Alternatives International

Casualties of a Conservative Government

Michael Reford — 2014-08-01T18:45:36Z

Canada is still the calm, expansive landmass just above the United States. In recent memory, that idea is being increasingly challenged by Stephen Harper's Progressive Conservative government. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a hugely divisive issue globally and its resurgence this summer is no different. The Internet is abuzz with opinions and accusations; but throughout all of this, the Canadian Prime minister has not wavered in expressing support for the Israeli government's actions. There is clear global controversy surrounding this issue yet Harper has taken a side. At this stage of a drawn out conflict that has claimed so many lives, why on earth would he do that?

Digging deeper into Canada's position, there has always been support extended toward Israel. Operation Galilee in 1982, characterized by violent Israeli retaliation resulting in Palestinian civilian deaths, saw a negative diplomatic outcome limited to a less responsive relationship with Israel. Canada maintained support publicly during 1987's First Intifada but voted with moderate Western European countries like Sweden, Holland, Britain, Belgium, and Norway at the United Nations. Jean Chrétien rewarded Israel's commitment toward peace in the 90s under Yitzhak Rabin with a free trade deal.

What was a minimal issue for so long in Canadian politics has now become one-sided. Commenting on the conflict that erupted in July 2014, Harper stated: “Canada is unequivocally behind Israel. We support its right to defend itself, by itself, against these terror attacks, and urge Hamas to immediately cease their indiscriminate attacks on innocent Israeli civilians.”

The pro-Israeli position has grown in stature since Harper ramped up his electoral campaign in 2005. The primarily Anglo-Saxon vote was not enough to support a modern conservative government and shrewdly, he looked elsewhere to traditional conservative groups to fill in support gaps. The Jewish-Canadian community had preserved conservative cultural ideals and therefore was an appealing candidate.

Parliament Hill had been red for over 15 years. Unconditional support for Israel was what helped a conservative minority government take shape and as ties increased with Jewish groups in Canada, the relationship grew, contributing to a majority in 2011.

While Harper enjoyed political victories at home, his public support for Israel has arguably not helped anything except his political ambitions. A study done by Canadian Jewish groups found an overwhelming 89 percent of Canadians believed that Palestinians and Israelis shared responsibility equally in the ongoing conflict. 83 percent thought Canada should remain neutral in its approach. It is difficult to see the government's rationale behind complete ignorance of the facts.
Other ethnic and religious groups have increasingly become alienated by Harper's commitment to Israel's cause. While it has paid dividends in the last two elections, there is clear discontent in Arab communities in eastern Canada.

While the US enjoys a close relationship with Israel that involves a military aid component, Canada can only provide legitimacy. US Technology and resources can give Israel an edge in military operations. Canada's contribution under Harper is limited to statements, increased political and economic ties, and vote support at the UN. The last thing a conflict of this nature needs is the spur of a nation such as Canada to enter the ring and pick a corner.

A negative policy pattern by Harper's Conservatives is hardly new. His “tough on crime” agenda is out of touch with falling crime rates in Canada. Weaker environmental laws threaten sustainable resource exploitation in Western Canada. The policy trend further right may explain the appeal of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and his far right agenda. Netanyahu was fiercely against the 1993 Oslo peace process and his lack of commitment toward peace resolutions stemming from Oslo have made clear he is not interested in constructive peace at all.

Harper's stance is most appreciated by Israelis. Surveys within the Canadian Jewish community show that a moderate view is not as rare as it seems in times of conflict. A 1987 survey of Jewish-Canadian leaders around the time of the First Intifada found that 60 percent thought, “Israel should offer Arabs territorial compromise in the West Bank in exchange for peace”. It is sometimes difficult to vocalize these criticisms publicly as they can legitimize anti-Semitic rhetoric and action.

A violent conflict with deep ideological and territorial divisions victimizes the innocent. Civilians are vulnerable to radical ideas on both sides as a climate of fear and hate is spurned by the constant threat of death. Propaganda in mainstream media outlets churn out persuasive content, which ultimately entrenches opposing ideals in Arab and Israeli communities. It is shameful that Harper is subjecting ordinary Canadians to the moral consequence of a war half a world away.

Future Tory governments may see this electoral support for Harper and decide it is a legitimate route to exploit in a bid for election. But all Canadians would benefit from a return to a moderate view where Canada could have a positive contribution to the conflict. The historic volatility in the region and heavy civilian casualties are what make a one-sided commitment irresponsible. Canadians should hope that the pro-Israeli stance can be watered down and as the damage is repaired, fulfill a role as a supporter of peace. Is 8 years of pro-Israeli commitment enough to become status quo? Hopefully not. The 2015 election is when the next political party can break from Stephen Harper's electoral strategy: a process where votes are exchanged for destruction, suffering, and death in a distant, far off place.

Lac-Mégantic: One year later

Michael Bramadat-Willcock — 2014-08-01T18:45:34Z

As my childhood home of Lac-Mégantic reeled in the wake of the July 6, 2013 derailment that left its center destroyed, journalists flocked to the small town. After the explosion my family and I were in a state of shock. Wanting to be of whatever help we could and to connect with friends who were affected, we went to the relief center that had been set up in the local high school. Journalists were everywhere, resembling an organized tour. Their tents, logos predominantly displayed, were pitched around the entrance to the relief center. There they stood representing the world media, competing for tent space while studiously adjusting their hair and fiddling with equipment as a woman announced upcoming news events over the microphone like a summer camp tour leader. Traumatized, confused citizens had to negotiate their way through this gauntlet in order to enter the relief center.

