Canada, were harmed. The vessel is now anchored in Egyptian waters, about 30 nautical miles from Gaza.
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt
In Lebanon on May 15, thousands of women and men, young and old, secular and religious, gathered in the mountain-top border town of Maroun al Ras, which has a panoramic view of occupied Palestine. For many it was the first time they saw their country, which previously they had only heard described by their elders.
Soon after speakers began addressing the crowds, thousands headed down the opposite side of the mountain — though it was littered with Israeli landmines — towards the border fence. Calling for their right to return, they climbed and placed Palestinian flags on the fence. Some began throwing stones at soldiers so far off they could barely be seen.
The soldiers opened fire, and 11 people were killed and about 100 wounded. Participating in the action were the Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon, Abdallah Abdallah, and representatives from Hezbollah, and the Future Movement, which is aligned with it.
Four people were killed and four others critically hurt by Israeli gunfire after hundreds of protesters from a Syrian-held part of the Golan breached the fence and entered the part of the Heights annexed by Israel. Syrians and Palestinians broke through the fence from both sides, greeting relatives arbitrarily separated by the border. Israeli troops fired live rounds and tear gas at the protesters.
In Jordan, police intercepted and stopped several thousand Palestinians from marching to the border with Israel, injuring at least 25. “The people want to liberate Palestine,” was one of the slogans the young people chanted earlier near the Israeli Embassy in Amman. “We are ready to die for Jerusalem. The right of return is sacred.” (AFP, May 15)
In Egypt, a huge crowd gathered in support of Palestine on May 13 in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Many had intentions of traveling to the border crossing with Gaza on May 15, to demand that the blockade of Gaza be broken. The Egyptian government, however, set up checkpoints and closed the bridge and tunnel into the Sinai Peninsula to stop this from happening.
As an alternative, Egyptian and Palestinian protesters gathered for hours at the Egyptian Embassy in Cairo on May 16, waving Palestinian flags and burning an Israeli flag. They demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador and the closing of the embassy. At least 350 pro-Palestinian demonstrators were injured, and over 150 were arrested when Egyptian police and military violently crushed this protest, firing live ammunition, tear gas grenades and rubber bullets at the crowd.
Spirits remained high, however, with youth grabbing the tear gas canisters and throwing them back at the army. Men and women raised a chant that is now well known in Egypt: “We are not afraid! We will not bow down! We have gotten used to bullets!”
A day of mourning and determination
There are now more than 4.8 million Palestinian refugees officially registered with UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, throughout the Arab world, including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian refugees are the longest-lasting and largest refugee population in the world. They live in limbo, a stateless people denied their human rights both internationally and in the countries where they live. Conditions for Palestinians are by far the worst in Lebanon.
May 16 was declared a day of mourning in all 12 Palestinian camps across Lebanon as families of the 11 people killed prepared to bury their dead.
All work stopped in Lebanon’s southern Palestinian camps to make way for mourners who gathered in their thousands to bid farewell to Imad Abu Shakra, 18; Abdel Rahman Said Sobhi, 20; and Mohammad Abu Shleeh, 28, three of those killed. Similar funerals were held in Al-Bass and Burj Al-Shamali camps near the southern port city of Tyre.
“In Ain el-Helwi, the bodies of Abu Shakra, Sobhi and Shleeh were held up high by procession members, who also carried banners and chanted slogans reflecting their deep longing for their loved Palestine.” The men had “sacrificed their lives for the right to return,” read one banner. “We will fight, we will die, we will return to Palestine,” read another. (Beirut Daily Star, May 16)
Published May 18, 2011 3:55 PM
Thousands of Palestinian refugees from Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza surged across fenced off borders and into Israel on May 15, asserting their right to return home. The unarmed protesters were fired upon by Israeli soldiers, killing 16 and wounding hundreds.
These brave, coordinated, “Return to Palestine” marches by the Palestinian people marked “al Nakba,” the Catastrophe, the anniversary of the expulsion by force and terror of 750,000 Palestinians from their homes by Zionists in 1948, and the establishment of Israel in its place.
Inspired by protests in much of the Arab world, this was the first time in 63 years that Palestinian refugees marked their expulsion by going to the border in the tens of thousands and calling for their right to go home. It electrified the Arab world and showed that, no matter what forces are arrayed against them, the Palestinian people will not abandon their right to return.
Palestinians marching from Jordan were attacked and stopped by Jordanian soldiers before they reached the border. The Egyptian military fired into crowds to repress them after three days of actions in solidarity with Palestine in Egypt, culminating in a protest in front of the Israeli Embassy. Jordan and Egypt are the only Arab countries that have signed a peace treaty with Israel.
Coordinated actions reflect Hamas-Fatah agreement
Speaking from Gaza, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haneyya said that Palestinian and Arab blood spilt during Nakba marches suggests that Nakba is being marked with a new spirit and that the Palestinians have begun to “bury the Nakba” for good. He said that the situation marked the “first application” of the recent Fatah-Hamas reconciliation practiced on the ground, as differences were set aside for the greater national interest.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah lauded those Palestinians mowed down as “martyrs” killed by “the Israeli occupation while they were in a demonstration commemorating the Nakba inside the nation.”
No Western governments condemn Israeli killings
The Israeli government responded with deadly force against the unarmed protesters, who certainly posed no physical danger. This bloody response made clear who the terrorists are in this continuing struggle. But neither the U.S. government nor its European allies have issued even one word condemning the murder of Palestinians by Tel Aviv. In fact, while Palestinians mourn their dead, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be greeted by President Barack Obama in Washington on May 20, and Netanyahu has been asked to address a joint session of Congress!
Meanwhile, on May 16 the Israeli and Egyptian navies together opened fire in international waters on a Gaza freedom flotilla ship, the Spirit of Rachel Corrie, carrying plastic sewage pipes to help restore the devastated sewerage system in Gaza. None of the anti-war activists and journalists, from Malaysia, Ireland, India and Canada, were harmed. The vessel is now anchored in Egyptian waters, about 30 nautical miles from Gaza.
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt
In Lebanon on May 15, thousands of women and men, young and old, secular and religious, gathered in the mountain-top border town of Maroun al Ras, which has a panoramic view of occupied Palestine. For many it was the first time they saw their country, which previously they had only heard described by their elders.
Soon after speakers began addressing the crowds, thousands headed down the opposite side of the mountain — though it was littered with Israeli landmines — towards the border fence. Calling for their right to return, they climbed and placed Palestinian flags on the fence. Some began throwing stones at soldiers so far off they could barely be seen.
The soldiers opened fire, and 11 people were killed and about 100 wounded. Participating in the action were the Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon, Abdallah Abdallah, and representatives from Hezbollah, and the Future Movement, which is aligned with it.
Four people were killed and four others critically hurt by Israeli gunfire after hundreds of protesters from a Syrian-held part of the Golan breached the fence and entered the part of the Heights annexed by Israel. Syrians and Palestinians broke through the fence from both sides, greeting relatives arbitrarily separated by the border. Israeli troops fired live rounds and tear gas at the protesters.
In Jordan, police intercepted and stopped several thousand Palestinians from marching to the border with Israel, injuring at least 25. “The people want to liberate Palestine,” was one of the slogans the young people chanted earlier near the Israeli Embassy in Amman. “We are ready to die for Jerusalem. The right of return is sacred.” (AFP, May 15)
In Egypt, a huge crowd gathered in support of Palestine on May 13 in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Many had intentions of traveling to the border crossing with Gaza on May 15, to demand that the blockade of Gaza be broken. The Egyptian government, however, set up checkpoints and closed the bridge and tunnel into the Sinai Peninsula to stop this from happening.
