Alternatives International

Settler Colonialisms of a Special Type: Apartheid in Palestine/Israel and South Africa

Francesco Amoruso and Endika Rodriguez-Martin — 2016-11-01T14:21:28Z

A review of Israel and South Africa: The Many Faces of Apartheid. Edited by Ilan Pappé. Zed Books (2015).

If the reader is searching for a thorough academic comparative work on Israel and South Africa, or a guide to help conceptualise their activist commitment to the Palestinian cause of freedom and self-determination, they will find this book a compelling read. Israel and South Africa: The Many Faces of Apartheid explores the apartheid analogy in a way never done before, with the aim to systematise the comparison. The book follows on the heels of a significant tradition of comparisons between the two case studies and establishes once and for all its validity within academia. This is achieved in part thanks to the editor's choice of asking each contributor to reflect on the general terms of the comparison, and to its corollary – a thorough critique and demystification of most arguments used against the analogy. While virtually closing the debate on the legitimacy of discussions about Israel's systematic discrimination and oppression of native Palestinians as a form of apartheid, the contributors to this volume open up new avenues and suggest original angles through which to approach the question of comparison. Such is the case of Anthony Löwstedt's (191-238) chapter on honour killings in Palestine and witch burning in South Africa as phenomena exacerbated by the ‘logic of elimination' that underpins settler colonial projects, amongst which we find the two locales under comparative scrutiny (1).

As Pappé (1-22) recognises in his introduction, the book deals with a number of thorny issues, such as defining the boundaries of the apartheid analogy, namely if it applies to all the territories controlled by the State of Israel or only those captured following the 1967 war. Further it analyses the relevance of this academic endeavour for moving forward the current impasse and imagining novel paths for decolonising Palestine/Israel. While some chapters focus on Israel's occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, there is consensus amongst the contributors that the seeds of Israeli apartheid are to be found in the Zionist ideology (Jewish nationalism) and in its application in the project of settlement in Palestine (settler colonialism). It follows that no just solution can be envisaged without deeply rethinking the ethno-exclusivist roosts of the Jewish state. It is disappointing that none of the chapter offers a thorough comparison between the boycott movement against the South African apartheid state, and the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. This shortcoming, despite making a limited presence in some of the chapters, made the political impact of this book appreciably less powerful. Hopefully we will see a correction to this academic blind spot in the near future.

With the first and final two chapters, written by anti-apartheid activist and former minister in post-apartheid South Africa Ronnie Kasrilis (23-42), and the South African sociologist Ran Greenstein (325-362) respectively, the reader can appreciate the general themes of the comparison and their relevance in advancing the current debate on Palestine/Israel. Kasrilis inscribes apartheid as a political and institutional structure within the historical trajectories of Zionism and white South-African ethno-nationalism. Within this analysis he shows the many similarities between Zionism and what the South African Communist Party referred to as ‘Colonialism of a Special Type.' The historical comparison, which encompasses both the two settler colonial projects and the narratives employed by both settler communities to justify the dispossession of indigenous people, confers historical contextualisation and justification to most of the arguments put forward throughout the following chapters. This is especially notable with regard to separation as a necessity for settler projects lacking demographic advantage and to the politically difficult issue of international support to brutal settler colonial regimes (notably from other settler states). More specific terms of the comparison are then summarised by Greenstein, who points out the relevance of setting the geographical boundaries of the apartheid analogy. Whether we consider apartheid as applicable to ‘Israel proper,' to ‘Greater Israel,' or ‘Greater Palestine' (the space occupied by all fragments of Palestinian society, including the refugees) carries important consequences on the nature of the comparison. As Greenstein highlights, it is fundamental to examine both similarities and differences of the two apartheid regimes in order for lessons about decolonisation to be learnt from the case of South Africa and translated into political action in the Palestinian/Israeli context.

A crucial theme explored in this book, as previously mentioned, is the correlation between apartheid-like political formations and peculiar kinds of (settler) colonialism. Settler colonialism is a ‘one-way ticket' form of colonialism. This means that the colonialists do not occupy foreign lands for economic and strategic benefits to European empires, but for the purpose of settling and founding new societies. These processes are characterised by the inevitable dispossession of indigenous peoples. The erasure of indigenous cultures and the physical elimination of indigenous peoples is never a complete act, but on the contrary is a structuring element of settler colonial societies in the past as well as in the present, until decolonisation (2). Apartheid is one typology of settler colonial domination, and occurs where the settlers do not achieve the goal of establishing an overwhelming demographic majority. Separation, as opposed to assimilation, is the instrument that both the South African and Israeli regimes employ(ed) to exclude the natives from the state. This contextualisation is important, as Virginia Tilley (295-324) notes in her compelling chapter, to point out that apartheid does not only apply to indigenous people who have been granted citizenship, but rather to all indigenous people affected by settler colonialism regardless of their status. Tilley's chapter is outstanding for its depth of analysis and clarity in highlighting the pregnancy of the historical comparison put forward. She compares the structure imposed on the Palestinians living in the occupied territories, to that imposed by the South African authorities onto the indigenous population of Namibia. Her argument is rooted in a critique to the limitations of international law with regards to indigenous rights and to the significance of settler colonial state-formation, and suggests that the question of sovereignty be reframed around ‘empirical' rather than merely juridical control over occupied populations. The paradox here is evident: the two-state solution is based upon international law, which resides on the belief ‘that the Palestinians' political rights are ultimately to be satisfied in some mythical state of the future rather than by the state governing their lives' (298). It follows that Israel's lack of formal sovereignty over the occupied territories allows it to maintain a de facto apartheid system. Tilley also asks whether the international community push for an Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories must be reconsidered. In theory she argues it should, but in practice Israel's sovereign capacity must be reconsidered, and the question of ‘address[ing] the real needs of a population that for decades must endure foreign rule by a foreign power that has no intention of withdrawing' and that has shown the ‘intention to eliminate permanently any possibility of viable independent statehood and self-determination for the territory's indigenous population' be forcefully raised (299).

Pappé (43-72) also chooses to compare the two case studies from a novel angle, looking at the dispossessing consequences of the colonising efforts of Christians missionaries in Africa and Jewish settlers in Palestine. A particularly interesting topic, which does not find much space in the book, is the role that Great Britain played in fostering both the ‘return' of Jews to Palestine and the diffusion of Christianity in Africa. Both ‘satellite movements,' despite geographical and temporal distances, operated similar colonising and discursive tactics under the auspices of the British Empire, which eventually had to cope with the parting of its settler colonial ‘stepchildren.'

The question of the origins of the Israeli version of apartheid is the concern of Oren Ben-Dor (73-120), whose chapter contains a particularly problematic argument. His rigid understanding of apartheid as inherent in Zionist ideology is misguided by arguing that it derives directly from Judaism. Such an essentialist view, which descends a political structure straight from a religious doctrine, is not only problematic but arguably dangerous. Similar lines of thinking are currently informing a large part of Islamophobic discourses, moreover this argument defeats one of the main purposes of the research agenda behind settler colonial studies, which is to defeat settler exceptionalism claims. Finally, this thesis would seem to support the narrative of a religious conflict that has had a successful role in the Zionist arsenal. The difficulty of this chapter also lies in the defeatism and political immobilism that this discourse would necessarily imply.

Another theme that occupies a central place in the book is the demographic balance between settler communities and indigenous people in both locales. Jonathan Cook (123-160), in his quite anecdotal but nonetheless valuable chapter, addresses the demographic issue utilising the question of (in)visibility of indigenous people and the ways in which it differs in South Africa and Israel. The result of an established settler majority, within Israel's internationally recognised borders, is the possibility for Israel to portray itself as a democracy. In this respect, Israel is more similar to other settler states (the US, Canada or Australia) that achieved the demographic goal of white majority, than to South Africa. Apartheid, however, contrary to successful settler colonialism is based on the existence of separate sets of rules for different racial groups. Crucially, Cook recognises that this structure of apartheid is ultimately aimed at appropriating Arab land in order to expand settler sovereignty. On a similar topic, Anthony Löwstedt (191-238) analyses the centrality of women's fertility in the demographic struggle. Honour killings and witch burnings are examples of how the apartheid regimes played on indigenous patriarchal structures to achieve the settlers' demographic goals.