In the aftermath of the disaster, encouraging tourism became central to the recovery plan and positive reports on efforts to regain a sense of normalcy began to surface. A benefit concert was organized at the Bell Center in Montreal to help raise money for the rebuilding of the town. This was followed by a much-publicized visit to Lac-Mégantic by the Montreal Canadiens hockey team. Soon after, to the ire of many, it was announced that a train loaded with tourists would be stopping in Lac-Mégantic as part of an effort to draw tourist dollars to the region. Although the idea of a "tourist train" was dropped, a lot of people in the community feel that even the suggestion that a train ride be involved in a tour of the town makes a mockery of, and indeed capitalizes on, the town's plight. The fact is that the trains were one of the first things to get back up and running in Lac Mégantic. The mayor made a pointed statement that anyone feeling negatively affected by the renewed presence of the trains in the community should seek psychological help. Indeed, several members of the community who I know personally have ended up in the psych wards of hospitals in the area or have simply remained bedridden with what looks like undiagnosed PTSD.

Train or no train, visitors to Lac-Mégantic came in droves in order to see first-hand the disaster zone that the guy in the suit with the great hair told them about on television. They might even snap a selfie in front of the gaping crater that used to be our local pub, where my sister sang on weekends. This feeling of being used and abused persists in the local citizenry. Driving through town the other day I observed a group of smiling tourists getting a group picture taken in front of Lac-Mégantic's ground zero. ''Say cheese'', I thought to myself.

In the immediate wake of the disaster, the majority of people in the Lac-Mégantic region with whom I spoke were appreciative that the media was involved in exposing their plight. Despite some being weary of repeated interviews, they trusted that the media would help ensure that their best interests were served. Only a few months later, however, the tone had drastically changed. At the corner store on the day of the one-year anniversary of the disaster, a man referred to journalists as vultures sucking on the dead corpse of the community, profiting from their pain. Musings in the community have equated the media's conduct with what Naomi Klein would call "disaster capitalism". Increasingly, journalists are being seen as profiteers who exist not to help promote the interests of the afflicted population, but to sell their suffering in an unholy alliance with the disaster tourists.
Many a whispering voice contends that important stories are being under-reported in favor of lighter “human interest” subjects and dramatic, cheesy sob-stories that trivialize their grief. The complicity of journalists in this ongoing disaster capitalism is nowhere better-illustrated than in a conversation that I witnessed on social media in the days following the explosion. An aspiring journalist bragged about the boost that covering the disaster would give his career. Others chimed in with supportive comments along the lines of “this is awesome.” To my great embarrassment for the future of the profession, no one objected.

A year later, the selfie-snapping, logo-loving, perfect-hair- combing, camera-happy media was back in town. The vultures smelled more meat on the corpse that they had left for eaten and came swooping in for another go at it. This time around their angle has been less macabre. The “Lac-Mégantic: One Year Later” story focuses on the rebuilding of businesses along a small strip of pavement that has been designated as the new town center, and on the memorial services at the remaining Catholic church (the other one was torn down to make way for a new supermarket). Once again, the media is missing the point. Calling for tourists to visit the town in order to help its economy grow is one thing, but what I see is a grieving community being turned into a circus of public grief, while bigger issues are being ignored.

The reconstruction of the town is an ongoing and contentious issue. Contracts were allocated in an atmosphere that has inspired members of the community to whisper of corruption in the air, but all I see on television is a guy in a suit with great hair, perfectly silhouetted in front of Ground Zero. Where is the Charbonneau Commission when you need it?

Because of a real or perceived lack of access to relevant information, a group of concerned citizens has begun organizing community meetings to discuss environmental as well as economic and social implications in the aftermath of the disaster. The citizens of Lac-Mégantic have to be content with their own commission of inquiry, away from Montreal's cameras, away from public view and away from any of the power of a Montreal courtroom. This would be unnecessary were the media to develop a passion for gathering and disseminating relevant information to the public.

Now that the fires have been put out and the tragic stories told, it is time to dig deeper. As the narrative of The Lac-Mégantic Disaster continues to unfold, it is time for the media to shift from retelling stories of grief and horror, making a commodity of the suffering of a community, to ensuring that the reconstruction of the town is conducted to the benefit of the local population, the environment and the greater national interest.

Whatever the outcome, we the media are as complicit - and as culpable - as anyone else.

Some useful Links:

Montreal Gazette article about the day of the disaster – By Michael Bramadat-Willcock http://www.montrealgazette.com/hometown+burned/8794271/story.html

Rail service resumes in Lac Megantic: CTV interview with Michael Bramadat-Willcock http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mixed-emotions-in-lac-megantic-as-rail-service-set-to-resume-wednesday-1.1596904

Montreal Canadians Practice in Lac-Megantic: CBC http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal-canadiens-practise-in-lac-m%C3%A9gantic-que-1.1894962

Tourist trains announced: The Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/10/01/lacmegantic_tourist_trains_visit_part_of_devastated_towns_recovery.html

Tourist trains cancelled: Busses used instead. Globe and mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/tourist-trains-shutdown-complicates-lac-megantics-plans-for-recovery/article14864394/

Disaster tourists descend on Lac Megantic, CTV.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/disaster-tourists-descend-on-lac-megantic-quebec-1.1370467

Reconstruction plan controversy: The Montreal Gazette
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Clashing+visions+M%C3%A9gantic+future/10000797/story.html

The Mayor's statement: The National Post: The town invited residents traumatized by the return of train traffic to contact psychosocial workers who have been made available. “To see a freight train passing again takes us back to July 6,” Ms. Roy-Laroche said. “We see these images again.” http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/12/18/first-trains-since-explosion-trundle-through-lac-megantic-as-residents-complain-of-psychological-distress/

Trudeau Embraces Injustice, in Canada and Gaza

Stefan Christoff — 2014-08-01T18:45:31Z

Justin Trudeau is failing to speak out against ongoing Israeli war crimes in Gaza, clearly illustrating a broader hypocritical and unprincipled political orientation.

