RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Enough. It's Time for a Boycott of Israel Print
Sunday, 20 July 2014 07:51

"Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause - even among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors in Israel."

Naomi Klein. (photo: Ed Kashi)
Naomi Klein. (photo: Ed Kashi)


Enough. It's Time for a Boycott of Israel

By Naomi Klein, Guardian UK

20 July 14

 

The best way to end the bloody occupation is to target Israel with the kind of movement that ended apartheid in South Africa

t's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa. In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era". The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions was born.

Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause - even among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the anti-apartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves ... This international backing must stop."

Yet even in the face of these clear calls, many of us still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. But they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tool in the non-violent arsenal: surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counter-arguments.

Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis.

The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement". It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon, and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures - quite the opposite. The weapons and $3bn in annual aid the US sends Israel are only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first country outside Latin America to sign a free-trade deal with the Mercosur bloc. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45%. A new deal with the EU is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And in December European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel association agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7%. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed.

Israel is not South Africa.

Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, backroom lobbying) fail. And there are deeply distressing echoes of apartheid in the occupied territories: the colour-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said the architecture of segregation he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid". That was in 2007, before Israel began its full-scale war against the open-air prison that is Gaza.

Why single out Israel when the US, Britain and other western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the strategy should be tried is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.

Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less.

This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, including the wonderful writer John Berger, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis.

Our modest publishing plan required dozens of phone calls, emails and instant messages, stretching between Tel Aviv, Ramallah, Paris, Toronto and Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start a boycott strategy, dialogue grows dramatically. The argument that boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at each other across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us.

Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of these very hi-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, managing director of a British telecom specialising in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax: "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

Ramsey says his decision wasn't political; he just didn't want to lose customers. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients," he explains, "so it was purely commercially defensive."

It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Death Penalty Is Incompatible With Human Dignity Print
Saturday, 19 July 2014 14:32

Ogletree writes: "I have wondered countless times over the past 30 years whether I would live to see the end of the death penalty in the United States. I now know that day will come, and I believe that the current Supreme Court will be its architect."

The death penalty is immoral. (image: Shutterstock)
The death penalty is immoral. (image: Shutterstock)


The Death Penalty Is Incompatible With Human Dignity

By Charles J. Ogletree Jr., The Washington Post

19 July 14

 

have wondered countless times over the past 30 years whether I would live to see the end of the death penalty in the United States. I now know that day will come, and I believe that the current Supreme Court will be its architect.

In its ruling in Hall v. Florida in May, the court — with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy at the helm — reminded us that the core value animating the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishments clause is the preservation of human dignity against the affront of unnecessarily harsh punishment. Hall, which prohibited a rigid test in use in Florida for gauging whether a defendant is intellectually disabled, was the most recent in a series of opinions in which the court has juxtaposed retribution — the idea of vengeance for a wrongdoing, which serves as the chief justification for the death penalty — with a recognition of our hopelessly complex and fallible human nature.

What was important about Hall is the way Kennedy described the logic behind exempting intellectually disabled individuals from execution: “to impose the harshest of punishments on an intellectually disabled person violates his or her inherent dignity as a human being” because the “diminished capacity of the intellectually disabled lessens moral culpability and hence the retributive value of the punishment.” Though the court previously barred imposition of the death penalty upon intellectually disabled people, as well as juvenile offenders, Hall marked the first time that it went so far as to claim that imposing the death penalty upon offenders with these kinds of functional impairments serves “no legitimate penological purpose.”

This is why I see an end coming to the death penalty in this country. The overwhelming majority of those facing execution today have what the court termed in Hall to be diminished culpability. Severe functional deficits are the rule, not the exception, among the individuals who populate the nation’s death rows. A new study by Robert J. Smith, Sophie Cull and Zoë Robinson, published in Hastings Law Journal, of the social histories of 100 people executed during 2012 and 2013 showed that the vast majority of executed offenders suffered from one or more significant cognitive and behavioral deficits.

One-third of the offenders had intellectual disabilities, borderline intellectual function or traumatic brain injuries, a similarly debilitating impairment. For example, the Texas Department of Corrections determined that Elroy Chester had an IQ of 69. He attended special education classes throughout school and never functioned at a higher level than third grade. The state had previously enrolled Chester into its Mentally Retarded Offenders Program. Despite these findings, Texas executed him on June 12, 2013.