Leila Farsakh (161-187) takes the question of the boundaries of the comparison further by focusing on the centrality of the notion of ‘separate development' for both the South African and the Zionist colonising projects. In her chapter, Farsakh focuses on the role of the Oslo Accords in shaping the present apartheid reality in the West Bank, while also acknowledging that apartheid should not only refer to the territories occupied in 1967. In fact, her contribution is extremely valuable as it contextualises the Oslo Accords and current Israeli occupation policies within a broader history of apartheid in historic Palestine. The central argument is that Israeli apartheid is, similarly to South Africa's, a result of the need to ‘'resolve' the question of the indigenous population's political rights without compromising the settlers' political and economic supremacy' (163). She does so by analysing the limitations of Palestinian self-rule in the territories vis-à-vis the colonisation project (theft of land, restrictions to freedom of movement, fragmentation, economic dependency).

As mentioned above, the book is also concerned with the issue of political change and the relevance of the apartheid analogy for supporting such efforts. Amneh Badran (239-274) presents a concise overview of settler protest groups in Israel and South Africa. The difference between the two is remarkable. While white South African movements challenged the Apartheid regime, the Zionist left does not challenge the foundations of Zionism. It is no surprise that while a great number of white South Africans joined the indigenous resistance structures, only a handful Jews historically joined the Palestinian Liberation Organisation.

Steven Friedman (277-294) compares Zionism and Afrikaaner nationalism as two political movements claiming that ‘the survival of a group can be secured only by a state defined in ethnic or cultural terms' (278). From the Israeli perspective, it follows, ‘a ‘two-state solution'…is the limit of the possible since a single state is a recipe for national suicide' (279). Friedman, however, also explains how the white South African leadership reached the conclusion that the safeguard of a settler national collective does not necessarily depend on maintaining that group's supremacy within a political regime dominated by separation and exclusion (‘ethnic state'). Indeed, the South African leadership understood that ‘The system could not survive without reform – but it could not survive reform' (281). Three sets of reasons are behind this realisation. First, ‘objective constraints', i.e. need for black skilled labour, which increased blacks' bargaining power; second, ‘contradictory goals', i.e. lack of viability of the Bantustans; and third, ‘subjective constraints', i.e. black resistance.

Objective constraints, as Friedman notes, are absent in the case of Israel, but the growing BDS movement worldwide might pose significant pressure on the Israeli state for dismantling its apartheid regime. A two-state solution oriented reform is compared by the author to the South African attempt to reform the apartheid system in order to maintain the ethnic character of the state while lifting the pressures from inside and outside. The limit of Friedman's otherwise impeccable chapter is the overlooking of the post-apartheid high economic inequality, that still sees the concentration of the country's wealth in the hands of the white minority. Friedman brushes the question away as a ‘blemish' of post-apartheid reality, whereas a deeper conversation on the economic dimension of decolonisation is much needed.

In conclusion, this book is an indispensable read for making sense of the historical predicament of the Palestinian people. Additionally, it fills a long over-due academic gap in the efforts of a comparative understanding of Zionism. In this case, it is important to recognise, as Pappé honestly does, academia followed activist groups who have utilised the apartheid paradigm to gain political ground in their struggle for justice in Palestine. This book has the power to make us all reflect on the dialogical relationship between academia and activism. In addition, it also has the potential to empower those groups around the world who, with events such as Israeli Apartheid Week, continue to maintain that if apartheid fell in South Africa, there is no reason why it should not be forced into doing so in Palestine/Israel as well.

References

1. Patrick Wolfe, “Settler colonialism and the elimination of the native,” Journal of Genocide Studies 8, n. 4 (2006): 387-409. http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/pdfs/89.pdf
2. Wolfe, ibidem. Lorenzo Veracini, Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010). http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/view/10.1057/9780230299191

Francesco Amoruso and Endika Rodriguez-Martin are PhD Candidates in Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter, UK

As Modi Dumps Palestine at UN, His Praise for Israeli Army Does India Military No Credit

Siddharth Varadarajan — 2016-11-01T14:18:27Z

In his zeal to harvest political capital from the Indian army's recent action targeting terrorists along the Line of Control, Modi has conveniently forgotten that the Israeli army's ‘valour' has been against people fighting foreign occupation.

Israel is not India and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir is not Occupied Palestine or Lebanon – where the Israeli army regularly violates the United Nations charter and the laws of war to attack people fighting to end the foreign occupation of their homeland.

All of these distinctions seem to have been lost on Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his zeal to harvest political capital from the Indian army's recent action targeting terrorists along the Line of Control in Kashmir.

Speaking at a public function in Himachal Pradesh on Tuesday, Modi appeared to compare the Indian army's targeted action along the LoC to the Israeli policy of targeted assassinations and full-fledged aggression against the people of Palestine and Lebanon.

“Our army's valour is being discussed across the country these days. We used to hear earlier that Israel has done this. The nation has seen that the Indian Army is no less than anybody,” PTI quoted him as saying.

It is one thing for lay persons and analysts to romanticise Israeli military actions, and another for the prime minister of India to do so. Modi needs to remember that Israel is an occupying power in Palestine. Its status as an occupying power has been acknowledged by the United Nations. Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, along with the Syrian Golan Heights remain the last territories in the world formally considered to be under foreign occupation.

According to a unanimous resolution passed by India's parliament, a major part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir is under Pakistani occupation. Pakistan is to India what Israel is to the Palestinians – an occupying power. The fact is that whatever Israeli military action Modi finds praiseworthy has been undertaken in defence of an illegal occupation against weak and ill-equipped adversaries. Is it then not insulting to compare the Indian army's strikes against the terrorist proxies of an occupying power (Pakistan) to Israeli operations against the Palestinians (and the Lebanese)? What makes the comparison even more odious is that the Israeli army has been frequently and credibly accused of committing war crimes. Does Modi not know any of this?

The Israelis have always sought to suggest that New Delhi and Tel Aviv are in the same boat when it comes to terror but the Indian side has resisted facile comparisons. When Silvan Shalom, who was Israel's deputy prime minister and foreign minister at the time, met leaders of the BJP-led government in Delhi in February 2004, he argued that the fence India was building along the LoC was no different from the ‘security fence' Israel had erected to ‘protect' itself from terrorist attacks – in reality, a monstrous wall built on Palestinian land. Shalom's hosts, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was prime minister at the time, heard him out but rejected the comparison. They refused his request that India join Israel in telling the International Court of Justice not to take up the ‘security fence' matter. Similarly, his demand that India declare Hamas and Hizbollah as terrorist organisations was not accepted.

There was smart politics at play here – Vajpayee knew that whatever his or the RSS's preferences may be, the vast majority of Indians believe India should stand with the Palestinians in their just struggle. But he also understood two other important points. First, that accepting Shalom's suggestions would strengthen the hands of those in Kashmir who paint their state as another Palestine, and India as an occupying power – a state no different from Israel. And second, that Israel's methods of fighting its foes were not particularly effective. As Shashank Joshi wrote last month, the targeted assassinations and surgical strikes Mossad and the Israeli military have resorted to in Lebanon and Gaza have not made Israel more secure or decimated or even weakened the capability or resolve of those fighting them. It is this failure that has driven the Israeli military towards more and more reckless – and illegal – methods that the world at large reviles and condemns.

Modi's remarks may be poorly conceived but they come from the reflexive adulation the Sangh parivar drills into its cadres about Israel. It is not surprising that the RSS's skewed worldview should find expression elsewhere too. On Thursday, the Ministry of External Affairs changed its stand on an important UN resolution condemning Israeli violations of international humanitarian law in the Occupied Territories, particularly East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Israel's attempts to permanently change the status of the Occupied Territories by building settlements, barriers and interfering with water flows have been well documented. Over the past year, its aggressive efforts in and around Jerusalem to prevent Palestinian and Muslim access to holy places under occupation have been the subject of discussion at the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco).