Although the dynasty politician often deploys language that vaguely suggests a “progressive” orientation, most evidence points in the opposite direction.

As Israeli air strikes continued to obliterate young children, mosques and countless homes across Gaza, Trudeau is basically repeating reactionary and colonialist talking points, that have also been embraced by the Harper Conservatives.

“Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately,” reads a recent Liberal statement. Nowhere in the ridiculously bias, pro-Israel statement do the Liberals call on Israel to halt the ongoing bombing, or recognize any aspect of the immense suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. Trudeau hasn't even backed the Obama administration and UN call for an unconditional cease-fire.

Instead of echoing these mainstream international cease fire appeals, Trudeau celebrates Israel's “commitment to peace”, while inaccurately implying that the Egyptian military regime, responsible for many hundreds of extrajudicial killings mainly targeting the Hamas-aligned Muslim Brotherhood, is a neutral party.

As Israel continues to bomb Gaza today, with over 1,100 Palestinians dead, the vast majority civilians, including hundreds of children, Trudeau's open complicity with Israeli war crimes is deeply telling of a political orientation that totally lacks any moral compass.

Beyond Palestine, Trudeau displays a consistent intentionality to choose the side of injustice over equality and justice, on a wide variety of both local and global issues.

Trudeau openly supports the ongoing expansion of the Canadian military, backing the procurement of new military fighter jets, even within the context of a ridiculous Conservative scandal over the issue. Trudeau argued in a CBC interview that the jets are a necessary “asset” for a strong “modern military.”

On the environment, lets look at the example of Trudeau's actual position the oil sands in Alberta, that continue to expand under the Conservative government, destroying large swaths of indigenous lands. Trudeau, who often cynically suggests an environmentalist orientation but without many policy specifics, has actually not issued any principled critique on the oil sands. In reality Trudeau openly supports the oil sands, vaguely calling for greenhouse gas-emission limits, while fully embracing the destructive project.

Trudeau is playing political games in saying nothing critical about the fundamental environmental issues, claiming only that the Conservatives haven't presented the oil sands correctly. “The fact is that the oil sands have somehow become a poster child for climate change. That is a failing of both government and industry for allowing that to happen because they weren't doing enough to reassure people that the environment is a priority,” stated Trudeau, implying that more slick, state backed public relations work should be done by Canada around the oil sands, to smooth over the growing grassroots movement against the tar sands.

Internationally Trudeau has openly attempted to mobilize support for the Keystone XL pipeline, the symbolic adversary of environmentalist movements across North America, tirelessly fighting the ecologically dangerous project. Trudeau stated on Keystone “most of all, it is in keeping with what I believe is a fundamental role of the government of Canada: to open up markets abroad for Canadian resources and to help create responsible and sustainable ways to get those resources to those markets.” Sounds like the words of a corporate oil spokes person, not a hip environmentally oriented Liberal politician.

In reaction to the Keystone project the Indigenous Environmental Network articulates the nature of the oil sands as clearly rooted in a “colonial system of domination, the trampling of Aboriginal treaty rights, the same economic system characterized by racial oppression, economic exploitation and devaluing human life, and the environment and nature.”

On economics Trudeau has entirely subscribed to the neoliberal “free trade” orthodoxy that has so clearly only deepen economic inequality both locally and globally. Although having publicly acknowledging that the “free trade” model has done little for the majority, Trudeau openly backs the pending EU-Canada free trade agreement as illustrating a “strategic approach to trade.”

Critically the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union has been moving forward in negotiations without any meaningful consultation with the First Nations peoples whose lands and resources will be deeply impacted by the trade pact. An agreement that the Council of Canadians describe “as a way to further deregulate and privatize the Canadian economy while increasing corporate power and undermining Canadian and European efforts to address the climate crisis.”

“CETA could unfairly restrict how local governments spend money and ban ‘buy local' policies, add hundreds of millions of dollars to the price of drugs, create pressure to increase privatization of local water systems, transit and energy, and much more.”

Trudeau has offered basically no substantial critique of the pending agreement, instead siding fully with the trade framework of corporate power and the Conservative politicians who are backing the agreement.

Detailing the full extent of Justin Trudeau's clear and directly reactionary political framework would take thousands and thousands of more words, but hopefully this text highlights Trudeau's open conspiracy to suggest a progressive political orientation while in reality siding with hard line Conservative orientations.

Today as Israeli bombs are falling on Gaza, the Liberal party and Trudeau's open support for the Israeli apartheid war machine illustrates a profound moral corruption that gives political space for the colonial dehumanization and dispossession of the Palestinian people.