More than half of the 100 had a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder or psychosis. For example, for more than 40 years, Florida’s own psychiatrists found that John Ferguson suffered from severe mental illness. Ferguson had a fixed delusion that he was the “Prince of God” who could not be killed and would rise up after his execution and fight alongside Jesus to save the United States from a communist plot. When Ferguson was executed on Aug. 5, 2013, his last words were: “I just want everyone to know that I am the Prince of God and I will rise again.” A Florida court had called Mr. Ferguson’s delusions “normal Christian beliefs.”

Many other executed offenders endured unspeakable abuse as children. Consider Daniel Cook, whose mother drank alcohol and abused drugs while she was pregnant with him. His mother and grandparents molested him as a young child, and his father physically abused him by, for example, lighting a cigarette and using it to burn Daniel’s genitals. Eventually the state placed Daniel in foster care, but the abuse didn’t stop. A foster parent chained him nude to a bed and raped him while other adults watched from the next room through a one-way mirror. The prosecutor responsible for Cook’s death sentence stood behind him during the clemency process, telling authorities that he would have taken the death penalty off of the table had he known of his torturous childhood. Arizona refused to commute Cook’s sentence, however, and he died by lethal injection on Aug. 8, 2012.

As the execution of Elroy Chester, John Ferguson, Daniel Cook and many more like them illustrates, barring the death penalty for intellectually disabled and juvenile offenders did not solve the death penalty’s dignity problem. Rather, those cases gave us cause to look more closely at the people whom we execute. And when you look closely, what you find is that the practice of the death penalty and the commitment to human dignity are not compatible.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
A Plea for Help for South Sudan Print
Saturday, 19 July 2014 14:27

Knightley writes: "You hear these stories all the time in Africa. The brutality, the never-ending death and starvation. It's easy to become immune. And then you meet someone like Rebecca."

Keira Knightley recently traveled with the aid and relief organization Oxfam to South Sudan. (photo: Oxfam)
Keira Knightley recently traveled with the aid and relief organization Oxfam to South Sudan. (photo: Oxfam)


A Plea for Help for South Sudan

By Keira Knightley, Reader Supported News

19 July 14

 

eira Knightley recently traveled with the aid and relief organization Oxfam to South Sudan, the world's newest country that is now in the grip of a humanitarian crisis. She visited Bor camp, in South Sudan's Jonglei State, where, like in similar camps, people are living in atrocious conditions and walking knee deep in mud and water. Poor sanitation has already taken many lives through the spread of disease, ever increasing with the seasonal heavy rains.

"I had no idea what to expect when I arrived in South Sudan, but what I saw and heard was worse than I could have ever imagined," Knightley said. "All of those I met were suffering a terrible trauma unbearable to comprehend. I spoke to women who have lost their husbands and children within months of one another. They are now alone trying desperately to get through each day, struggling to provide enough food and water to keep them and their remaining children alive."

Since the conflict broke out in December 2013, more than 1.5 million people have been forced to leave their homes in search of safety. Most people are fleeing with just the clothes on their backs, leaving behind possessions, crops and livestock with no means to buy food, water or other vital essentials. South Sudan is Africa's worse crisis with nearly 4 million -- a third of the country's population -- at risk of severe hunger. The United Nations has warned that if the aid effort does not increase, 50,000 children could die from malnutrition.

"The people I met are facing a relentless crisis of war, hunger and disease. I saw the amazing work Oxfam is doing day in and day out to ensure that people have safe water to drink and food to eat, but the situation is getting worse and resources are running out," said Knightley. "I met just a few of the thousands of families who are desperately trying to survive each day, but they can't do it alone. They need our help."

The following are excerpts from Knightley's diary on that trip:

JUNE 3, 2014

BOR, SOUTH SUDAN -- Rebecca is 25. Before the conflict started she lived in Bor with her husband and five children. The youngest is just over one. She worked in the market. When fighting broke out in December, she ran with all of her children and her husband toward the camp. Every step she took, she was terrified of losing one of them. Nothing was ready for the sheer numbers of people who fled to the camp, and, inevitably, epidemics broke out. All of Rebecca's children became ill -- so far they've all survived. Others weren't so lucky.

Just outside the camp, there is a grave of the 90 children who have died so far from various diseases. Next to them is the grave of 46 people, mostly men, who were killed when Bor camp came under attack in April in a calculated assault on the UN base. Two rows of barbed wire fences were broken between UN patrols, and the youths killed whoever they could find. Rebecca's husband was one of the dead. She and her children managed to run to safety.