As an alternative, Egyptian and Palestinian protesters gathered for hours at the Egyptian Embassy in Cairo on May 16, waving Palestinian flags and burning an Israeli flag. They demanded the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador and the closing of the embassy. At least 350 pro-Palestinian demonstrators were injured, and over 150 were arrested when Egyptian police and military violently crushed this protest, firing live ammunition, tear gas grenades and rubber bullets at the crowd.
Spirits remained high, however, with youth grabbing the tear gas canisters and throwing them back at the army. Men and women raised a chant that is now well known in Egypt: “We are not afraid! We will not bow down! We have gotten used to bullets!”
A day of mourning and determination
There are now more than 4.8 million Palestinian refugees officially registered with UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, throughout the Arab world, including Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian refugees are the longest-lasting and largest refugee population in the world. They live in limbo, a stateless people denied their human rights both internationally and in the countries where they live. Conditions for Palestinians are by far the worst in Lebanon.
May 16 was declared a day of mourning in all 12 Palestinian camps across Lebanon as families of the 11 people killed prepared to bury their dead.
All work stopped in Lebanon’s southern Palestinian camps to make way for mourners who gathered in their thousands to bid farewell to Imad Abu Shakra, 18; Abdel Rahman Said Sobhi, 20; and Mohammad Abu Shleeh, 28, three of those killed. Similar funerals were held in Al-Bass and Burj Al-Shamali camps near the southern port city of Tyre.
“In Ain el-Helwi, the bodies of Abu Shakra, Sobhi and Shleeh were held up high by procession members, who also carried banners and chanted slogans reflecting their deep longing for their loved Palestine.” The men had “sacrificed their lives for the right to return,” read one banner. “We will fight, we will die, we will return to Palestine,” read another. (Beirut Daily Star, May 16)
Stop FBI Stops The Bank Freeze
By Kris Hamel
Published May 18, 2011 3:41 PM
A victory was won May 10 by activists fighting FBI repression when the Twin Cities Federal bank reversed its action and released funds held in accounts by Hatem Abudayyeh and Naima Abudayyeh of Chicago. The family’s accounts were frozen by TCF on May 6; the TCF branch manager asserted the Bank Security Act prevented him from releasing any assets.
Hatem Abudayyeh is a Palestinian community leader and executive director of the Arab American Action Network. He is one of 23 anti-war, Palestinian and international solidarity activists subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Chicago after FBI raids last September.
Michael Deutsch, attorney for the Abudayyehs, said, “In my opinion, the bank did not act out of the blue. I suspect that the FBI and U.S Attorney investigation caused the bank to overreact and illegally freeze the Abudayyehs’ banking accounts that had been there for over a decade.” (fightbacknews.org, May 10)
The Committee to Stop FBI Repression reported in a May 16 email that people across the United States called U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to demand the return of the couple’s money and an end to the repression and harassment of activists.
All 23 of the targeted activists remain steadfast in their position that they will not appear before a grand jury.
Hatem Abudayyeh will be a featured speaker at a May 21 meeting in New York City, “Resisting State Repression: Confronting Police and FBI Repression of Communities of Color & Oppressed Nationalities.” Sponsored by the New York Committee to Stop FBI Repression, Al-Awda NY and DRUM (Desis Rising Up and Moving), the event starts at 7 p.m. at 56 Walker St. in lower Manhattan.
For more information on this and other anti-repression activities, see www.stopfbi.net.
Published May 18, 2011 3:41 PM
A victory was won May 10 by activists fighting FBI repression when the Twin Cities Federal bank reversed its action and released funds held in accounts by Hatem Abudayyeh and Naima Abudayyeh of Chicago. The family’s accounts were frozen by TCF on May 6; the TCF branch manager asserted the Bank Security Act prevented him from releasing any assets.
Hatem Abudayyeh is a Palestinian community leader and executive director of the Arab American Action Network. He is one of 23 anti-war, Palestinian and international solidarity activists subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in Chicago after FBI raids last September.
Michael Deutsch, attorney for the Abudayyehs, said, “In my opinion, the bank did not act out of the blue. I suspect that the FBI and U.S Attorney investigation caused the bank to overreact and illegally freeze the Abudayyehs’ banking accounts that had been there for over a decade.” (fightbacknews.org, May 10)
The Committee to Stop FBI Repression reported in a May 16 email that people across the United States called U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago and the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to demand the return of the couple’s money and an end to the repression and harassment of activists.
All 23 of the targeted activists remain steadfast in their position that they will not appear before a grand jury.
Hatem Abudayyeh will be a featured speaker at a May 21 meeting in New York City, “Resisting State Repression: Confronting Police and FBI Repression of Communities of Color & Oppressed Nationalities.” Sponsored by the New York Committee to Stop FBI Repression, Al-Awda NY and DRUM (Desis Rising Up and Moving), the event starts at 7 p.m. at 56 Walker St. in lower Manhattan.
For more information on this and other anti-repression activities, see www.stopfbi.net.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Secret FBI Document, Discovered! Reveals Open Anti-Communist Agenda!
From: Coalition to Stop FBI Repression
FBI agents, who raided the home of Mick Kelly and Linden Gawboy, took with them thousands of pages of documents and books, along with computers, cell phones and a passport. By mistake, they also left something behind; the operation plans for the raid, “Interview questions” for anti-war and international solidarity activists, duplicate evidence collection forms, etc. The file of secret FBI documents was accidently mixed in with Gawboy’s files, and was found in a filing cabinet on April 30. We are now releasing them to the public.
The raid at the Kelly/Gawboy home was one of the many coordinated raids at Minneapolis homes and the offices of the Anti-War Committee on September 24, 2010. Two additional homes were raided in Chicago. To date, 23 anti-war and international solidarity activists have received subpoenas to appear in front of a Chicago Grand Jury headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
Taken as a whole, the secret FBI file shows the willful disregard for the rights of anti-war and international solidarity activists – particularly the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The documents make it clear that legal activity in solidarity with the peoples of Colombia and Palestine is being targeted. The documents use McCarthy-era language, which gives one the feel that the 1950s red scare has returned. And finally, the documents show the chilling plans for the armed raid that took place at the home of Kelly and Gawboy on September 24, 2010.
The documents show that public advocacy for the people of Colombia was the genesis of the FBI investigation. The ‘Operations Order’ for the FBI SWAT Team states “The captioned case was initially predicated on the activities of Meredith Aby and Jessica Rae Sundin in support of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a U.S. State Department designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO), to include their travel to FARC controlled territory.”
While we have no way of knowing if it was speaking tours or educational events on Colombia that got them so riled up, there is something we can state with certainty: There is nothing illegal about traveling to Colombia, or visiting the areas where the FARC is in charge. This is something that journalists, including U.S. journalists, do, and we have yet to hear of their doors being broken down. Upon returning from Colombia, Aby and Sundin spoke at many public events about their experiences.
The FBI interview questions for Meredith Aby ask “1) Have you ever met Lilia [sic] Obando? 2) Where? 3) When? 4) Why?” Liliana Obando is a well-known Colombian trade unionist who spoke in the Twin Cities at an event organized by the Anti-War Committee. She received a visa to travel in the U.S. from the U.S. government. She spoke about the sickening human rights violations that were being carried out by the Colombian government and its paramilitary allies.
While we understand that the Colombian government is the third largest recipient of U.S military aid, and that government officials would prefer that that people here in the U.S. don’t get a chance to hear about human rights abuses committed with their tax dollars, the fact remains: there is nothing criminal in trying to learn the truth. The FBI is attacking the right of anti-war activists to speak out against U.S. foreign policy.