On international economics and the environment Trudeau's actual policy suggestions present no major shift away from the economically violent corporatism of the Conservatives that ignores indigenous rights, embraces austerity and fails to meaningfully address climate change.

Trudeau offers no principled political alternative to Harper, similarly to the current NDP, only another cynical politician aiming who works to deepen the unjust structures of political, economic and military power in our society and around the world.

July 29, 2014

Source: http://freecityradio.org/post/93204974460/trudeau-embraces-injustice-in-canada-and-gaza

Renewed Slaughter in Gaza Ghetto

Eli Aminov — 2014-08-01T18:45:29Z

Another round of fighting, another massacre larger than its predecessor, another genocidal war and another failure. This is the future that the state of Jews promises for its citizens and residents of the area.

It once again becomes apparent that the sole factor threatening the citizens of Israel and endangering the lives of its residents and the surroundings is not Iran, not Islam and not the Arab world, but the insane leadership of this country.

Following a campaign of punishment and revenge in the West Bank, Israel commenced one of terror in Gaza with the goal of harming, destroying and also killing Gaza residents, as well as the Palestinian attempt at unity between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Instead of exploiting the unity agreement as a lever for conducting negotiations with a united government that recognises its existence, Israel - as is its custom - turned to an additional war.

Another chapter in an ongoing war, the goal of which is to continue transferring historical Palestine into the hands of the Zionists and to get rid of the unnecessary indigenous population. In Israel war is not a continuation of policy using other means, but politics is a continuation of war using other tools.

The cynicism of Israel's government can compete only with its cruelty. Less than one day after the kidnapping of the three Israeli teenagers last month, the government knew they were no longer alive, yet hid this from Israeli citizens and the entire world. Under the disingenuous slogan "bring back our boys", it was possible to conduct a new campaign of terror and punishment against the Palestinians, to bring Abu Mazen to expose himself as a sub-contractor of the occupation who publicly identifies with the goals of Israel, and to whip up an insane hatred of Arabs within Israeli society which resulted in pogroms and even murder

An additional important front was opened by exploiting the mothers of the kidnapped/killed in an international propaganda campaign, ostensibly for the supposed return of those kidnapped, by concealing their death, but actually for rehabilitation of the victim image of the state of Jews, and to collect support ahead of the attacks on the Gaza ghetto.

For eighteen days thousands of soldiers conducted searches in the Hebron area, during which they detained hundreds of people and caused extensive damage to thousands of homes which they supposedly searched for the kidnapped teens. It is possible to assume that the kidnapping itself, both its planning and implementation, highlights a deep divide within the Hamas movement. While the leadership reached agreement with Abu Mazen, an agreement which includes de facto recognition of Israel, parts of the movement feel betrayed and are attempting to conduct acts of armed struggle not only to harm Israel, but also in protest of the leadership's "surrender".

Despite this, Israel, which didn't plan for one moment to recognise this same undeclared surrender and attempt to deal with the Palestinian agreement, declared with no proof that the Hamas leadership is responsible for the kidnapping and killing. The fact that there is no command structure of the movement in the West Bank did not prevent Israel from detaining all prominent Hamas activists in the West Bank and even to re-imprison those released in the October 2011prisoner exchange. At this opportunity all of Islamic organisations in the fields of health, education and charity were shut down. The Hamas movement in Gaza could not quietly accept the attack on the movement and following long deliberations, it joined the campaign with missile fire on Israel. This campaign was begun in contradiction with the desire of the political leadership.

Israel's expedition of punishment and revenge gave birth to furious reactions amongst the Palestinian citizens of Israel. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the murder of Mohammad Abu Khdeir of Shoafat in East Jerusalem by a gang of Judeo-Nazis, who were influenced by the incitement that poured from the government. The police deployed numerous oppressive forces against the protesters but, unlike October 2000, restrained themselves didn't use (yet?) live fire against citizens. However, in the framework of its preparations for additional protests of Palestinian citizens, the police detained hundreds of young people, amongst them numerous political leaders.

The Hamas government in Gaza did not aspire to a head-on collision, and the Israeli terrorist government contends that it did not either. However, the expected Palestinian response was answered with shelling by the Israeli air force, extra-judicial killings - which are nothing more than the public execution of those sentenced to death without a trial - and the killing of fighters and civilians in Gaza.

The Hamas movement does not want all-out war as it would then lose not only people and weapons, but also the partial legitimacy that numerous countries gave it following unity with Abu Mazen. The difficulty in surviving the conditions of the Israeli siege, which prevents even payment of salaries to its forces, increased the need for external assistance. This help has thus far been prevented, primarily as a result of the sole Israeli achievement in this war: a deceitful and distorted propaganda campaign conducted by thousands of paid and volunteer Zionists. This campaign includes a presentation of Netanyahu's "restraint", during which additional intelligence was obtained through brutal "ticking bomb" interrogations of detainees, the drafting of reserve soldiers and trainings.

Part two of the play represented the wave of declarations, showcase actions and false reports to the foreign and local media about our "concern not to harm civilians"; yet no more than 30 percent are fighters are amongst the dead while the others are civilians, women and children, completely uninvolved. This successful propaganda campaign permitted the slaughter of civilians.

Israel went into the war in an attempt to destroy the unity of Palestinians under on leadership, through the commitment of war crimes, killing of over 1,000 Palestinians (to date) and the wounding of over 6,000, although its interest is actually a continuation of Hamas rule. A serious loss to Hamas can bring about two possible results, neither of which Israel is willing to accept. The first is that there is one renewed authority in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, under the government of Abu Mazen. The world would then perceive Abu Mazen as president of the emerging Palestinian state and would seriously pressure Israel.