In April 2016, India joined 32 other countries on the Unesco general board to condemn Israel for its excavation and exclusion policies around the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Al-Haram Al-Sharif area, much to the anger of the Israeli government. But when a similar resolution was put to vote on October 18, the Indian delegate was instructed by the MEA to abstain. Since the text of the resolution was more or less identical, the only explanation for the change in vote is Israeli and US pressure.

The Netanyahu government's spin on the resolution is to ignore the substantive demands it makes on Israel as the Occupying Power and focus on the use of the name ‘Al-Haram Al-Sharif' to describe the area that Jews also revere as the Temple Mount. This, Israeli officials claim, is tantamount to denying the connection between the Temple Mount and Judaism.

In fact, it was in order to refute this diversionary Israeli argument that the latest resolution included a line “affirming the importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions”.

India's change of stand in a resolution that correctly calls out Israel for its violations of the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and a raft of other treaties is inexplicable from the perspective of statecraft. Along with Modi's adulation for an army notorious for enforcing illegal occupations, the unwarranted abstention damages India's reputation as a serious power – as well as its national interest.

These are the highlights of the resolution India abstained on, after voting for similar language in April:

• Deeply deplores the failure of Israel, the occupying Power, to cease the persistent excavations and works in East Jerusalem particularly in and around the Old City, and reiterates its request to Israel, the occupying Power, to prohibit all such works in conformity with its obligations under the provisions of the relevant UNESCO conventions, resolutions and decisions

• Strongly condemns the escalating Israeli aggressions and illegal measures against the Awqaf Department and its personnel, and against the freedom of worship and Muslims' access to their Holy Site Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif, and requests Israel, the occupying Power, to respect the historic status quo and to immediately stop these measures; Firmly deplores the continuous storming of Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by Israeli right-wing extremists and uniformed forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to take necessary measures to prevent provocative abuses that violate the sanctity and integrity of Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif;

• Deeply decries the continuous Israeli aggressions against civilians including Islamic religious figures and priests, decries the forceful entering into the different mosques and historic buildings inside Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharifby different Israeli employees including the so-called “Israeli Antiquities” officials, and arrests and injuries among Muslim worshippers and Jordanian Awqaf guards in Al-Aqṣa Mosque/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif by the Israeli forces, and urges Israel, the occupying Power, to end these aggressions and abuses which inflame the tension on the ground and between faiths;

• Deplores the military confrontations in and around the Gaza Strip and the civilian casualties caused, including the killing and injury of thousands of Palestinian civilians, including children, as well as the continuous negative impact in the fields of competence of UNESCO, the attacks on schools and other educational and cultural facilities, including breaches of inviolability of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) schools; Strongly deplores the continuous Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip, which harmfully affects the free and sustained movement of personnel and humanitarian relief items as well as the intolerable number of casualties among Palestinian children, the attacks on schools and other educational and cultural facilities and the denial of access to education, and requests Israel, the occupying Power, to immediately ease this blockade;

Source: http://thewire.in/74039/india-abandons-palestine-un-vote-switch-modi-taints-indian-army-comparing-surgical-strike-illegal-israeli-acts/

Norman Finkelstein: Prospects, Hope and Strategies for the Future in Palestine

Tommaso Segantini — 2016-11-01T14:16:21Z

The year 2017 will mark the 50th anniversary of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories during the 1967 war. In this exchange with freelance journalist Tommaso Segantini, Norman Finkelstein, renowned scholar and political activist, and author of – among other works – “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict” and “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,” discusses various issues relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict, including the legacy of the Obama administration, the possibility of reaching a reasonable settlement in the future, and the prospects and strategy of Palestinian resistance.

The U.S. scholar's combination of rare intellectual rigor and an extraordinary moral force offers a lucid and perceptive account of the long-lasting conflict in the Middle East between Israel, the Palestinians and the surrounding states. Finkelstein keeps an eye toward the future, guided by his quest for truth and justice that has marked his political militancy during the course of his life.

Tommaso Segantini: The U.S. and Israel recently reached a deal worth US$38 billion worth of aid for the next decade. The current presidential candidates from the two major U.S. parties appear to offer total continuity with past administrations' unconditional support for Israel. What is your judgment of Obama's legacy on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and what factors could make the U.S. change its position on Israel in the future?

Norman Finkelstein: The Obama administration's term of office coincided with the worst devastations witnessed by Gaza since the 1967 war.

Obama was elected to office in Nov. 2008. On Dec. 26, 2008, Operation Cast Lead began. During the assault, 1,400 Gazans were killed, of whom up to 1,200 were civilians, 350 were children. 6,300 homes were destroyed, 600,000 tons of rubble were left behind. Obama stayed silent during the massacre. However, he didn't want his inauguration to be tarnished or diverted from by Cast Lead, so he conveyed to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to end the attack. Cast Lead ended on Jan. 17, 2009, three days before Obama's inauguration. He orchestrated the massacre to accommodate his inauguration. He's a stupefying, repellent narcissist.

Then, in 2014, there's Operation Protective Edge. 2,200 Gazans were killed, of whom up to 1,600 were civilians, 550 were children. 18,000 homes were destroyed, 2.5 million tons of rubble were left behind. During the massacre, the Obama administration kept repeating the mantra that “Israel had the right to defend itself.” Obama has not simply been the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. He's been the Enabler-in-Chief of Israel's periodic depredations.

It's revealing how Operation Protective Edge ended. On August 3rd, Israel deliberately bombed yet another UN shelter, the seventh targeted by Israel in the course of the massacre. That same day, Ban Ki-Moon, secretary-general of the United Nations and comatose puppet of the United States, finally condemned Israel's action, describing it as a moral outrage. The Obama administration thus found itself diplomatically isolated in the world. The Obama administration then denounced the attack, and Netanyahu immediately announced the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

What emerges from these facts is that Obama had, all along, the power to stop the massacres: the moment he spoke up, they ended. The major massacres in Gaza occurred during and were made possible by the Obama administration, and he could have ended them at any point. He ended the first massacre not to spoil his inauguration, and the second massacre because he was isolated diplomatically. I've not even mentioned the illegal, immoral, inhuman blockade of Gaza, which began in late 2007, basically coinciding with Obama's term of office. I think this sums up Obama the insufferable narcissist and the Obama administration's abysmal record.

Finally, the past few days the Obama administration has been making a lot of noise over the illegal Jewish settlements. This has to amuse. Obama is shocked that Netanyahu is building a settlement! What has been going on during his eight years in office? He just noticed it now, in the last two months of his presidency? The fact is, Obama is just worried about his “legacy,” he wants to have a chapter in his memoirs about how he tried to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict. That is why he is now speaking up about the settlements, and may not veto a Security Council resolution condemning them. He's just doing it for his memoirs, which will probably run into the tens of volumes.

What is the ultimate goal of Israeli policy? To what degree is Israel's expansionist policy driven by ideological, economic and political factors?

Norman Finkelstein: Israel has some interest in the water resources in the West Bank, but it couldn't explain a half-century-long occupation. My impression is that Israel doesn't want to give up the occupied territories because it sees any concession to the Arab-Muslim world as a sign of weakness. So, once they seize territory, they don't want to budge.

Take the case when Israel occupied South Lebanon in 1978. The occupation lasted until May 2000. 22 years is a long time, and it was not an easy occupation for Israel. They lost several hundred soldiers, as Hezbollah evolved into an impressive guerrilla army. When it finally withdrew, Israel apparently didn't suffer the loss of a vital interest. Nevertheless, Israeli forces went back again in 2006, just to show that they didn't lose in May 2000. It was purely pedagogical; Israel had no material interest, but they were determined to deliver a lesson that they're still in charge.

Israel also fought very hard not to give up the settlements it built in the Egyptian Sinai after the 1967 war. The Camp David accord of 1979 with Anwar Sadat almost didn't happen, Israel was so determined to keep the Sinai settlements. In fact, there was one pretty clear reason as to why Israel was so resistant. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin feared that if the settlements in the Sinai were dismantled, it would set a precedent for the dismantlement of the settlements in the West Bank. But the question then becomes: why do they keep the settlements in the West Bank?