Likewise, the “interview questions” make a big deal about delegations that visited Palestine. The Israeli authorities try to disrupt these trips because people return from them and expose the gross human rights violations that are carried out in the context of the military occupation. But once again – this is a legal activity that activists have every right to engage in.
The documents show how the FBI investigation expanded outwards, starting with Colombia and soon focusing on Palestine. How did the FBI get involved? The most likely explanation is that a undercover police officer going by the name “Karen Sullivan” infiltrated the Anti-War Committee shortly before the 2008 Republican National Convention. Among the first people she met were Meredith Aby and Jess Sundin, who often spoke at public events about what they saw in Colombia. Karen Sullivan - the professional liar - then gave her reports to the FBI, paving the road to the September 24 raids.
The New McCarthyism
When Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy went on a red-baiting witch hunt in the 1950s, communists, socialists and progressives of all stripes were hounded out of jobs, housing, the entertainment industry and institutions of higher education. More than a few people were jailed for their ideas. The secret FBI documents indicate an investigation is underway that takes its cues from this shameful past.
The FBI documents include 57 interview questions about Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the organization that some of those who were raided or subpoenaed to the Grand Jury are members of. The questions include; “Are you a member?” “How many members are there?’’ “Who are the leaders?” And on and on and on. It is like pages of the calendar have been turned back 60 years.
In the United States there is a constitutional right to association. Like-minded people are allowed to form groups and political parties that promote their views. FRSO members, along with others, were very active in organizing the massive anti-war protests at the Republican National Convention. They participate in the labor movement, community organizing, and the anti-war movement too. And they advocate that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with socialism. Given the bank bailout, continuous wars and the economic crisis it is not unreasonable to see these activities and views as a breath of fresh air.
“Dangerous” raid
In the documents, the “Operations order” for FBI SWAT for “Operation Principal Parts” the raid on the Kelly/Gawboy home has the word “DANGEROUS” in underlined bold type at the top of the page. FBI agents were told to bring assault rifles, machine guns and two extra clips of ammunition for each of their side arms. Two paramedics were to stand by in the event of causalities. Other documents include photos of Kelly and Gawboy, as well as pictures of stairs leading to their front door and the front door itself.
What transpired on September 24 was this. Gawboy was awoken by the FBI pounding on the door. When she stated she wanted to see the search warrant, agents used a battering ram on the door, breaking the hardware and shattering a fish tank in the process. Gawboy was taken down the front steps in her nightgown while the FBI swat team entered her home.
The justification for this armed home invasion is given in the “Operations plan” - “Kelly is believed to be the owner of an unknown number of firearms which may be at his residence…”
Kelly, who learned to shoot while in Boy Scouts, owns guns – just like a lot of Minnesotans. The “Operation Plan” also claims that Kelly “offered to provide weapons training” - an outright lie that originated with the police infiltrator “Karen Sullivan” or a fiction writer at the FBI office.
The bottom line is this: there can be no justification for the raid in the first place, and still less for it to be done by agents smashing doors and wielding machine guns. This is a recipe for people getting hurt or killed.
The events of September 24 and the ongoing grand jury are not about “material support of terrorism,” as any normal person would understand it. What is happening is this: anti-war and international solidarity activists are being targeted for practicing our rights to speak out and organize. We have done nothing wrong. Our activism is making this world a better place.
For info go to StopFBI.net
FBI agents, who raided the home of Mick Kelly and Linden Gawboy, took with them thousands of pages of documents and books, along with computers, cell phones and a passport. By mistake, they also left something behind; the operation plans for the raid, “Interview questions” for anti-war and international solidarity activists, duplicate evidence collection forms, etc. The file of secret FBI documents was accidently mixed in with Gawboy’s files, and was found in a filing cabinet on April 30. We are now releasing them to the public.
The raid at the Kelly/Gawboy home was one of the many coordinated raids at Minneapolis homes and the offices of the Anti-War Committee on September 24, 2010. Two additional homes were raided in Chicago. To date, 23 anti-war and international solidarity activists have received subpoenas to appear in front of a Chicago Grand Jury headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald.
Taken as a whole, the secret FBI file shows the willful disregard for the rights of anti-war and international solidarity activists – particularly the first amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The documents make it clear that legal activity in solidarity with the peoples of Colombia and Palestine is being targeted. The documents use McCarthy-era language, which gives one the feel that the 1950s red scare has returned. And finally, the documents show the chilling plans for the armed raid that took place at the home of Kelly and Gawboy on September 24, 2010.
The documents show that public advocacy for the people of Colombia was the genesis of the FBI investigation. The ‘Operations Order’ for the FBI SWAT Team states “The captioned case was initially predicated on the activities of Meredith Aby and Jessica Rae Sundin in support of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a U.S. State Department designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO), to include their travel to FARC controlled territory.”
While we have no way of knowing if it was speaking tours or educational events on Colombia that got them so riled up, there is something we can state with certainty: There is nothing illegal about traveling to Colombia, or visiting the areas where the FARC is in charge. This is something that journalists, including U.S. journalists, do, and we have yet to hear of their doors being broken down. Upon returning from Colombia, Aby and Sundin spoke at many public events about their experiences.
The FBI interview questions for Meredith Aby ask “1) Have you ever met Lilia [sic] Obando? 2) Where? 3) When? 4) Why?” Liliana Obando is a well-known Colombian trade unionist who spoke in the Twin Cities at an event organized by the Anti-War Committee. She received a visa to travel in the U.S. from the U.S. government. She spoke about the sickening human rights violations that were being carried out by the Colombian government and its paramilitary allies.
While we understand that the Colombian government is the third largest recipient of U.S military aid, and that government officials would prefer that that people here in the U.S. don’t get a chance to hear about human rights abuses committed with their tax dollars, the fact remains: there is nothing criminal in trying to learn the truth. The FBI is attacking the right of anti-war activists to speak out against U.S. foreign policy.
Likewise, the “interview questions” make a big deal about delegations that visited Palestine. The Israeli authorities try to disrupt these trips because people return from them and expose the gross human rights violations that are carried out in the context of the military occupation. But once again – this is a legal activity that activists have every right to engage in.
The documents show how the FBI investigation expanded outwards, starting with Colombia and soon focusing on Palestine. How did the FBI get involved? The most likely explanation is that a undercover police officer going by the name “Karen Sullivan” infiltrated the Anti-War Committee shortly before the 2008 Republican National Convention. Among the first people she met were Meredith Aby and Jess Sundin, who often spoke at public events about what they saw in Colombia. Karen Sullivan - the professional liar - then gave her reports to the FBI, paving the road to the September 24 raids.
The New McCarthyism
When Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy went on a red-baiting witch hunt in the 1950s, communists, socialists and progressives of all stripes were hounded out of jobs, housing, the entertainment industry and institutions of higher education. More than a few people were jailed for their ideas. The secret FBI documents indicate an investigation is underway that takes its cues from this shameful past.
The FBI documents include 57 interview questions about Freedom Road Socialist Organization, the organization that some of those who were raided or subpoenaed to the Grand Jury are members of. The questions include; “Are you a member?” “How many members are there?’’ “Who are the leaders?” And on and on and on. It is like pages of the calendar have been turned back 60 years.
In the United States there is a constitutional right to association. Like-minded people are allowed to form groups and political parties that promote their views. FRSO members, along with others, were very active in organizing the massive anti-war protests at the Republican National Convention. They participate in the labor movement, community organizing, and the anti-war movement too. And they advocate that capitalism should be abolished and replaced with socialism. Given the bank bailout, continuous wars and the economic crisis it is not unreasonable to see these activities and views as a breath of fresh air.