The second possibility is that a new organisation is created in both Gaza and the West Bank which would be part of the global jihad, thus transforming Israel into a new Afghanistan. The current ironic situation of the horrors being committed is that Israel will have to support the Palestinian unity agreement in order to reach a ceasefire. We can determine with certainty that even if Israel leaves the campaign as a "victor", the result will be defeat. This is the pattern of recent years, a pattern that emphasises the decline of the Zionist state and its lack of a way out.

This situation requires a revolutionary change. The national question in Palestine cannot be solved by wars, continued ethnic cleansing, a worsening of the apartheid situation, war crimes and being bogged down again and again in a swamp of blood. The completely opposite policy must be taken, as only it can allow the Jews of Israel to live in peace in this country. In the first stage Israel must get out of Gaza; stop the ethnic cleansing and killing sprees against the Palestinian people; to end the siege on the Gaza ghetto; and to release all political prisoners.

At this stage it is possible to state that the operational name given to this war in Hebrew ("Sturdy Crag", although Protective Edge" in English) is wonderfully apt for the sturdiness and steadfastness of Hamas for more than two weeks against the rapacious army of the fourth largest military power in the world. Hamas is standing firm, despite the international isolation, despite being cut off from its supportive Arab regimes and despite the suffering of Gaza's population. Hamas is still standing despite the world's silence and the flattery of Israel by world powers. And Hamas is standing longer than the army that beat all Arab armies in six days in 1967.

In the historical recounting of the Palestinian war of liberation war, Gaza will be remembered as the parallel to Stalingrad.

Eli Aminov was a member of the former Revolutionary Communist League (Matzpen) and founded the Committee for a Secular Democratic State. / Translated to English by Connie Hackbarth, Alternative Information Center (AIC)

Source: http://www.alternativenews.org/english/index.php/blogs/other-comentators/8347-renewed-slaughter-in-gaza-ghetto

Setting Path to Next Elections: Hardships and Challenges

Messaoud Romdhani — 2014-08-01T18:45:27Z

One point to be made at the outset: Tunisian citizens are not queuing up to register for the next elections. Out of the roughly four million new eligible voters to cast their vote for the next parliamentary and presidential elections scheduled this fall, only a small number have turned up to register. More than two weeks after the Independent High Electoral Commission (French acronym, ISIE), only some 170,000 people have already registered. (Maghreb Journal, 11-7-2014). Some political leaders have asked to extend the process of registration. Others have asked to postpone the elections due to take place next October and November.

In fact, if we leave “the conspiracy theory” accusing some parties of trying “to jeopardize both the proper outcome of the electoral process and the Tunisian transition” aside and try to get a better understanding of the complexity of the political and social situation, it is easy to guess the disconnect between the political elite, whose sole objective is to win the next elections and normal citizens, disappointed by a three-year wait to see their concerns and worries taken into consideration.

With the motto “I love Tunisia therefore I register” and the participation of 2500 register clerks and 275 traveling registration centers, the Independent High Electoral Commission has started an awareness raising campaign to register new electors. Nevertheless the turnout has remained low. And for good reasons, according to some political analysts. The transitional period has not been so easy. It has lingered an atmosphere of instability, fear, political violence and social unrest. The peaceful transitional process was on the brink of abyss. People believe that partisan politics was much involved in setting up that atmosphere.

Needless to say, the High Commission should be independent and its independence should be recognized by all players involved in the electoral process. The legal framework of its composition, its neutrality, the non-interference of political parties in its management are not only the key determinants of the transparency of the elections, but also decisive incentives for citizens to cast their vote.

However, no sooner did the Commission come into being within the National Constituent Assembly than it was met with skepticism and doubt. The selection of its members was considered to be the outcome of partisan politics and allegiance. And the same goes for Regional Election Commissions. The Regional Labor Union of Tataouine, south Tunisia, questioned the independence and accused them of allegiance to Ennahda. Also, the Tunisian Observatory for the Independence of Justice doubted the neutrality of some regional elections commissions and called for placing all the work of the High Elections Commissions under the control of the administrative court.

Similarly, some political parties have pointed accusing fingers at the High Independent Commission, which “hampers the smooth running of the registration process” “and acts in the interests of certain parties.” (Ach-Chourouq newspaper, 17-07- 2013).

Some names at the heads of some regional elections commissions, in and outside the country, are singled out because of their membership in certain political parties. This is beside the fact that many of the old partisan staff in embassies and consulates are retained. “A genuine threat weighs on the transparency and the fairness of the electoral process.” (Previous source)

The atmosphere of distrust is made worse by the very recantations of the High Commission itself. Thus, after defending, tooth and nail the neutrality of all his staff and the regional elections members, Mr. Chafiq Sarsar, President of the High Commission, was forced to admit the non-neutrality of the president of the regional elections commission in France 2, giving reason to those who had denounced his political affiliation to Ennahda, the Islamist party. (Eshaab weekly newspaper 10-07-2014)

We would just like to remind that the above mentioned newspaper declared being in possession of video records where the ousted president of the France 2 regional commission, Kamel Hnihina, was briefing his Ennahda party members on the appropriate attitude to adopt during the elections. (Previous source)