Many respected analysts try to tease out rational accounts for state behavior. It appears, however, that in a significant number of cases, the behavior of States cannot be explained rationally, unless you want to consider rational, in the case of Israel, trying to terrify the Arab world into submission. There is not really a rational explanation for Israel to keep the settlements.

There clearly is an ideological element among the fanatical element of Israel's population. Also, the settlement enterprise is now very big: there are 600,000 settlers, with roads, lots of infrastructure, so there is a huge economic investment in the settlements, and there are people who profit from it. But overall, I don't see a concrete interest that can explain this fifty-year-long refusal to withdraw.

Which regional realignments and changes that have occurred during the Arab Spring impact the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in what way? What was Israel's stance towards the Arab uprisings started in 2011?

Norman Finkelstein: Israel was initially resistant to the Arab Spring. For example, in the case of Egypt, the U.S held out until the end in defending Mubarak; when it was clear that Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak couldn't survive, Washington acquiesced in his ouster. Israel faulted and criticized the U.S for not holding out longer and for not defending the Mubarak regime enough.

In the end, the Arab Spring turned out to be a godsend for Israel. There has been a major public realignment in the Arab world. Consider Operation Protective Edge. Egypt and Saudi Arabia openly supported Israel, while Turkey pretty much stayed silent. The Arab League met only once during Protective Edge and effectively supported Israel. The Saudis are now pushing hard for a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict so that they can cement formal military alliances with Israel, while Turkey sealed a deal to settle the Mavi Marmara incident (in which Israel killed nine Turkish citizens on a humanitarian mission to Gaza) and openly align itself with Israel.

It's been a disaster for the Palestinians; they're now isolated in the Arab-Muslim world; at this point, their only ally, and only rhetorically, is Iran.

Still, it's a qualified disaster. These erstwhile Arab-Muslim allies corrupted the Palestinian cause. Palestinians had become pawns of the Saudis. As the Saudi parasites always do, they bought off the PLO, that's how they function. However, because the Palestine struggle still had the support of its own people, Arafat could maintain some degree of independence. Nowadays, there's no Palestinian struggle or Palestinian people, there are just atomized individuals, each of whom is trying to do the best for themselves. Mahmoud Abbas has no autonomous power against the Saudis, he just follows orders. The Saudis are now trying to choose a successor to Mahmoud Abbas, and they want this thug from Gaza, Mohammed Dahlan, to replace him. The CIA and the Saudis want this guy, and they'll probably succeed.

It is often claimed that a two-state solution is not possible anymore due to conditions on the ground; you have said that a two state solution is currently not physically impossible, but politically impossible. What are the main political constraints that you refer to? Could you briefly outline on what terms the two sides could reach an agreement on the critical issues of borders, the right of return of refugees, and the status of Jerusalem?

Norman Finkelstein: These are questions that demand technical expertise. It requires knowledge of the physical terrain. Topographers and cartographers on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides say there is a way to retain a contiguous Palestinian state with land swaps so that the total area remains the same as the 1967 borders, while enabling around 60 percent of the illegal Jewish settlers to remain in place under Israeli rule. This would require the evacuation of the remaining 40 percent, which at this point is admittedly not a small number, 240,000 out of 600,000 settlers.

But it's feasible. Some polls have shown that with sufficient financial inducement, most of the settlers would be willing to leave, because a large part of them are what are called “quality-of-life” settlers, meaning they moved to the West Bank because they were given all sorts of subsidies by the government, housing was cheaper, and so on. A smaller percentage comprise ideological settlers. Even they, if the Israeli army left, would probably pack their bags and head home. The problem, then, is political will.

Today, the occupation for Israel is cost-free: Europe subsidizes the occupation, the Palestinian Authority polices the occupation, while the US protects Israel from any diplomatic fallout. There's no incentive for Israel to end the occupation. What needs to change is the balance of power, which is at the moment overwhelmingly favorable to Israel.

On the question of the right of return, there is no easy answer. Under international law, Palestinian refugees have the right to return. The major human rights organizations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have both upheld the right of return; as a legal right, it's there.

However, politics is distinct from law. There's no automatic enforcement of the law, unless you are on the side of the powerful. However, if you are on the side of the powerless, you have to figure out how to muster power on behalf of your cause. The question then becomes: given the objective balance of forces in the world today, how much can Palestinians realistically expect to extract from the legal right of return?

Israel has a population of 8.3 million people. Of those 8.3 million, about 6 million are Jewish. The number of Palestinian refugees is about 6 million. Is it realistic to expect that international public opinion at the popular or State level will demand that Israel open its borders such that the number of Palestinians entering the country would be equal to the current Israeli-Jewish population? Right now, Israeli Jews form 75 percent of the Israeli population. If the right of return were implemented in full, the population of Israel would become about 14 million, so Jews would be reduced from being a super-majority to considerably less than half the population. Will public opinion make that demand of Israel? I don't believe that's a realistic expectation. The idea of a “Jewish” state in the post-Holocaust world commands (for better or worse) a lot of international legitimacy, while a two-state settlement in which an Arab-Palestinian state exists side-by-side with a “Jewish” state that has an Arab-Palestinian majority doesn't make sense. One has to craft a formula that can win maximum backing from the international community, which right now supports a “just” resolution of the refugee question “based on” – which is different from, “implementation of” – the right of return (and compensation), in the framework of a two-state settlement.

You have been accused several times from some sectors of the left and of the Solidarity Movement of being establishment-friendly or not radical enough because of your critique to those elements that advocate a one-state solution or something whose logical conclusion would entail the end of Israel as it exists today. I agree with you that the only way to reach a broad public, at this time, is to push for a two-state settlement fully grounded in international law. Why do you think some sectors of the left appear to be, at times, almost ideologically opposed to a two-state settlement, and to what extent do you think their stance, even if in good faith, is harming the process of forming a mass, unitary movement with reachable goals?

Norman Finkelstein: First, on a personal note: I support neither two states nor one state. I'm an old-fashioned leftist, I support no states. The world is a tiny grain of sand spinning in the universe. The idea of chopping it up into states, especially, at this point in time, doesn't make rational sense. All the major challenges confronting Humanity today, whether it's climate change or the crisis of capitalism, are global in scope.

But there's a world of difference between what reason or justice dictates, on the one hand, and what politics allows, on the other. There isn't any possibility that states will be abolished anytime in the near future.

This doesn't mean one should give up on their ideals, I haven't abandoned mine. But politics is about judging what is the balance of forces in the world. The maximum that is possible to achieve at this moment is an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and some reasonable resolution of the refugee question.

One of the problems of the Palestine struggle is that it's very personalized. Politics is not about what one personally thinks is fair. The question is, can you realistically hope to create a new balance of international forces supporting a one-state solution? In my opinion, the question answers itself. It's not that I am insufficiently radical; it's that a lot of activists think politics is choosing what you like from a menu.

Why do you think, then, that even some prominent scholars often advocate a one-state solution?

Norman Finkelstein: Individuals can be very good scholars and not very good political analysts, just like there are skilled politicians who are not very book smart. Politics is a distinct art. Some people have a natural knack for politics, they have rich practical experience, and they have redoubtable native intelligence. I would include in this category Rosa Luxembourg and Leon Trotsky, Noam Chomsky and Allan Nairn, Mahatma Gandhi and Hezbollah leader Sayyed Nasrallah. In general, academics haven't got a clue about how politics works.

The First Palestinian Intifada of 1987, of which you have been a first hand witness, is considered to have been a success. What particular conditions at the time contributed to the success of the uprising, and what lessons can be drawn from the Intifada for future Palestinian resistance?

Norman Finkelstein: When you say the First Intifada was considered a success, it's not entirely correct. I consider it a success, and many of the people who remember it consider it as such. However, most young Palestinians don't remember the Intifada. Your generation has completely forgotten it. Moreover, those who do remember reckon it a failure, because it culminated in the Oslo accords, which were unquestionably a disaster for the Palestinians.