“Dangerous” raid
In the documents, the “Operations order” for FBI SWAT for “Operation Principal Parts” the raid on the Kelly/Gawboy home has the word “DANGEROUS” in underlined bold type at the top of the page. FBI agents were told to bring assault rifles, machine guns and two extra clips of ammunition for each of their side arms. Two paramedics were to stand by in the event of causalities. Other documents include photos of Kelly and Gawboy, as well as pictures of stairs leading to their front door and the front door itself.
What transpired on September 24 was this. Gawboy was awoken by the FBI pounding on the door. When she stated she wanted to see the search warrant, agents used a battering ram on the door, breaking the hardware and shattering a fish tank in the process. Gawboy was taken down the front steps in her nightgown while the FBI swat team entered her home.
The justification for this armed home invasion is given in the “Operations plan” - “Kelly is believed to be the owner of an unknown number of firearms which may be at his residence…”
Kelly, who learned to shoot while in Boy Scouts, owns guns – just like a lot of Minnesotans. The “Operation Plan” also claims that Kelly “offered to provide weapons training” - an outright lie that originated with the police infiltrator “Karen Sullivan” or a fiction writer at the FBI office.
The bottom line is this: there can be no justification for the raid in the first place, and still less for it to be done by agents smashing doors and wielding machine guns. This is a recipe for people getting hurt or killed.
The events of September 24 and the ongoing grand jury are not about “material support of terrorism,” as any normal person would understand it. What is happening is this: anti-war and international solidarity activists are being targeted for practicing our rights to speak out and organize. We have done nothing wrong. Our activism is making this world a better place.
For info go to StopFBI.net
Monday, May 16, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Corporate Media Rewrite Egypt Events
By Caleb T. Maupin
Published May 9, 2011 8:46 PM
In the United States, big media, like all other powerful institutions in the economy, are owned by and operated for the capitalists. Pentagon contractor General Electric owns NBC and MSNBC. Australian media tycoon Rupert Murdoch owns the FOX network. Robert Eiger now owns the ABC-Disney-Pixar media cartel, taking over the role once held by racist, anti-communist Walt Disney.
Despite claims of “freedom” and “democracy,” U.S. television networks and major newspapers are nothing more than Wall Street’s and the Pentagon’s “Ministry of Information.” Just a few months after the Egyptian Revolution deposed President Hosni Mubarak, they are rewriting the entire history of this world-shaking event to suit their previous narrative of world politics.
From the day he took office, Mubarak was a U.S. client ruler.
Mubarak’s regime rigged elections, securing him 29 years of unchallenged rule. The CIA trained his secret police forces. Washington sent his government billions of dollars each year, mostly to the military, second in amount only to Israel.
The U.S. even looked to Mubarak’s secret police for its rendition program, allowing these thugs to conduct torture for the U.S. when technicalities of U.S. law tied its own hands.
Mubarak’s “National Democratic Party” had an official international relationship with the British Labor Party. Mubarak received praise and admiration from the U.S. for his role in repressing “extremists” who favored democracy and less cooperation with Israel and the United States.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden made clear he did not believe Mubarak was a dictator, despite obvious reality.
All the major networks and newspapers featured “policy analysts,” including Fox’s soon-to-be-ex-analyst, the rabid Glenn Beck, who voiced fears that the popular revolution was “dangerous” and would create an opening for “Islamic radicals.”
When Mubarak refused to step down as millions took the streets, no cruise missiles were fired at his home. No trade embargo was placed on the country. There was no talk of a no-fly zone. Hillary Rodham Clinton reassured the world that the U.S.-backed dictator’s army was “practicing restraint.” (ABC News, Jan. 30) Clinton also made clear there was no intention of cutting off billions of dollars of aid. There would just be more discussion about reform while the brutal regime continued to be bankrolled by the U.S.
Despite the efforts of Washington to change a few faces at the top without changing the system, Wall Street’s hit man has been removed by a heroic, popular uprising. Workers’ councils have formed in the factories. Students and organized labor continue to resist as the military rules an uneasy, unstable, post-Mubarak Egypt.
After leaving office, Mubarak was not hanged or given a sham trial like Saddam Hussein. He is in no danger of having his relatives killed with NATO surgical air strikes like Moammar Gadhafi.
The new narrative
But despite reality, a new narrative is being constructed about Egypt, even though the same abuses of power continue in many countries throughout the Middle East.
The U.S.-backed autocracy in Bahrain commits brutal crimes against humanity, putting down a similar popular uprising. Though Washington funds Israel and backs the Saudi and Bahraini monarchies, it is still continually called a “defender of democracy” on every major TV channel.
Obama’s speech justifying bombing Libya repeatedly claimed the U.S. was acting for “humanitarian” reasons and “human rights.” Just naming a few of the brutal dictatorships the U.S. supports refutes this lie. But naming these names has never been part of the national image the U.S. media have created.
Even Jon Stewart, the sarcastic television commentator who often views the U.S. government with cynicism, featured a guest who claimed that the U.S. “inspired” the revolution by setting up English-speaking universities throughout Egypt.
Despite the fact that U.S.-made bullets killed protesters, U.S.-trained secret police tortured them, and the U.S. media denounced them as “terrorists” and “radical Islamists,” the U.S. supported the protesters all along? Give me a break.
Published May 9, 2011 8:46 PM
In the United States, big media, like all other powerful institutions in the economy, are owned by and operated for the capitalists. Pentagon contractor General Electric owns NBC and MSNBC. Australian media tycoon Rupert Murdoch owns the FOX network. Robert Eiger now owns the ABC-Disney-Pixar media cartel, taking over the role once held by racist, anti-communist Walt Disney.
Despite claims of “freedom” and “democracy,” U.S. television networks and major newspapers are nothing more than Wall Street’s and the Pentagon’s “Ministry of Information.” Just a few months after the Egyptian Revolution deposed President Hosni Mubarak, they are rewriting the entire history of this world-shaking event to suit their previous narrative of world politics.
From the day he took office, Mubarak was a U.S. client ruler.
Mubarak’s regime rigged elections, securing him 29 years of unchallenged rule. The CIA trained his secret police forces. Washington sent his government billions of dollars each year, mostly to the military, second in amount only to Israel.
The U.S. even looked to Mubarak’s secret police for its rendition program, allowing these thugs to conduct torture for the U.S. when technicalities of U.S. law tied its own hands.
Mubarak’s “National Democratic Party” had an official international relationship with the British Labor Party. Mubarak received praise and admiration from the U.S. for his role in repressing “extremists” who favored democracy and less cooperation with Israel and the United States.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden made clear he did not believe Mubarak was a dictator, despite obvious reality.
All the major networks and newspapers featured “policy analysts,” including Fox’s soon-to-be-ex-analyst, the rabid Glenn Beck, who voiced fears that the popular revolution was “dangerous” and would create an opening for “Islamic radicals.”
When Mubarak refused to step down as millions took the streets, no cruise missiles were fired at his home. No trade embargo was placed on the country. There was no talk of a no-fly zone. Hillary Rodham Clinton reassured the world that the U.S.-backed dictator’s army was “practicing restraint.” (ABC News, Jan. 30) Clinton also made clear there was no intention of cutting off billions of dollars of aid. There would just be more discussion about reform while the brutal regime continued to be bankrolled by the U.S.
Despite the efforts of Washington to change a few faces at the top without changing the system, Wall Street’s hit man has been removed by a heroic, popular uprising. Workers’ councils have formed in the factories. Students and organized labor continue to resist as the military rules an uneasy, unstable, post-Mubarak Egypt.
After leaving office, Mubarak was not hanged or given a sham trial like Saddam Hussein. He is in no danger of having his relatives killed with NATO surgical air strikes like Moammar Gadhafi.