According to some observers, the slow registration procedure reflects a real sense of disaffection with politics. Mr. Kais Said, a leading constitutional professor and a distinguished political analyst, believes that-by not showing up to register- “Tunisians like to demonstrate their rejection of the policy pursued during the last three years,” adding that “the to-and- fro movement of MPs from one parliamentary group to another and the non-kept electoral promises are fatal political mistakes.”(Nawat,03-07-2014)

The High Commission for Independent Elections did try to smooth ruffled feathers. It organized a meeting with political parties, which noted “with concern, the slow advance process of the registration and asked to extend the deadline beyond 22 July”. According to the commission this would have a profound impact on the future schedule of its activities. (Maghreb, 11-07-2014)

The truth is, the lack of enthusiasm for the electoral process is not only due to the skepticism surrounding the elections commission , nor is it only related to its modest performance in and outside Tunisia. The lack of interest is directly related to the apathy towards public affairs. Having waited too long to see the benefits of the revolution, people start to lose confidence in a transition where they could not see the lights at the end of the tunnel.

Three years after the January 14, 2011, revolution, people's daily life has not changed for the better. Quite the opposite: it has gone even worse. Unemployment has further increased, food prices have been steadily going up, poverty rate rose to about 25 percent of the total population and the eagerly-awaited investors are slow in coming. Also, the security of the country is constantly at risk: the painful funeral ceremonies of soldiers and security forces have become commonplace. In this context, employment and social issues remain the overriding concerns of Tunisians, according to surveys.( See Al-Quds-al- Arabi, 09-07-2014)

Add to this the fact that for many people the die has been cast and the outcome of the elections is almost known in advance. Surveys have repeatedly insisted that the competition is going to oppose two main parties: the Islamist Ennahda and its liberal rival, Nidaa Tounes, both of which, after winning the elections will, likely, share power. (See: International Crisis Group, June 2014)

It should be pointed out, however, that contrary to pessimistic prognoses, which predicted that terrorism is going to further slow down the registration process, an acceleration in the pace has been noticed since the last terrorist attack, reaching the average of 30,000 new registrants. A slight note of caution: the high discrepancy between big cities and less favored regions. While more and more people are registering in cities like Tunis, Sfax and Susa(coastal cities) ,the rate in Kairouan (center of Tunisia),for instance, is no more than 5.8 percent of the total new registrants.

In short, a range of factors could explain the slow progress of registration, which is going to undermine the necessary democratic alternation of political power: the increasing indifference and apathy of citizens won't be but of benefit to powerful political parties; those which enjoy an important voting base, a large political audience and an efficient and effective logistical coordination. This is, of course, at the expense of other small parties that have modest means and resources.

Also, there is no serious mechanism for effective control over political money, which is of particular importance both in the “pre-election” and election campaigns. The Tunisian Association for the Integrity and Democracy of the Elections (French acronym, ATIDE) noted that the penalties related to the electoral campaigns' infractions are rather ludicrous and have no deterrent effects.(Maghreb, 05-07-2014)

For its part, the observatory Chahed (witness, in Arabic) has repeatedly warned that the uncontrolled flow of money to certain political parties may ruin the “election fairness and transparency”. (Previous source)

We believe that while the forthcoming elections are decisive for the democratic transition, the immense hope they inspire is blurred with legitimate causes of concern. To take the safe leap forwards, all parties concerned must contribute: the High Commission for the elections should always observe neutrality and authority, the government should ensure the rule of law and political parties ought to demonstrate a sense of responsibility where ensuring the success of the transition process overrides the thirst for power; but these seem to be tough conditions to reconcile. At least for now.

Messaoud Romdhani, is with the Committee for the Respect of Freedom and Human Rights in Tunisia

Make Love and War

Belén Fernandez — 2014-08-01T18:45:22Z

Back in 2007, the pages of Maxim magazine played host to a public relations effort to refurbish the image of the Israel Defense Forces, which had been tarnished by—among other nefarious affairs—the organized slaughter of civilians in Lebanon and Gaza the previous year.

The magazine spread featured scantily clad women, sporting bust-accentuating bikinis and come-hither looks—“The Chosen Ones,” apparently, of the Israeli military.

Seven years later, the female body has acquired additional uses in the context of Israel's war machine. A page titled “Standing With the IDF” recently debuted on Facebook with an appeal for women to submit photographs of themselves for morale-boosting purposes among Israeli troops. This resulted in expressions of love for the IDF being emblazoned across various breasts and buttocks.

To be sure, naked women will always be way hotter than piles of corpses.

Although reportedly discontinued the other day, the Facebook campaign has now been resurrected as “Standing with IDF,” accompanied by this eloquent entreaty:

“For all women who support IDF we need your help! Send us your photos and we'll annonimously post it to the page , we received a lot of thank you notes from IDF soldiers that thanks us and appreciate this kind of support lets make the smile on them face never get down [sic].”

The page's original launch was noted in The Times of Israel, which took advantage of the opportunity to deploy a hilarious double entendre in its headline: “Israeli women do Gaza strip for the IDF.” And if that doesn't satisfy your funny bone, the piece is filed under the category “Dirty war.”

According to the article, Gavriel Beyo—the man behind the Facebook page—summarized its raison d'être as follows: “We have two bountiful resources in Israel that are impossible to compete with, Israeli minds and the most beautiful women in the world. We also have a military front so… why not combine the two?”