In fact, the First Intifada was a huge success. Two major factors enabled its success. First, the corrupt PLO leadership was headquartered in Algiers at the time, so Palestinians in the occupied territories weren't constrained by it. Second, the PLO as an institution incorporated lots of vibrant mass organizations – political parties, trade unions, women's organizations, etc. The Intifada began spontaneously on December 7, 1987, but then all these organizations jumped into the fray, and started organizing and mobilizing, shaping their own destiny. Within a few days, leaflets were being distributed, new voluntary organizations coalescing; literally everyone was involved, from children of age two throwing stones to eighty-year-old women defying the Israeli army. It was a real mass mobilization, with a smart dynamic leadership. The Israelis didn't know how to respond or what was coming next.

The repression of the Israeli army was terrible, no question about it, but there were limits to how much repression Israel could inflict, because the resistance was nonviolent. By the end of the first Intifada, after two years, about a thousand Palestinians had been killed. That is what happens nowadays in Gaza during Israeli operations lasting a few weeks. Thanks to its reasonable demands – ending the occupation and statehood – the Intifada successfully appealed to international public opinion. (Incidentally, the refugee question was barely mentioned at the time.) As a consequence, Israel's public relations image was shattered.

The Intifada was a mass mobilization, it had an organizational backbone, and it demobilized Israel's most powerful weapon, its army. It met the two conditions of a successful nonviolent resistance: the international community viewed the means, nonviolence, as legitimate, and the ends, independent statehood, as legitimate.

BDS says it's a nonviolent form of resistance, which is absolutely true, and it is not objectionable on those grounds. However, if the ends of BDS are seen as unjust, however nonviolent its means are, they will never get international support, it's never going to happen. Both the means and the ends have to be conceived by public opinion as being just.

Tommaso Segantini is an Italian freelance journalist. His personal blog can be found here. he can be reached at tomhazo20@gmail.com or on Facebook.

Source: http://normanfinkelstein.com/2016/10/19/norman-finkelstein-prospects-hope-and-strategies-for-the-future-in-palestine/

Aruna Roy And The Grassroots Revolution In India

Jooneed Khan — 2016-11-01T14:12:25Z

In the “multiple Indias” where firebrand social activist Aruna Roy has earned herself a world-wide reputation for integrity and commitment, women of all castes, classes and creeds come together more easily than anyone else in the struggle for rights, justice and for constant deepening of democracy.

This theme emerged from a well-focused and hard-hitting 2-hour talk and Q&A she delivered Sunday Oct 23 at the South Asia Women's Community Centre (SAWCC) in Montreal.

The youthful and energetic 70ish former teacher and civil servant turned civil society activist, as co-founder of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS - Workers and Peasants Strength Union) in 1987, believes in furthering what she calls the “civil society political process”.

Building Grassroots Counter-Power Centres

Mobilization at the grassroots, she says, is a counterweight to institutional party politics, and acts as a counter-power that demands accountability from the powers-that-be.

“Denouncing power in general is an abstract exercise. So we focus instead on the exercise of power at the local, village, town, and State levels, where the reality is more concrete. Struggling people can relate to that more easily, and local officials can be pressured and kept on their toes”, she says.

“Women are the backbone of all the great struggles going on in India today, she says, whether in trade unions, against sexual abuse and discriminations of all kinds, or for the social and economic rights of their families”.

Her biggest single victory to date has been the Right to Information Act (RTI), passed in 2005 after a multi-year campaign centred in Rajasthan. “To hold our governments accountable, we needed access to official information and data, all of which was kept hidden from us”, she says.

Unity Vs Divide & Rule In The “Multiple Indias”

The “multiple Indias” she talks about refers to caste, class and religious barriers – a reality that political parties use, exploit and manipulate to the hilt following “Divide & Rule” strategies of their own.

“Our counter-strategy is to unite, and women are much better at this than men, around rice and dal, work and welfare, health and education, dignity and freedom issues.

«Neo-liberals like to talk of Middle Class India as if it were one unified entity. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The so-called Indian Middle Class is ridden by the same divisions as the rest of society. And above all, it lives in a bubble induced by media and advertising jingles. And that bubble cannot last”.

Balance Of Power Shifts: From Local To Global

On a par with the Right to Information, Aruna Roy places the Right to Freedom of expression – which means using the full space of democracy for political organization, mobilization and action. She also fights for the Right to Work, the Right to Food and the Right to socialized Pensions.

She stresses that her “civil society political process” is driven by NGOs that take no institutional funding whatsoever, either from inside India or from abroad. “Our campaigns, our projects are all crowd-funded on a case by case basis”, she says.

Chatting with her after the presentation, I said that I was focused on the shifting Global Balance of Power. I added that after listening to her, I realized more than ever that change in the local and national Balance of Power was an absolute prerequisite for the Global Balance of Power to change, faster and more durably.

Aruna Roy is a recipient of the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award for Community Leadership. She also received the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Award for Excellence in Public Administration, Academia and Management. In 2011, Time Magazine listed her among the 100 most influential people in the world.

The “Canada Brand”: Violence and Canadian Mining Companies in Latin America

VOICES — 2016-11-01T14:10:03Z

Executive Summary

The Justice and Corporate Accountability Project of York University's Osgoode Hall Law School has documented troubling incidents of violence associated with Canadian mining companies in Latin America. In general, neither the Canadian government nor industry are monitoring or reporting on these incidents.

What we found about the degree of violence and criminalization from 2000-2015

This Report documents incidents that are corroborated by at least two independent sources. We found:

* incidents involving 28 Canadian companies;
* 44 deaths, 30 of which we classify as “targeted”;
* 403 injuries, 363 of which occurred in during protests and confrontations;
* 709 cases of “criminalization”, including legal complaints, arrests, detentions and charges; and
* a widespread geographical distribution of documented violence: deaths occurred in 11 countries, injuries were suffered in 13 countries, and criminalization occurred in 12 countries.

In addition, our research shows that Canadian companies that are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange do not include reports of violence in their mandatory reports on company performance. Between 2000-2015:

* publicly listed companies reported 24.2% of the deaths and 12.3% of the injuries listed in this report; and
* larger companies tended to report incidents in general terms, using blanket statements, whereas smaller companies tended to report in more detail

What is significant about this study?
This report on violence and criminalization associated with the Canadian mining industry in Latin America is the first to:

* compile information on reported violence over a 15-year period;
* name the companies involved and seek company comments on the incidents; and
* provide details and sources of the incidents, so that third-parties may reproduce our results.

The incidents documented in this report appear to be the tip of the iceberg
During our study we came across many reports of deaths, injuries and cases of criminalization that we could not include because they could not be corroborated through two independent sources. We were not able to include death threats, deliberate burning of crops and property destruction, forced displacement, reported assassination attempts without reported injury, illness from environmental contamination, or psychological trauma from any of the violence due to the extensive resources required to document these incidents. The violence reported is only from countries in Latin America, and does not cover Canadian mines in other parts of the world.

The world is taking notice of Canadian companies – for the wrong reasons
Canada has been criticized internationally for its lack of oversight of Canadian mining companies. Canada is singled out because more mining companies are domiciled in Canada than in other country; 41% of the large mining companies present in Latin America are Canadian.

* Four United Nations bodies have called on Canada to hold Canadian companies accountable for their operations overseas.
* The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has had three hearings on the accountability of Canadian mining companies and called on Canada to adopt measures to prevent “multiple human rights violations”.
* In June 2016, 180 organizations from Latin America sent a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau demanding action on promises for a mechanism for corporate and state accountability.

Existing Canadian government policies are not addressing the problem

The Canadian government continues to promote the “Canada Brand” by relying on voluntary, non-enforceable Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) codes to measure company conduct. The two main government offices responsible for CSR are the Office of the Extractive Sector Corporate Social Responsibility Counsellor (CSR Counsellor) and the National Contact Point (NCP) under the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Neither office conducts investigations, nor do they have the power to sanction companies directly or compensate victims. Their only power is to recommend the withdrawal of Canadian government financial and embassy support.

There is no indication that there is any systematic review of company behaviour nor any publicly available information to indicate that the current CSR Counsellor has responded to reports of violence or considered withdrawing Canadian embassy support.