The new narrative
But despite reality, a new narrative is being constructed about Egypt, even though the same abuses of power continue in many countries throughout the Middle East.
The U.S.-backed autocracy in Bahrain commits brutal crimes against humanity, putting down a similar popular uprising. Though Washington funds Israel and backs the Saudi and Bahraini monarchies, it is still continually called a “defender of democracy” on every major TV channel.
Obama’s speech justifying bombing Libya repeatedly claimed the U.S. was acting for “humanitarian” reasons and “human rights.” Just naming a few of the brutal dictatorships the U.S. supports refutes this lie. But naming these names has never been part of the national image the U.S. media have created.
Even Jon Stewart, the sarcastic television commentator who often views the U.S. government with cynicism, featured a guest who claimed that the U.S. “inspired” the revolution by setting up English-speaking universities throughout Egypt.
Despite the fact that U.S.-made bullets killed protesters, U.S.-trained secret police tortured them, and the U.S. media denounced them as “terrorists” and “radical Islamists,” the U.S. supported the protesters all along? Give me a break.
Unity Agreement Bolsters Struggle For A Free Palestine
By Gene Clancy
Published May 9, 2011 8:53 PM
Thousands of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank cheered the news that the occupied Palestinian territories had taken a major step toward reconciliation. On April 27 the movements of Hamas and Fatah announced an agreement to unite. In a move that seems to have stunned the Western imperialist diplomatic world, the two groups agreed to create an interim unity government and hold elections within a year.
The agreement, made following secret talks sponsored by the caretaker Egyptian government, was announced at a news conference in Cairo. Referring to each other as “brothers,” the two negotiators declared a new chapter in the Palestinian struggle for independence, which had been hobbled in recent years by the split between the Fatah-run West Bank and Hamas-run Gaza.
The deal highlighted Egypt’s evolving foreign policy, its increasing regional influence and its changing relationship with Israel. Spurred on by the Egyptian mass movement, the new Egyptian government has pursued Palestinian negotiations aggressively; has recognized the Muslim Brotherhood, which has deep ties to Hamas; and is reconsidering whether to go forward with a deal to provide natural gas to Israel. It has also asserted a friendlier attitude toward Iran.
The agreement is also an unmistakable sign of the importance of the Arab revolution that has swept the Middle East and North Africa. As Azzam al-Ahmad, the Fatah negotiator, said after the news conference in Cairo: “The changes in the Arab region and the political upheaval contributed to reducing the pressure on the Palestinian factions, and by pressure I mean the negative kind of pressure.” (New York Times, April 27)
The U.S.-supported state of Israel was quick to respond to news of the agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said a unity agreement would put an end to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. He threatened the PA, saying it “must choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas.” President Shimon Peres said the agreement would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and “sabotage any chance for peace.” (Washington Post, April 28)
Actually, the Israeli Zionist regime and the U.S. imperialist government have systematically sabotaged any and all efforts of the Palestinians and others to achieve peace in what is, after all, the Palestinian homeland.
Hamas won the 2007 elections in the occupied territories. The Israelis promptly imprisoned the new Parliament as the U.S. cut off all foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority. Enormous pressure was put on the PA leadership to cave in to Israeli demands. As they dragged out the U.S.-sponsored talks, the Israelis increased the pace of their illegal settlements on the West Bank while waging a cruel war and blockade on Gaza.
Mkhaimar Abusada, a professor of political science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, said that the Palestinian Authority’s failure to reach an agreement with Israel and its anger over the U.S. veto in February of a United Nations Security Council resolution opposing Israeli settlement construction had encouraged Fatah to come to an agreement with Hamas. The Islamic group, he said, was motivated to get closer to Fatah by regional changes — the revolutions sweeping the Arab world. (New York Times, April 27)
“We have ended a painful period in the history of the Palestinian people where Palestinian division had prevailed,” Moussa Abu Marzouk, a representative of Hamas who negotiated the agreement, said at the Cairo news conference. “We gave the occupation a great opportunity to expand the settlements because of this division. Today we turn this page and open a new page.”
At the news conference Fatah negotiator Ahmad recalled the recent chants of young Palestinian demonstrators:
“To all the Palestinian youth who went out saying, ‘The people want to end the division’ and ‘The people want to end the occupation,’ we say what you demanded was achieved today.”
He said that Israeli officials had warned Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas not to collaborate with Hamas, but “he did not heed the warning, and he responded, ‘Yes, we want Hamas.’”
Another expert summed up this defeat for Washington’s maneuvers to divide the Palestinians very succinctly: “It’s essentially a great blow for American policy,” said Nathan Brown, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. (cnn.com, April 27) As proof of that, Salam Fayyad, who had been prime minister of the West Bank and was seen as closest to the U.S. of all the PA authorities, will not be part of the interim government.
Progressives around the world hailed this new step in the Palestinian struggle and vowed to redouble their efforts to force an end to the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza, the illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and the oppressive occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Published May 9, 2011 8:53 PM
Thousands of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank cheered the news that the occupied Palestinian territories had taken a major step toward reconciliation. On April 27 the movements of Hamas and Fatah announced an agreement to unite. In a move that seems to have stunned the Western imperialist diplomatic world, the two groups agreed to create an interim unity government and hold elections within a year.
The agreement, made following secret talks sponsored by the caretaker Egyptian government, was announced at a news conference in Cairo. Referring to each other as “brothers,” the two negotiators declared a new chapter in the Palestinian struggle for independence, which had been hobbled in recent years by the split between the Fatah-run West Bank and Hamas-run Gaza.
The deal highlighted Egypt’s evolving foreign policy, its increasing regional influence and its changing relationship with Israel. Spurred on by the Egyptian mass movement, the new Egyptian government has pursued Palestinian negotiations aggressively; has recognized the Muslim Brotherhood, which has deep ties to Hamas; and is reconsidering whether to go forward with a deal to provide natural gas to Israel. It has also asserted a friendlier attitude toward Iran.
The agreement is also an unmistakable sign of the importance of the Arab revolution that has swept the Middle East and North Africa. As Azzam al-Ahmad, the Fatah negotiator, said after the news conference in Cairo: “The changes in the Arab region and the political upheaval contributed to reducing the pressure on the Palestinian factions, and by pressure I mean the negative kind of pressure.” (New York Times, April 27)
The U.S.-supported state of Israel was quick to respond to news of the agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said a unity agreement would put an end to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. He threatened the PA, saying it “must choose between peace with Israel and peace with Hamas.” President Shimon Peres said the agreement would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and “sabotage any chance for peace.” (Washington Post, April 28)
Actually, the Israeli Zionist regime and the U.S. imperialist government have systematically sabotaged any and all efforts of the Palestinians and others to achieve peace in what is, after all, the Palestinian homeland.
Hamas won the 2007 elections in the occupied territories. The Israelis promptly imprisoned the new Parliament as the U.S. cut off all foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority. Enormous pressure was put on the PA leadership to cave in to Israeli demands. As they dragged out the U.S.-sponsored talks, the Israelis increased the pace of their illegal settlements on the West Bank while waging a cruel war and blockade on Gaza.
Mkhaimar Abusada, a professor of political science at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, said that the Palestinian Authority’s failure to reach an agreement with Israel and its anger over the U.S. veto in February of a United Nations Security Council resolution opposing Israeli settlement construction had encouraged Fatah to come to an agreement with Hamas. The Islamic group, he said, was motivated to get closer to Fatah by regional changes — the revolutions sweeping the Arab world. (New York Times, April 27)
“We have ended a painful period in the history of the Palestinian people where Palestinian division had prevailed,” Moussa Abu Marzouk, a representative of Hamas who negotiated the agreement, said at the Cairo news conference. “We gave the occupation a great opportunity to expand the settlements because of this division. Today we turn this page and open a new page.”