Clearly, the whole “mind” thing doesn't apply to Beyo himself, and he's quoted as inviting the IDF to “think of these pictures any time it gets hard (in any way…).”

Of course, it's no secret that war makes people horny—although it's not something people purporting to be civilized would usually flaunt. Other recent Israeli headlines, such as Haaretz's “In Gaza, Israel sits uncomfortably between S&M and soft power,” raise the question of why the media doesn't just announce that the IDF is fucking Gaza.

With regard to the racy Facebook campaign, one might have hoped for a more nuanced analysis from Salon assistant editor Jenny Kutner:

“There's no doubt an argument to be made that those Standing With IDF are simply using nudity to celebrate freedom and those who protect it. The images could also imply that Israeli citizens will go about their lives even in the face of war, and that might mean getting topless for the camera. Regardless of the explanation, my hope is that there is one and that Standing With IDF has some deeper meaning I don't see. Because a lot of people are dying, and that isn't usually why people decide to show their boobs.”

Obviously, the purpose of the boob show is to sexualize—and thereby, perhaps, sanitize—the present unmitigated massacre that has already claimed well over 1,000 Palestinian lives. Another alleged explanation is presented in a Huffington Post article, which quotes the original Facebook page's description: “Fighting for the Israeli front. You'll guard on top, we'll guard your bottoms! We will win this battle of beauty for you.”

When the beauty pageant ends, what's next for Palestine?

Belén Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at both Ricochet and Jacobin Magazine.

Source: https://ricochetmedia.ca/preview/make-love-and-war

Do Palestinians Have the Legal Right to Resist the Israeli Blockade and Occupation?

Norman Finkelstein — 2014-08-01T18:45:14Z

On July 7, Israel unleashed Operation Protective Edge against Gaza. When it launched a ground invasion on July 18, Israel had already killed 230 Gazan Palestinians — of whom 75% (171) were civilians and 20% (48) children — wounded more than 1,700, and destroyed or rendered uninhabitable hundreds of homes leaving more than 10,000 Gazans without shelter. On the other side, according to daily updates, Palestinian projectiles had killed one Israeli civilian, wounded 18, and damaged three Israeli homes. It is hard to conceive of a more disproportionate balance sheet in an alleged “war.”

Nonetheless, Human Rights Watch (HRW), in its legal reckoning, did not so much even out, as reverse, the balance sheet. It never explicitly accused Israel of committing war crimes, whereas its first press release already accused Hamas of committing them. If in fact HRW accurately interpreted the laws of war, the only rational conclusion would be that these laws are morally bankrupt and deserving of contempt: they would not be distilling but instead grossly distorting the moral realities of war, as they exonerate the major perpetrators of war crimes. But did HRW accurately interpret the laws of war, or did this influential human rights organization give Israel a green light to commit war crimes on a yet more massive scale during the ground invasion? Let us look at the record.

In its first press release on July 9, HRW stated: “Israeli attacks targeting homes may amount to prohibited collective punishment.” In its second press release on July 16, HRW stated: “Israeli air attacks in Gaza … have been targeting apparent civilian structures and killing civilians in violation of the laws of war. Israel should end unlawful attacks that do not target military objectives and may be intended as collective punishment or broadly to destroy civilian property.” It then proceeded to legally define the meaning of war crimes, but artfully avoided accusing Israel of committing them.

In these statements HRW doubly distanced itself from alleging Israeli war crimes. First, it qualified the weight of the incriminating evidence — “appear,” “may,” “apparent,” “may be.” Second, it recoiled from explicitly charging Israel with war crimes and instead settled for lesser or vaguer charges — “collective punishment,” “violation of the laws of war,” “unlawful attacks.” The cautiousness perplexes in light of the evidence assembled by HRW itself.

In conformity with tenets of international law, HRW stated that “indiscriminate or targeted,” “deliberate or reckless,” attacks directed at civilians or civilian structures constituted “war crimes.” If Israel had a declared policy of targeting civilian homes and 75% of casualties were civilians, Israel prima facie committed war crimes. Why did HRW not reach this conclusion?

Although acknowledging that Israel targeted homes of Hamas militants “that do not serve an immediate military purpose,” HRW denounced these targeted attacks on civilian structures as mere “collective punishment.” Contrastingly, in an July 11 press release, Amnesty International forthrightly and unequivocally stated that Israel's targeting of Hamas militants' homes not making an “effective contribution to military action … constitutes a war crime and also amounts to collective punishment against the families.”

HRW investigated four Israeli strikes in Gaza that resulted in civilian casualties. It consistently found “no evidence,” and “the Israeli military has presented no evidence,” that Israel was “attacking lawful military objectives or acted to minimize civilian casualties.” HRW also observed that “Israel has wrongly claimed as a matter of policy that civilian members of Hamas or other political groups who do not have a military role are ‘terrorists' and therefore valid military targets” (emphasis added). “Israel's rhetoric is all about precision attacks,” HRW's Middle East director stated in the second press release, “but attacks with no military target and many civilian deaths can hardly be considered precise.” If, however, Israel's “precision attacks” killed civilians in the absence of any military objective, did these not precisely constitute war crimes?

“Israel launched 1,800 air raids in one of the most densely populated areas of Gaza,” Raji Sourani, the respected human rights lawyer and founder of the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, observed. “It's a shame that Israel and the international community allow this to happen. These are war crimes, just as simple as that.” It really is that simple, and it is worse than a shame that HRW, by its muted legal findings, enables this to happen.

“Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel appear to be indiscriminate or targeted at civilian population centers,” HRW's first press release stated, “which are war crimes.” On this point, Amnesty concurred. But are projectile attacks by Hamas (used here as short-hand for all Palestinian armed groups) war crimes or even illegal? In fact, the law is more ambiguous than often allowed.

International law prohibits an occupying power from using force to suppress a struggle for self-determination, whereas it does not prohibit a people struggling for self-determination from using force. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its 2004 advisory opinion that the Palestinian people's “rights include the right to self-determination,” and that “Israel is bound to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” Israel consequently has no legal right to use force to suppress the Palestinian self-determination struggle. Israel also cannot contend that, because this self-determination struggle unfolds within the framework of an occupation, it has the legalright, as the occupying power, to enforce the occupation so long as it endures. In 1971, the ICJ ruled that South Africa's occupation of Namibia had become illegal because it refused to carry out good-faith negotiations to end the occupation. It is beyond dispute that Israel has failed to carry out good-faith negotiations to end the occupation of Palestinian territory. On the Namibia precedent, the Israeli occupation is also illegal. The only “right” Israel can claim is — in the words of the United States at the time of the Namibia debate — “to withdraw its administration … immediately and thus put an end to its occupation.”

Although claiming for itself the right of self-defense against Hamas projectiles, in fact, Israel is claiming the right to maintain the occupation. If Israel ceased using force to suppress the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, the occupation would end and the projectile attacks would cease — if they did not stop, the legal situation would, of course, be different. If it ended the occupation, Israel would not need to use force. The refrain that Israel has the right to self-defense is a red herring: the real question is: Does Israel have the right to use force to maintain an illegal occupation? The answer is no.

It might be said that, even if Israel cannot use force to suppress the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, Hamas' use of indiscriminate projectiles and its targeting of Israeli civilians still constitute war crimes. Here, it is useful to first recall another instance of HRW's egregious double-standard. In 2008, HRW issued a report entitled Flooding South Lebanon: Israel's Use of Cluster Munitions in Lebanon in July and August 2006. The report found that Israel dropped as many as 4.6 million cluster munitions on South Lebanon during the 2006 war. It was, in HRW's words, “The most extensive use of cluster munitions anywhere in the world since the 1991 Gulf war,” while relative to the size of the targeted area the density of the attack was historically unprecedented. Some 90% of these cluster munitions were dropped during the final three days, “when Israel knew a settlement was imminent” (HRW) — the UN ceasefire resolution having already been passed but not yet gone into effect.

But, although finding that Tel Aviv committed “extensive violations” of the laws of war, HRW did not go beyond stating that Israel's massive resort to cluster munitions was “in some locations possibly a war crime.” Yet the evidence HRW itself assembled showed that cluster munitions are indiscriminate weapons; the cluster munitions carriers used by Israel were, on HRW's own terms, indiscriminate; and the cluster munitions were fired indiscriminately and deliberately targeted civilian population centers.

It is not altogether clear what constitutes an indiscriminate weapon. The apparent standard is a relative one set by the available technology. If an existing weapon has a high probability of hitting its target, then any weapons with a significantly lower probability are classified as indiscriminate. But, by this standard, only rich countries, or countries rich enough to purchase high-tech weapons, have a right to defend themselves against high-tech aerial assaults. It is a curious law that would negate the raison d'être of law: the substitution of might by right.

HRW has argued that, even if its civilians are being relentlessly targeted, a people do not have a legal right to carry out “belligerent reprisals” — that is, to deliberately target the civilians of the opposing state until it desists. “Regardless of who started this latest round, attacks targeting civilians violate basic humanitarian norms,” HRW's Deputy Middle East and North Africa Director Joe Stork stated in the first press release. “All attacks, including reprisal attacks, that target or indiscriminately harm civilians are prohibited under the laws of war, period.”

This is not so. International law does not — at any rate, not yet — prohibit belligerent reprisals. The United States and Britain, among others, have staunchly defended the right of a state to use nuclear weapons by way of belligerent reprisal. By this standard, the people of Gaza surely have the right to use makeshift projectiles to end an illegal, merciless seven-year-long Israeli blockade, or to end Israel's criminal bombardment of Gaza's civilian population.

Indeed, in its landmark 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons, the ICJ ruled that international law is not settled on the right of a state to use nuclear weapons when its “survival” is at stake. But, if a state might have the right to use nuclear weapons when its survival is at stake, then surely people struggling for self-determination have the right to use makeshift projectiles, when they have been subjected to slow death by a protracted blockade, and recurrent massacres by a state determined to maintain its occupation.

One might legitimately question the political prudence of Hamas' strategy. But the law is not unambiguously against it, while the scales of morality weigh in its favor. Israel has imposed a brutal blockade on Gaza. Ninety-five percent of water in Gaza is unfit for human consumption. By all accounts, the Palestinian people now stand behind those engaging in belligerent reprisals against Israel. In the Gaza Strip, they prefer to die resisting than to continue living under an inhuman blockade. Their resistance is mostly notional, as makeshift projectiles cause little damage. So, the ultimate question is: Do Palestinians have the right to symbolically resist slow death punctuated by periodic massacres, or must they lie down and die?

*[This article was originally published by Jadaliyya.]

[The analysis and data in this article refer to the period prior to the Israeli ground invasion.]