You hear these stories all the time in Africa. The brutality, the never-ending death and starvation. It's easy to become immune. And then you meet someone like Rebecca. So quiet, so poised. She says she misses the way her husband made her laugh; she misses the way he held her. The way he made her feel like a woman and you think -- you're just like me. That's what I'd say about my husband. She says she can't think about him now because her heart will break, and she has to keep going for her children.

The baby squirming on her lap, one minute laughing, the next screaming, wanting constant attention is just like my nine month old nephew, except this one's surrounded by uncertainty, threatened by disease.

JUNE 4, 2014

BOR, SOUTH SUDAN -- It's raining. We got up at 5:45 am to catch the morning light. The rain was sheeting down. The camp felt deserted. No one was up yet, or they were inside sheltering. The rain made the sewage smell disgusting. The tents glistened in the wet and with each step we took the ground got worse and worse. Thick, sticky mud clinging to everything. The rain destroyed the mud walls of the camp; rivers of water carried them away. I could see vultures sitting in the trees. The effect of the rain is devastating. Two more latrines collapsed. Sewage mixed with the rain water. We were all soaked in seconds. The mosquitos descended.

At 7, someone started playing really loud music -- maybe he was the alarm call. My head was aching from the malaria pills. At 8:30, we went to the clinic to try and see some kids getting treated for malaria but the rain had kept them away. The mud was everywhere. A woman had her tent flap open and inside she was brewing tea over a fire for five guys. They were young. The woman said I should marry one of them. I said I was already married, but she didn't seem to think that mattered. They're trying to get solar powered lights put up in the wash areas so women will be safer at night. But you can feel the tension. People waiting with nothing to do and nowhere to go. They're as much prisoners in a siege as people seeking protection. They live too close together in squalid conditions and the rage and fear keeps building. It's the women who bear the brunt of it.

By 10, the clinic had filled up. Mothers sat on mats with babies in their arms. The mud threatened to flood in. We met an 18-year-old girl and her one-month-old baby. She was pregnant when she ran for safety here. She doesn't know where her husband or the rest of her family are. She gave birth alone. The baby became ill four days ago. She couldn't stop him from crying. His temperature soared. She said there was no way to keep her tent clean. The mud and the flies take over. The mosquitos had made the baby sick. As we were speaking to her, a man was rushed into the ward and thrown onto a bed at the back. He was having some kind of fit. Another man was brought in on a stretcher. Some sort of stomach illness. There's always a risk of cholera.

There was a young girl in an immaculate fur coat. She was probably 12. Standing with her bare feet in raw sewage. A man in a pristine Sainsbury's uniform sat nearby. It's hot and sticky now.

JUNE 5, 2014

JUBA, SOUTH SUDAN -- I'm sitting in my room in the hotel in Juba. It's raining again. Torrents of water are pouring off the roof and the noise is deafening. Loud rolls of thunder keep coming. I can barely see out of the window the rain's so hard. Breakfast at 8:45. We got in a jeep and headed across Juba. There are proper roads in Juba with proper buildings and tons of motorbikes. They crisscross the road everywhere. On one of the roundabouts, there's a big 'peace' sign -- a poster calling for unification and forgiveness. Just next to it sits a truck full of guys in army uniforms. Apparently you can buy a Kalashnikov in the market for ten dollars. You can get a gun easily, but you can't get clean water.

An Oxfam worker called Lam is with us today to show us Oxfam's cholera programs in action. He's incredible. He started working for Oxfam two weeks before the conflict began.

What is frustrating here is that a lot of the problems had been solved. They had built roads, they had provided clean water, they had rubbish trucks to sort out sanitation. They were in the 'development' stage. After years of Civil War, they had their new country, their own country, and they had started to build it. And then, one December day, their elected politicians decided to turn on each other and began a chain reaction that led to friends from different tribes fighting, to tribal warfare. No more development, no more rubbish trucks, no more clean water.

Oxfam can’t solve ancient tribal conflict, but they can help the hundreds of thousands of innocent people caught in the middle. They can help the children. The children, and people like Lam, are where the hope lies.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Elizabeth Warren: "Or We Can Fight Back" Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Saturday, 19 July 2014 13:00

Pierce writes: "If you ignored the signs, and the buttons, and the plastic straw hats, and the people in every corner of the ballroom bleeding from the teeth at the simple possibility of it, there was no indication that anyone at the Netroots Nation hootenanny was entertaining the notion that Senator Elizabeth Warren might be running for president of anything."