At the news conference Fatah negotiator Ahmad recalled the recent chants of young Palestinian demonstrators:
“To all the Palestinian youth who went out saying, ‘The people want to end the division’ and ‘The people want to end the occupation,’ we say what you demanded was achieved today.”
He said that Israeli officials had warned Palestinian Authority President and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas not to collaborate with Hamas, but “he did not heed the warning, and he responded, ‘Yes, we want Hamas.’”
Another expert summed up this defeat for Washington’s maneuvers to divide the Palestinians very succinctly: “It’s essentially a great blow for American policy,” said Nathan Brown, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. (cnn.com, April 27) As proof of that, Salam Fayyad, who had been prime minister of the West Bank and was seen as closest to the U.S. of all the PA authorities, will not be part of the interim government.
Progressives around the world hailed this new step in the Palestinian struggle and vowed to redouble their efforts to force an end to the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza, the illegal settlements on Palestinian land, and the oppressive occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Terror & The Osama Bin Laden Assasination
By Sara Flounders
Published May 3, 2011 9:20 PM
Very little is known about the top-secret U.S. operation that executed Osama bin Laden, except what President Barack Obama chose to announce: that U.S. secret forces found bin Laden, killed him May 1 and disposed of his body at sea on May 2.
Although Obama hailed this as a “turning point in the war on terror,” it is clear that he was not proposing any plans to bring U.S. troops home. Instead, the resulting jingoistic media barrage is being used to celebrate the three unpopular wars that have devastated Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, at the cost of more than 1 million lives and $1 trillion over the past 10 years.
The orchestrated celebration of this military operation will justify further expansion of the military budget, weapons systems and tactics like targeted assassinations, secret rendition and new drone attacks.
The threat of shadowy bin Laden and the al-Qaida network has been used again and again to build support for U.S. wars, repressive legislation, maximum security measures and wide-ranging attacks on civil liberties.
Obama warned of “violent attacks around the world after the death of bin Laden.” Such dire yet vague warnings might also be used to push through new legislation giving a blank check to wildly increased levels of repression within the U.S. and to waging new U.S. wars abroad without any form of Congressional debate or authorization. Such pieces of legislation are already introduced in both houses of Congress.
House bill H.R.968 and Senate bill S.551 are expected to be included in the upcoming military appropriations bill. These ever-expanding annual military appropriation budgets now sail through Congress without question or discussion.
Creating anti-Muslim bigotry
The constant threat of terror attacks has whipped up a climate of anti-Muslim hate and fear in large parts of the population. Racism and fear are essential props of imperialist war. Whenever support for U.S. wars and the mood of hatred seems to wane, U.S. officials from local prosecutors to FBI and national police agencies uncover a new “plot.” Many have been exposed as scurrilous acts of entrapment against immigrants. But the media feeding frenzy lasts for weeks and poisons all relations.
Although no other attack blamed on Muslims has taken place since Sept. 11, 2001, hundreds of Muslims in the past 10 years have been sentenced to decades and even life in prison based on frenzied and flimsy charges. Thousands of Arab and South Asian immigrants have been deported without any appeal or due process. Thousands more have simply “disappeared,” as victims of extra-judicial kidnapping and secret rendition.
This is hardly the first U.S. political assassination. Progressive and revolutionary figures like Che Guevara in Bolivia, Patrice Lumumba in Congo and Salvador Allende in Chile were killed at the behest of the CIA. Today hundreds of drone attacks routinely target thousands of civilians in villages from Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan to Yemen, Sudan and Somalia.
No declaration of war, no evidence and no discussion precede or follow these attacks. Similar targeted assassinations by Israel are now considered routine in the West Bank and Gaza.
The assassination of bin Laden completely overwhelmed all coverage of NATO’s attempt to assassinate Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, which resulted in the death of Gadhafi’s son and three grandchildren in a missile strike.
It is significant that the operation against bin Laden comes at the very beginning of President Obama’s announced new presidential campaign. It immediately raised his ratings in the corporate media, which are tied to the largest military corporations, at a time when big business is demanding more givebacks and every state and city is instituting cutbacks.
U.S. war created bin Laden
Of course, the assassination of bin Laden raises many questions. He was not killed in a cave in Afghanistan or even near the border area, but in the center of the military stronghold of Abbottabad, just 100 yards from the Kakul Military Academy, the school for training officers of the Pakistani Army. It is a little like finding bin Laden in an estate next door to West Point Military Academy.
It is difficult to imagine that this elaborate compound was unknown. In the past decade U.S. military aid to Pakistan has surpassed $20 billion. It has left the people of Pakistan impoverished and the military more bloated, repressive and corrupt than before. The war in Afghanistan continues at a cost of $2 billion a week. U.S. wars and unlimited military aid are a source of fantastic profit to private contractors and hundreds of U.S. military corporations and banks.
It is almost impossible to find a description of bin Laden that does not include the role of U.S. secret agencies in funding and training him during the years of war against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The U.S. had no trouble supporting a reactionary political outlook then that was disconnected from mass movements and progressive social issues and willing to use political terror, fanaticism and sectarian violence.
Again and again divisive sectarian bombings and attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan have been blamed on al-Qaida operatives, even when these acts have seemed to put a brake on unified mass resistance, thus assisting the continuing U.S. occupation.
In the past three months unified resistance by millions of people across the Arab world has challenged U.S. corporate domination and U.S.-supported dictators in a way that isolated sectarian bombing never could. It is no stretch to speculate that U.S. and Israeli “secret ops” may turn to bombings and massacres by unknown groups to create fear, sectarian divisions and new excuses for massive repression against the Arab Spring of revolutionary upheavals.
This is an old police tactic, used all too effectively against workers’ struggles in the past. On May Day in Chicago 125 years ago, a bomb thrown by police agents in what came to be called the Haymarket Riot was used to frame up organizers advocating the eight-hour workday and break up the workers’ movement.
An April 28 bombing at a café in Marrakesh, Morocco, that killed 16 people, many of them Western tourists, seemed to be directed not at the corrupt monarchy but at dampening the mass resistance that was spreading.
That bombing was immediately an excuse for a crackdown by the government and a reversal of the constitutional reforms that King Mohammed VI had promised after massive demonstrations demanding reforms and democracy. Security forces have since been stationed in Morocco’s main cities, supposedly to protect the public.
It is too soon to know the fallout of the latest U.S. secret operation in Pakistan. But we do know the U.S. has no plans to end the terror of its “war on terror.”
Every effort must be made to challenge the ugly, pro-war climate being whipped up. Demands to end these wars and bring all U.S. troops home must become part of every struggle generated by the cutbacks and the growing attacks on unions.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Published May 3, 2011 9:20 PM
Very little is known about the top-secret U.S. operation that executed Osama bin Laden, except what President Barack Obama chose to announce: that U.S. secret forces found bin Laden, killed him May 1 and disposed of his body at sea on May 2.
Although Obama hailed this as a “turning point in the war on terror,” it is clear that he was not proposing any plans to bring U.S. troops home. Instead, the resulting jingoistic media barrage is being used to celebrate the three unpopular wars that have devastated Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, at the cost of more than 1 million lives and $1 trillion over the past 10 years.
The orchestrated celebration of this military operation will justify further expansion of the military budget, weapons systems and tactics like targeted assassinations, secret rendition and new drone attacks.
The threat of shadowy bin Laden and the al-Qaida network has been used again and again to build support for U.S. wars, repressive legislation, maximum security measures and wide-ranging attacks on civil liberties.