There is no evidence that the government does not have the capacity to handle more complaints.

The international community demands a more robust accountability mechanism for both state and company accountability, but opponents claim that the government does not have the capacity to handle the claims. There is no evidence that the current CSR Counsellor, nor the NCP, have too many cases to handle.

* The CSR Counsellor was established in 2009 and has handled only six complaints.
* The current CSR Counsellor's website shows no indication of any investigations, disputes, dialogues or any engagement with specific conflicts.
* The current CSR Counsellor has no Annual Report and the only Publications are news reports of six speeches made by the CSR Counsellor since his appointment in 2015.
* The NCP only dealt with one case in 2015 and five cases in total since 2011.

Methodology

To compile this information, JCAP coordinated a group of volunteer law students from five different Canadian universities to identify incidents of violent conflict and criminalization. Researchers compiled an initial list of incidents using existing databases made available through the Observatorio de Conflictos Mineros de América Latina (OCMAL),1 the McGill Research Group Investigating Canadian Mining in Latin America (MICLA)2, the EJOLT Environmental Justice Atlas3, and the 2015 report of the Working Group on Mining and Human Rights in Latin America entitled The Impact of Canadian Mining in Latin America and Canada's Responsibility.4

Law students then carried out focused research on conflicts involving violence, using English and Spanish media, NGO, government and company reporting available on the internet, or through the Internet Archive. The primary search engine used was Google (Google Canada and Google for the host country in question). We also used HuriSearch for NGO reporting, and the SEDAR online database for corporate disclosure. For each incident, researchers attempted to access a variety of sources. In general, however, the most widely available sources were local media and NGO reporting. Company reporting was minimal and official government reporting was either minimal or inaccessible.

To view the complete report, The “Canada Brand”: Violence and Canadian Mining Companies in Latin America, click the link below:

https://justiceprojectdotorg1.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/the-canada-brand-report.pdf

Sri Lanka: Justice Must Also Be Seen To Be Done

Jehan Perera — 2016-11-01T14:06:26Z

COLOMBO: The common cause of the National Unity Government to tackle the corruption of the past and to put an end to it in the present seemed to come apart at the seams when President Maithripala Sirisena made an angry critique of the way in which the investigations into corruption was taking place. The resignation of Director General of the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) Dilrukshi Dias Wickramasinghe was prompted by the President's remarks on CIABOC and on the police investigative agencies in the wake of former Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa and three retired Navy commanders, being brought before courts. The President criticized the investigative bodies of launching politically motivated probes which led to the senior officials being put behind bars during the proceedings in court.

Ms Wickramasinghe was doing a difficult job with more energy than anyone in recent history who has held that post. The investigation of those who held high positions in the former and present government is bound to be controversial. Choices have to be made in terms of which case to take up first and which to take up later. After her resignation the former Director General said that there were as many as 90 cases of politicians that her office was investigating. Those of different political persuasions may prefer some cases to be taken up before others. The choices made can be seen by those who are at the receiving end to be politically motivated. Anyone in the position of investigator would come under criticism for taking up one case rather than another. The resignation of the Ms Wickramasinghe who was generally seen as doing a difficult job with a sense of mission would be a setback to the fight against corruption.

After calling a meeting with the members of the eight independent commissions, Speaker Karu Jayasuriya informed them that neither President Maithripala Sirisena nor Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe had negative attitudes towards any of the commissions. He had also informed the commissions that the attitude of the President and the Prime Minister did not differ. Civil society groups, such as Purawesi Balaya which was once led by the Ven Maduluwave Sobitha and now by Prof Sarath Wijesooriya and led the civil society campaign against corruption came out strongly in support of the independence of the commissions. This laid to rest the speculations, fears and hopes of different groups with political motivations of a break up of the National Unity Government. The hope of those who would wish to see the return of the old regime is that the working relationship between the President and Prime Minister is sundered.

COMPETITIVE PARTIES

The National Unity Government is vulnerable to internal fissures for the reason it is composed of the two major political parties that have traditionally been rivals and have engaged only in win-lose politics. With the sole exception of the present period, the UNP and SLFP have always sought to form governments on their own or in coalition with other parties but against their main rival. The pressure to break free of the other and to rule the country alone, and enjoy the power to decide by themselves without being constrained by the other, continues to be powerful within the UNP and SLFP. Those who work closely with either the President or Prime Minister, but lack their vision, would not be able to see the win-win dimension of their partnership to the two parties and its contribution to the stability and development of the country as a whole.

The aspect of governance in which Sri Lanka has historically been least successful is in terms of power sharing. Where there is power sharing decisions are taken after consultation, and with the participation of other parties who have a stake in the outcome. An important area of for joint decisionmaking is the appointment of key officials who will head departments that deal with controversial issues. These positions would include the executive head of the Bribery and Corruption commission. It is to be hoped that the successor to Ms Wickramasinghe will be the consensual choice of both the President and Prime Minister. This same principle of power sharing needs employed in dealing with the most intractable conflict that Sri Lanka has experienced. The root of the ethnic conflict and the three decade long war that destroyed over a hundred thousand lives and denuded the North and East of its infrastructure and also lost for Sri Lanka its competitive edge in the global marketplace was due to the absence of inter-ethnic power sharing.

The importance of deciding together rather than unilaterally has surfaced in the North in a tragic manner following the deaths by shooting of two university students. They were killed when they failed to stop at a police checkpoint late at night and the police opened fire at them. Such tragic incidents have occurred in other parts of the country as well. The famous actor Nihal Silva, who acted as Sergeant Nallathambi in days gone by was killed at a military checkpoint when he did not stop his vehicle. But in the context of the unresolved ethnic conflict, where a mutually acceptable political solution is yet to be found, incidents are seen through ethnic lenses. Emotions are presently at a high in the North and against the police. Students and businesses in Jaffna have planned public protests. There are suspicions voiced in the North that this was a planned incident to deliberately create tensions which would justify a continued strong military presence. In a context in which the North (and East) of the country continue to remain militarized, with large contingents of military personnel in the two provinces, such incidents are also bound to contribute to a spiral of negative sentiment.

CONSENSUAL GOVERNANCE

President Maithripala Sirisena's swift order to the police to conduct an investigation of this incident and to order compensation to the bereaved families is to be appreciated. However, there is a need for an impartial investigation that will be seen to be impartial in addition to being impartial. Justice needs to be seen to be done, in addition to being done. There is a massive trust deficit at the present time due to the lack of normalcy in the affairs of the North. The fact that the initial report filed by the police stated that the deaths were caused by a traffic accident will do nothing to improve the trust and confidence of the Northern people in the police or in the government. On the other hand, the fact that five police personnel have been arrested is a positive indication of the efficacy of independent commissions (including the Police Commission) and of the law taking its course.

In the longer term, the need is for the restoration of normalcy to the lives of the people of the North and East. The government's emphasis in terms of post-war peacebuilding is to engage in constitutional reform with the political parties represented in Parliament and to implement the pledges it has made in Geneva to the UN Human Rights Council. In addition, in restoring normalcy to the North and East of the country, where most of the three decade long war was fought, it is necessary for the government to work with the elected authorities to ensure that law and order prevails in a manner so that the people feel confidence.

At the present time the government is engrossed in a constitutional reform exercise that involves the whole parliament but whose outcome is not certain. The government has stated that the draft constitution will be placed before Parliament in the coming month and before the budget. However, there is still no indication of consensus on the details of the changes that need to be made. Instead of waiting an indefinite period for this constitutional reform process to be finalized, the government can implement the 13th Amendment to the constitution, which exists as the supreme law of the land, and devolve police powers to the provincial councils. This type of power sharing can lead to the Northern Provincial Council working with the government in a spirit of partnership to develop the province, rather than championing the cause of Tamil nationalism which rouses the suspicions of the people in the plans of the government.

Source: http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/NewsDetail/index/5/9055/Sri-Lanka-Justice-Must-Also-Be-Seen-To-Be-Done

A Weekend of Rights and Peace in “Another Iraq”

Marti — 2016-11-01T14:04:29Z

The Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative celebrates the tremendous success of the Iraqi Social Forum and The Baghdad Marathon for Peace in Iraq (22-24 September 2016, Baghdad).