Obama warned of “violent attacks around the world after the death of bin Laden.” Such dire yet vague warnings might also be used to push through new legislation giving a blank check to wildly increased levels of repression within the U.S. and to waging new U.S. wars abroad without any form of Congressional debate or authorization. Such pieces of legislation are already introduced in both houses of Congress.
House bill H.R.968 and Senate bill S.551 are expected to be included in the upcoming military appropriations bill. These ever-expanding annual military appropriation budgets now sail through Congress without question or discussion.
Creating anti-Muslim bigotry
The constant threat of terror attacks has whipped up a climate of anti-Muslim hate and fear in large parts of the population. Racism and fear are essential props of imperialist war. Whenever support for U.S. wars and the mood of hatred seems to wane, U.S. officials from local prosecutors to FBI and national police agencies uncover a new “plot.” Many have been exposed as scurrilous acts of entrapment against immigrants. But the media feeding frenzy lasts for weeks and poisons all relations.
Although no other attack blamed on Muslims has taken place since Sept. 11, 2001, hundreds of Muslims in the past 10 years have been sentenced to decades and even life in prison based on frenzied and flimsy charges. Thousands of Arab and South Asian immigrants have been deported without any appeal or due process. Thousands more have simply “disappeared,” as victims of extra-judicial kidnapping and secret rendition.
This is hardly the first U.S. political assassination. Progressive and revolutionary figures like Che Guevara in Bolivia, Patrice Lumumba in Congo and Salvador Allende in Chile were killed at the behest of the CIA. Today hundreds of drone attacks routinely target thousands of civilians in villages from Libya, Pakistan and Afghanistan to Yemen, Sudan and Somalia.
No declaration of war, no evidence and no discussion precede or follow these attacks. Similar targeted assassinations by Israel are now considered routine in the West Bank and Gaza.
The assassination of bin Laden completely overwhelmed all coverage of NATO’s attempt to assassinate Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, which resulted in the death of Gadhafi’s son and three grandchildren in a missile strike.
It is significant that the operation against bin Laden comes at the very beginning of President Obama’s announced new presidential campaign. It immediately raised his ratings in the corporate media, which are tied to the largest military corporations, at a time when big business is demanding more givebacks and every state and city is instituting cutbacks.
U.S. war created bin Laden
Of course, the assassination of bin Laden raises many questions. He was not killed in a cave in Afghanistan or even near the border area, but in the center of the military stronghold of Abbottabad, just 100 yards from the Kakul Military Academy, the school for training officers of the Pakistani Army. It is a little like finding bin Laden in an estate next door to West Point Military Academy.
It is difficult to imagine that this elaborate compound was unknown. In the past decade U.S. military aid to Pakistan has surpassed $20 billion. It has left the people of Pakistan impoverished and the military more bloated, repressive and corrupt than before. The war in Afghanistan continues at a cost of $2 billion a week. U.S. wars and unlimited military aid are a source of fantastic profit to private contractors and hundreds of U.S. military corporations and banks.
It is almost impossible to find a description of bin Laden that does not include the role of U.S. secret agencies in funding and training him during the years of war against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The U.S. had no trouble supporting a reactionary political outlook then that was disconnected from mass movements and progressive social issues and willing to use political terror, fanaticism and sectarian violence.
Again and again divisive sectarian bombings and attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan have been blamed on al-Qaida operatives, even when these acts have seemed to put a brake on unified mass resistance, thus assisting the continuing U.S. occupation.
In the past three months unified resistance by millions of people across the Arab world has challenged U.S. corporate domination and U.S.-supported dictators in a way that isolated sectarian bombing never could. It is no stretch to speculate that U.S. and Israeli “secret ops” may turn to bombings and massacres by unknown groups to create fear, sectarian divisions and new excuses for massive repression against the Arab Spring of revolutionary upheavals.
This is an old police tactic, used all too effectively against workers’ struggles in the past. On May Day in Chicago 125 years ago, a bomb thrown by police agents in what came to be called the Haymarket Riot was used to frame up organizers advocating the eight-hour workday and break up the workers’ movement.
An April 28 bombing at a café in Marrakesh, Morocco, that killed 16 people, many of them Western tourists, seemed to be directed not at the corrupt monarchy but at dampening the mass resistance that was spreading.
That bombing was immediately an excuse for a crackdown by the government and a reversal of the constitutional reforms that King Mohammed VI had promised after massive demonstrations demanding reforms and democracy. Security forces have since been stationed in Morocco’s main cities, supposedly to protect the public.
It is too soon to know the fallout of the latest U.S. secret operation in Pakistan. But we do know the U.S. has no plans to end the terror of its “war on terror.”
Every effort must be made to challenge the ugly, pro-war climate being whipped up. Demands to end these wars and bring all U.S. troops home must become part of every struggle generated by the cutbacks and the growing attacks on unions.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
WW Editorial: Why They Wanted Him Dead, Not Alive
Editorial From: Workers World Newspaper
Published May 3, 2011 9:13 PM
Why? Why did the U.S. government do it this way?
Since the beginning of organized deadly warfare, when one side finally wins by capturing the leader of the other side, it has been the custom for the victor to display the captive for everyone to see.
After the huge inter-imperialist wars fought over the past century, in which tens of millions were killed or died of disease and starvation, the winners went further than that. They put the losers on trial so that the public could hear about all their crimes and be convinced that the devastation of war was justified and the more honorable side had won.
The very name of the city where this last took place, Nuremberg, has become synonymous with bringing to justice at least some of those guilty of war crimes.
So why were U.S. Navy Seals, trained assassins, sent to kill Osama bin Laden? Why didn’t the U.S. government want him taken alive, so that his crimes could be laid out in a court of justice before the whole world? He is not reported to have killed himself in his bunker, as Adolf Hitler did. Only a handful of aides were with him, the U.S. president said.
For professional soldiers, capturing bin Laden should have been easy, even if he resisted. They could have used stun grenades or tear gas. But instead they killed him. And no one is saying that the commandos erred and didn’t carry out their orders.
So it’s obvious U.S. authorities didn’t want to put bin Laden on trial. What are some of the embarrassing things that could have come out?
For starters, there are bin Laden’s years of service to the CIA, which employed him and his followers in the 1980s during the U.S. war to bring down the pro-socialist, secular government in Afghanistan. Since 2001, U.S. forces have been back in Afghanistan fighting against “enemies” Washington created. The U.S. establishment wants that part of bin Laden’s résumé forgotten.
Then there is the question of his relations with the Saudi monarchy, which is very tight with the oil-soaked U.S. ruling class, especially the Bush family and its two U.S. presidents, George H.W. Bush and his son. What might bin Laden have revealed about the secret deals they made over Iraq and its oil, for example?
And there is the question of 9/11 itself. One would think that would have been a prosecutor’s dream — to try bin Laden for the deaths at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But no. They quickly finished him off — and with him any attempts to clarify the many lingering questions.
The capitalist media — just about all of them — are dutifully whipping up a triumphal, celebratory mood around this strange denouement. It can’t last. Once the march-in-lockstep hoopla is over, the questions must come creeping out of their temporary hiding places.
Whatever bin Laden may have been guilty of, how much bigger are the crimes that can be traced to those who hunted him? Not just buildings full of people but whole countries in the region have been blown up, knocked down and made unlivable by U.S. bombs. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, now Libya — all have suffered merciless attacks that have left villages and even whole cities destroyed, their people blown apart, rounded up and tortured, or left to slowly die or suffer from their wounds, hunger and thirst.
What have all these wars — in the name of fighting terrorism — done but produce more anger and more willingness of the invaded peoples to sacrifice everything fighting the powers that drop sudden death from the skies?