Where can you go to talk freely with Iraqis of Shia, Sunni, Kurdish, Palestinian, Christian, Eziidi, International and many other backgrounds about equality, civil and human rights, solidarity, unemployment and freedom? Anyone visiting Baghdad last week could not have missed the great energy of the nearly 3500 diverse Iraqi activists (young and old) from across the country who came to support the third Iraqi Social Forum, the second running of the Baghdad Marathon for Peace, and closing ceremony of the Forum. Ten international supporters included attendees from Italy, Norway, UK, the USA, Japan, and Canada. Followers of the events on social media reached 24 thousand via the Iraqi Social Forum Facebook page and the Baghdad Marathon Facebook page.

The Iraqi Social Forum [ISF] is a chapter of the World Social Forum that strives to build a powerful social justice movement uniting Iraqis as part of a shared, worldwide struggle to advance human rights and freedoms, and oppose corruption, exploitation, and militarism. The ISF brought together NGO leaders, labor union representatives, and human rights activists who participated in 19 small group sessions on topics including nonviolent social action, creative media advocacy, women's rights, environmental action, legislation to advance the needs of differently abled persons, workers' rights and other critical labor and economic issues. On the second day, Assemblies of Convergence addressed three themes:

1) the economic and social rights of workers;
2) women's rights and equality; and
3) nonviolence as a tool for social and political change.

One of the most significant successes of the third ISF was the active participation and deep commitment of hundreds of people during the two days of focused workshops and the resulting three convergence assemblies. The ISF secretary and volunteers are preparing detailed reports so that the goals articulated in the workshops shape the efforts of Iraqi activists for their country, for the coming months. Summaries of the plans coming out of these workshops will be published on the ICSSI website soon.
More than 100 dynamic, Iraqi youth volunteers organized the ISF, providing leadership, session facilitation, media coverage, translation, entertainment, hospitality, and, most importantly, making possible an open space for discussion on issues critical to Iraq's future. Many young activists were asked why they were attending the forum, volunteer, and why they are working as activists. One young Iraqi woman from Canada said, “I came with my father to see where he grew up and to learn about our country.”

Another youth said, “It's like when we all got together to clean and prepare this beautiful old theatre for the Iraqi Social Forum. We came together as a group of young people to organize and ready this space for something very important. I want to do that for my country. I want to come together and do something important. I don't want to just sit at home wasting my time.”

Perhaps one of the most moving testimonies of these young activists were the physical scars apparent as they worked. One young Christian man, carried scars of bombings and fires in Mosul; another young leader wore a full prosthetic leg necessitated by a bus bombing in Baghdad. So many suffered injuries and reduced physical abilities, after living in cities attacked year after year by the international war machine. Despite their suffering, they are working together to restore their cities and to maintain hope in the future. As one young man, Mohammed, explained:

When I was 5, I saw bombs dropping on my house.
When I was 7, I saw my teachers killed and my school destroyed.
When I was 12, I saw dead bodies in the streets.

I am an activist because I will do anything, so that when I have children, they don't grow up like this.

The Italian Initiative Sport Against Violence and ICSSI have also been working with the Iraqi Social Forum to support Iraqi youth who want to build peace through sports. On Saturday, 813 Iraqis and internationals ran in the second Baghdad Marathon for Peace. The Italian runner Nicola Visconti (read his post here) challenged everyone the day before to use the Marathon as a time to take back the streets for Peace in Baghdad! And the youth did just that, supported by mothers, fathers and children from across the country.

Zainab, a 22 year-old who was one of dozens of women of all ages who participated in the Marathon said: “the most important thing for us young women is to defeat the fear in our society. And I think it's almost the same all over the world. Fear (and those who promote it) tries to cause us not to participate in these events and tries to reduce our role in the society. I am here to say young women can do many things just like men, we are equal. Personally, I want to reach the point where I don't blame my self for not leaving Iraqi to live abroad, I want to live in Iraq and I want to be proud of this choice”

Dr Shath Jumaa, an activist who participated in Tahreer protests in Baghdad against corruption and sectarianism, was among those who ran the marathon. She carried the photo of another young Tahreer activist, Adel, who was the winner of the first Baghdad Marathon. As she wrote on her Facebook page, “this year he could not participate, he was killed in the terroristic attack on Karrada. I decided to do the marathon with his photo, I think he is still with us” His friends joined Dr. Shath, shouting his name for peace in Baghdad.”

Abu Nawas park was the location of the closing ceremony in Baghdad on Saturday September 24, 2016. The race was indeed followed by a music and entertainment festival and social activities for youth and adults hosted by 53 non-governmental organizations, many who work as volunteers to support displaced families without food or homes.

Despite the triumph of the running of the marathon and the joy of the evening's festivities, many attendees thought of those men and women fighting at the front, and those who had already given their lives to keep militants out of Iraq's cities. It made the striving to find nonviolent means to create social and political change feel all the more urgent.

The theme of the Iraqi Social Forum this year was “Rights and Peace,” an important message for Iraqis across the country. Since its founding in 2013, the ISF has adopted a global slogan, “Another Iraq is possible,” and many youth and older activists have asked, “What does ‘another' Iraq mean to you?”

For many it seemed a difficult question to answer and responses varied from security, freedom for our children, and other concerns. One of the more moving responses was offered by a Kurdish Baghdadi who said he wanted to see all Iraqis develop a real sense of national belonging. He and friends searched for the right expression and settled on “entima” in Arabic.

As he said “we are missing a sense of deep entima for our country, not just to a governorate, to a political party or to a religion.” He continued, “We need to have a sense of being part of a country that we are willing to fight for because we feel we really belong to it and it belongs to us.” Many youth expressed a great sense of loss of national identity and sadness at feeling like they don't belong to Iraq. What the ISF offers them is the possibility to play a role, through public events and advocacy campaigns, in “being the change they want to see in Iraq”, in Gandhi's words.

How to get involved

To contact the Iraqi Social Forum Secretariat write to: isf.iraq@gmail.com
To join our international solidarity initiative with the ISF and Iraqi civil society write to: icssi.project@gmail.com

And please take part in spreading this statement to your friends, government leaders, and opponents. Spread the word to support civil society activists in Iraq to rebuild a country belonging to all.

Women Resist Militarization, Occupation And Wars Of Aggression!

2016-11-01T14:00:21Z

International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

As we approach the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, we are reminded that the greatest form of violence on the largest scale that women suffer is from wars of aggression, militarism and occupation.

This day was originally enshrined by the UN to mark the assassination of the Mirabal sisters in Dominican Republic, who were brutally murdered for their opposition to the Trujillo dictatorship in 1960. The sisters are symbols of both popular and feminist resistance and among the heroines of our international movement.

Today violence against women continues to plague our society on a daily basis: domestic violence, systemic violence of the state and its anti-immigrant and racist policies, the violence of poverty, lack of services and poor working conditions.

All of this is in a context of an affluent society in Canada, where corporations and banks enjoy healthy profits and low taxes, and where a $15 minimum wage is seen as an outrageous demand. The double talk has not changed with the new Trudeau government that finally set up a Commission into the murder and disappearance of hundreds of indigenous women while at the same time pushing ahead pipelines for resource extraction on native lands that will destroy their lives and future.

We, the Women of Diverse Origins cannot forget that Canada is an imperialist power, engaging in war efforts and bombing campaigns that are leaving thousands of women, children and men in the Middle East and elsewhere digging themselves out from under cities left in rubble, fleeing bombs and mortars. Canada is contributing to the militarization of humanitarian aid to Haiti, military equipment to reactionary regimes like Saudi Arabia, and has participated in regime change interventions in Honduras and elsewhere.

The recent US and NATO-led military aggressions and proxy wars for control of resources in West Asia (Middle East) and Africa have caused massive destruction. At the same time the so-called war on terrorism is used to repress movements everywhere that oppose plunder of land and resources and environmental destruction. All of this has hit especially hard at women and children and contributed to the forced migration of over one million people.