But the biggest crime is that it all has been done for money. All the patriotic bluster, the “Mission Accomplished” bragging, is hype. The winners are not the 9/11 families and survivors, and certainly not the soldiers. They’re lucky to get health care or a job, if they come back. The winners are the billionaire pack who, at the end of the day, have tripled their investments in oil, armaments and private rent-a-mercenary companies.
These are capitalist wars, pure and simple. Coming from a wealthy Saudi family, bin Laden must have known a lot about who made deals for what. He had to be rubbed out.
Those who cooked up this scenario have a much bigger problem than bin Laden on their hands, however. Their wars have helped arouse a mass movement across North Africa and into the Middle East that can’t just be assassinated and disposed of.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to commit budget-busting trillions of dollars to cover past, present and future wars while it is cutting back every useful social service at the same time millions are jobless and struggling to cover basic necessities.
Something’s gotta give. And that something is the patience of the working class, which has run out already in Wisconsin and in thousands of other battles against the billionaires and their bought-and-paid-for politicians. The genie is out of the bottle, and killing bin Laden isn’t going to coax it back in again.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Published May 3, 2011 9:13 PM
Why? Why did the U.S. government do it this way?
Since the beginning of organized deadly warfare, when one side finally wins by capturing the leader of the other side, it has been the custom for the victor to display the captive for everyone to see.
After the huge inter-imperialist wars fought over the past century, in which tens of millions were killed or died of disease and starvation, the winners went further than that. They put the losers on trial so that the public could hear about all their crimes and be convinced that the devastation of war was justified and the more honorable side had won.
The very name of the city where this last took place, Nuremberg, has become synonymous with bringing to justice at least some of those guilty of war crimes.
So why were U.S. Navy Seals, trained assassins, sent to kill Osama bin Laden? Why didn’t the U.S. government want him taken alive, so that his crimes could be laid out in a court of justice before the whole world? He is not reported to have killed himself in his bunker, as Adolf Hitler did. Only a handful of aides were with him, the U.S. president said.
For professional soldiers, capturing bin Laden should have been easy, even if he resisted. They could have used stun grenades or tear gas. But instead they killed him. And no one is saying that the commandos erred and didn’t carry out their orders.
So it’s obvious U.S. authorities didn’t want to put bin Laden on trial. What are some of the embarrassing things that could have come out?
For starters, there are bin Laden’s years of service to the CIA, which employed him and his followers in the 1980s during the U.S. war to bring down the pro-socialist, secular government in Afghanistan. Since 2001, U.S. forces have been back in Afghanistan fighting against “enemies” Washington created. The U.S. establishment wants that part of bin Laden’s résumé forgotten.
Then there is the question of his relations with the Saudi monarchy, which is very tight with the oil-soaked U.S. ruling class, especially the Bush family and its two U.S. presidents, George H.W. Bush and his son. What might bin Laden have revealed about the secret deals they made over Iraq and its oil, for example?
And there is the question of 9/11 itself. One would think that would have been a prosecutor’s dream — to try bin Laden for the deaths at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But no. They quickly finished him off — and with him any attempts to clarify the many lingering questions.
The capitalist media — just about all of them — are dutifully whipping up a triumphal, celebratory mood around this strange denouement. It can’t last. Once the march-in-lockstep hoopla is over, the questions must come creeping out of their temporary hiding places.
Whatever bin Laden may have been guilty of, how much bigger are the crimes that can be traced to those who hunted him? Not just buildings full of people but whole countries in the region have been blown up, knocked down and made unlivable by U.S. bombs. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, now Libya — all have suffered merciless attacks that have left villages and even whole cities destroyed, their people blown apart, rounded up and tortured, or left to slowly die or suffer from their wounds, hunger and thirst.
What have all these wars — in the name of fighting terrorism — done but produce more anger and more willingness of the invaded peoples to sacrifice everything fighting the powers that drop sudden death from the skies?
But the biggest crime is that it all has been done for money. All the patriotic bluster, the “Mission Accomplished” bragging, is hype. The winners are not the 9/11 families and survivors, and certainly not the soldiers. They’re lucky to get health care or a job, if they come back. The winners are the billionaire pack who, at the end of the day, have tripled their investments in oil, armaments and private rent-a-mercenary companies.
These are capitalist wars, pure and simple. Coming from a wealthy Saudi family, bin Laden must have known a lot about who made deals for what. He had to be rubbed out.
Those who cooked up this scenario have a much bigger problem than bin Laden on their hands, however. Their wars have helped arouse a mass movement across North Africa and into the Middle East that can’t just be assassinated and disposed of.
Meanwhile, the U.S. government continues to commit budget-busting trillions of dollars to cover past, present and future wars while it is cutting back every useful social service at the same time millions are jobless and struggling to cover basic necessities.
Something’s gotta give. And that something is the patience of the working class, which has run out already in Wisconsin and in thousands of other battles against the billionaires and their bought-and-paid-for politicians. The genie is out of the bottle, and killing bin Laden isn’t going to coax it back in again.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Boston Meeting Discusses Libya, Palestine, Wisconsin
By Frank Neisser
Boston
Published Apr 24, 2011 10:06 PM
A multinational crowd filled the room at the Action Center here on April 16 for a World View Forum featuring Joyce Chediac, editor of the new book, “Gaza: Symbol of Resistance.” Chediac’s topics were the U.S.’s real aims in Libya and the central role of the Palestinian struggle.
Chediac discussed the current imperialist war that has been launched against Libya and analyzed the role of the U.S. She pointed out how terms like “democracy” mask what is really going on, and that the only way to make sense of it is to start from the role of imperialism. Chediac showed on a map how at the beginning of the 20th century the imperialists had carved up the territory of the Arab world to suit their own interests and described how every imperialist intervention for “humanitarian” purposes has actually harmed the people and served only to tighten imperialist control, citing recent events in Haiti as an example.
Chediac also highlighted the heroic role of the Palestinian people in resisting Zionism and imperialism, pointing out that the recent Arab uprisings show that the Israeli settler state remains imperialism’s only reliable police force in the Middle East. Israel is prepared to take any military action to further imperialism’s control of and access to the resources that belong to the people of the Middle East — above all, oil. A lively and vigorous discussion followed, and at the end of the evening many copies of “Gaza: Symbol of Resistance” were sold, signed by the editor.
The program was rounded out with a dynamic eyewitness report from the workers’ struggles in Wisconsin presented by Ed Childs, chief shop steward of UNITE/HERE Local 26, Harvard University’s cafeteria workers. Childs gave a vivid sense of the surging rise in mass consciousness that is palpable in the workers’ resistance movement in Wisconsin. He cited as an example an anti-war demonstration that became a workers’ demonstration with the unions, leading the way, carrying anti-war signs.
Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Protest At Minneapolis FBI Office
by Staff
From: Fight Back! News
Minneapolis, MN – More than 50 people picketed and carried banners outside the FBI building here, April 19, to show support for activists still facing repression from the FBI. Since September 24, 2010, when the FBI raided people’s homes and the office of the Anti-War Committee, there has been continued FBI harassment of the peace movement. Anti-war and international solidarity activists face the threat of renewed calls to the grand jury or indictment for ‘material support for terrorism.’
The U.S Attorneys office in Chicago has made it clear that it wants indictments against the activists.
Mick Kelly, one of those subpoenaed to appear in front of the Chicago grand jury said, “People are continuing to be targeted by the FBI for investigation because of their political views. We still have not received all of our personal property back. It is clear to us that this is far from over. The political witch hunt continues.”
Jess Sundin, who has also been subpoenaed, added, “People are coming out today to remind the FBI that free speech is our right and that their scare tactics won’t stop our voices from being heard!”
The protest was organized by the Minnesota Committee to Stop FBI Repression.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