Sexual violence against women has become a military strategy in wars today. The female body becomes a trophy of war, used to torture, intimidate, punish and destroy community structure. In the Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Guatemala, Colombia and Haiti, a majority of women have undergone some form of sexual violence during the armed conflicts committed in their majority by military and paramilitary forces. The imposition of order by force, by fear and abuse, is carried out according patriarchal patterns of authority.

However, as the imperialists rev up their engines of war to control the world and its resources, they are igniting the resistance of the women and the peoples of the world.

Women's and people's resistance grows

In Israel, the women and people have resisted 68 years of the Zionist Apartheid Israeli occupation, supported militarily, economically and politically by American imperialism and its eager ally, Canada. This policy has remained unchanged under the Trudeau government, but the world-wide Boycott, Divest and Sanctions campaign against Israel is having an impact. This can be seen by growing attempts to shut BDS down.

In India, another staunch Canadian ally, the impunity granted the military in certain parts of the country under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) is being challenged. In Kashmir, under military occupation, women are courageously confronting soldiers even at the cost of their lives. In Manipur, women have fought back for years against AFSPA to protest rape and murder by state military forces deployed in their region.

We have seen women of Saharawi (Western Sahara), fighting for their national rights and economic sovereignty under the occupation of Morocco, where Saskatchewan-based giant Potash Corp is exploiting the world's largest reserve of rock phosphate.

We are one with these women and others who have chosen to take up arms in Kurdish Rojava to defend their land and their right to exist as a people.

We are inspired by indigenous women in the Philippines standing up to the paramilitary and government troops sent in to make way for Canadian and other foreign-controlled mining and extractive projects.

We join with them to resist mining aggression abroad and at home.

We are one with the resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and members of over 100 tribes from across the US and Canada.

We honour Berta Caceres and the struggle of the Lenca people in Honduras, that cost her life in March this year.
.
We refuse to be fooled into supporting regime change by the US, which is meddling in
countries of Latin America it considers as its back yard. We are one with the people and women of Venezuela who are resisting pressure to topple their President; we stand with the people and women of Cuba. They are holding steadfast to their principles while the US hypocritically re-establishes diplomatic relations while maintaining the 60-year criminal economic blockade it has imposed on Cuba.

While attempts at peace talks in Colombia have been manipulated to a first defeat by right-wing opposition forces, the fight for peace is making headway in the Philippines, where the Revolutionary movement has placed the people's economic, social and political demands as an integral part of the agenda They refuse to discuss disarming the revolutionary forces without first tackling the roots of the 47-year armed conflict.

Women everywhere are taking their place in these struggles, in protest actions and strikes. This means overcoming difficulties, even breaking tradition, to join the people's ranks. We have no choice but to defend our land, our jobs and freedom, true democracy and peace. A just and lasting peace that is linked to the struggle for national sovereignty, social justice and genuine freedom.

Thus we, Women of Diverse Origins (WDO), as part of the International Women's Alliance (IWA), call on our member groups and allies in all sectors to march in commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Let us march side-by side to eliminate violence against women and to underline the need to fight for peace here and in the world.

Women of the World Unite!
Stop Violence Against Women!
No to Militarism, Occupation and Wars of Aggression!
Women Say No to Imperialist War!
Women want Peace with Justice!
No More Blood for Oil!
No more Blood for Gold!
Protect the Land, Protect our Rights, Freedom and Dignity!

Nurture Artistic & Academic Freedom

Pritam Singh — 2016-11-01T13:57:44Z

Let the sons and daughters of Haryana develop as a hundred flowers bloom. Universities must support creative endeavour to enable cultural renaissance and human development.

I have had a soft corner since my student days in India for Haryana's economic, political and cultural development. My first piece of research, my MA dissertation, was on Haryana agriculture with a focus on the so-called inverse relationship between farm size and productivity. Unlike some Punjabis who bemoaned, in an imperialistic sort of way, the separation of Haryana from Punjab in 1966, I tracked Haryana's progress with interest and admiration. I interpreted Haryana's speedy progress as a flowering of the creativity and autonomy of the people of Haryana. It was an honour to accept an invitation some years back from a university in Haryana to be a visiting professor there.

Haryana has had an uneven record since 1966 in its development pattern. The state has had very impressive economic development in agriculture but especially in industry which provided the much-needed ammunition to political and economic theorists who argue in favour of smaller states and against the dysfunctional nature of larger states. It acquired, slowly and steadily, its own political rhythm with many pitfalls on the way as it became free from the erstwhile dominance of the Punjab region and its political leadership in united Punjab. Haryana did not do as well in the cultural, artistic and intellectual domains, as it did in the economic sphere.

Intellectuals and artists of any nation are its soul and voice. The British economist Keynes had once said that philosophers and economists of any nation leave deep imprints on the frames of thinking of the nation. In all advanced societies, their intellectuals and artists are highly valued, respected and honoured. When Sartre, the celebrated French philosopher who refused to accept the Nobel Prize in literature in 1964 because he did not want to be “institutionalised”, died; there was a national mourning in France and more than 50,000 people joined his funeral procession. When Eric Hobsbawm, the British Marxist historian died in 2012, it was a lead story in the British media — with many top political leaders admitting that they had politically grown up on Hobsbawm's writings on British history and politics. Any new nation, nationality or cultural identity needs intellectual and cultural vanguard who can articulate the problems, aspirations and visions of the emerging identity. There is no linear path to progress and that is where artists and cultural workers come in expressing the multi-dimensional nature of anxieties, contradictions and zigzags through literary works and artistic creations. In one sense, one could say that Haryana could have benefitted from the so-called advantage of late development.

Theorists of advantages of backwardness argue that the late developers can skip stages by learning very quickly what the earlier developers had already done, thus leapfrogging to a higher stage of development. In order to do that, Haryana needed to have first-class universities without the baggage of any previous unwanted practices; it needed to have its active state and society-funded organisations in the fields of music, theatre, cinema, paintings, sculpture, folk dance, folk crafts and the diverse Haryanvi languages and dialectics. It needed to have museums to record Haryanvi history and culture to propel the articulation of distinctive Haryanvi creativity. With this background in mind, when I read recently that a university in Haryana had chosen to discipline rather than celebrate the creative impulses of some of its faculty members and students, I felt sad and disappointed. The harassment to which a group of staff and students of Central University of Haryana (CHU), who were involved in putting together a performance based on award-winning writer Mahasweta Devi's acclaimed short story Draupadi are being subjected to is a retrogressive development in a state which needs the talent of its younger generations to flower. The story Draupadi was written in 1971 and represents Mahasweta's creative expression of the exploitation of India's tribals. It is regularly taught in a course in the syllabi all over India and the world. The adaptation of the story into a play by the CHU staff and students was a creative endeavour to commemorate the literary achievements of Mahasweta, the recipient of some of the most prestigious Indian and international awards. The critical references in the play to the Army's role in treating the tribal population is now being twisted by the right-wing Hindu nationalist student groups and organisations as being anti-national and anti-Army. An attempt is being made to pit the soldiers of the area against the academics of the university.

This is extremely harmful both from the viewpoint of creating an anti-artistic atmosphere as well as projecting a damaging image of Haryana nationally and internationally. There can be a difference of opinion on a particular stance of the play but that is no basis to bow down to coercive pressure from any quarter on artistic expression and academic freedom. It is this unsavoury aspect of the whole episode which has attracted the attention of academics and scholars in the UK and Europe who work on South Asia. They have expressed solidarity with their academic colleagues in CHU, who have come under attack from narrow-minded right-wing groups.

At such critical moments, it is the moral duty of heads of the university to protect the staff and the right to free expression of creative impulses. In its immediate context, it may seem like a pure, and perhaps difficult, administrative task but from a long-term historical point of view, it is a responsibility of immense significance. Given the transition Haryana is going through, it needs this cultural renaissance perhaps more than its agricultural and industrial development in which it has already made impressive strides.

The writer is a Professor of Economics at Oxford Brookes University, UK.

Source: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/nurture-artistic-academic-freedom/314247.html