At Netroots Nation, 'Warren for President' materials were everywhere. (photo: Charles Pierce)
At Netroots Nation, 'Warren for President' materials were everywhere. (photo: Charles Pierce)


Elizabeth Warren: "Or We Can Fight Back"

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

19 July 14

 

f you ignored the signs, and the buttons, and the plastic straw hats, and the people in every corner of the ballroom bleeding from the teeth at the simple possibility of it, there was no indication that anyone at the Netroots Nation hootenanny was entertaining the notion that Senator Elizabeth Warren might be running for president of anything. In contrast to Ramblin' Joe Biden's sprawling address yesterday -- which, admittedly, had its own peculiar charms -- the Senator Professor was brisk and brief and bristling. The speech ran as though it were a class at Harvard Law, bounded at either end by bells. But its pith did not undermine its passion. The Senator Professor has been sharpening her message again. The game is rigged, and, as she says, "We can whimper. We can whine. Or we can fight back."

Most significantly, the speech now contains a pointed passage on international trade, in which deals like NAFTA and the upcoming TPP deal are framed as yet another way the dice are loaded, and another example of there not being any pea under any of the shells. "These trade deals," she said, "are done in secret so big corporations can do their dirty work behind closed doors, so they can have their insider access while worker's rights and environmental regulations are gutted. You know, I've actually had people who support these trade deals come up to me and say that they have to be done in secret because, if they weren't, the people would be opposed. To me, if people would be opposed, then we shouldn't do the trade deals."

Even if she doesn't run, and I still think the chances she will are almost nil, this is a shot directly across the bow of the putative Democratic frontrunner. There is nothing more central to the history of the last President Clinton than the Eisenhower-lite economics with which he triangulated himself, whether that's repealing Glass-Steagall, signing the Commodities Futures Modernization Act as he went out the door, or shepherding NAFTA through Congress and fast-shuffling it past the general population. There is no way for Hillary Clinton to detach herself from that legacy even if she wanted to, and it's not clear at all that she wants to. If Warren doesn't run, she nonetheless has an obvious constituency that is growing, and to which whoever the Democratic nominee is must respond.

(It is also to be noted that Warren was cagey enough not to mention the TPP specifically, but that her condemnation was general, and it was limited to the secrecy within which the deals are struck. Thus are options kept open. She's learning.)

There is no question that Warren is one of the few politicians out there -- Rand Paul may be another -- who has a clearly defined base of national support. The Clinton campaign already seems like one that is willing to settle for a kind of amorphous and tacit approval; there's a sense of automatic pilot to the whole effort at the moment. The rest of the Republicans appear to be mystified as to how to tame the crazoids while not losing their support, and the opposition to Clinton among the Democrats depends on where Martin O'Malley is speaking today. (And, if he was smart, that would be here.) The field is still unformed, for which we can all thank god, it being 2014 and all. But there is a clarity around Warren that doesn't exist elsewhere. In fact, her message is so clear and sharp that I continue to think it better suits her in the Senate, and as a voice from the outside that pushes and prods and fights back. Like I said, I don't think she's going to run. Which doesn't mean she can't give campaign speeches.

Then again, she was signing books at 2:45 on Friday. People were lining up to buy them before noon.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Addicted to Inflation Print
Saturday, 19 July 2014 11:21

Krugman writes: "The first step toward recovery is admitting that you have a problem. That goes for political movements as well as individuals."

Paul Krugman. (photo: NYT)
Paul Krugman. (photo: NYT)


Addicted to Inflation

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

19 July 14

 

he first step toward recovery is admitting that you have a problem. That goes for political movements as well as individuals. So I have some advice for so-called reform conservatives trying to rebuild the intellectual vitality of the right: You need to start by facing up to the fact that your movement is in the grip of some uncontrollable urges. In particular, it’s addicted to inflation — not the thing itself, but the claim that runaway inflation is either happening or about to happen.

To see what I’m talking about, consider a scene that played out the other day on CNBC.

Rick Santelli, one of the network’s stars, is best known for a rant against debt relief that arguably gave birth to the Tea Party. On this occasion, however, he was ranting about another of his favorite subjects, the allegedly inflationary policies of the Federal Reserve. And his colleague Steve Liesman had had enough. “It’s impossible for you to have been more wrong,” Mr. Liesman declared, and he went on to detail the wrong predictions: “The higher interest rates never came, the inability of the U.S. to sell bonds never happened, the dollar never crashed, Rick. There isn’t a single one that’s worked for you.”

READ MORE

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2771 2772 2773 2774 2775 2776 2777 2778 2779 2780 Next > End >>

Page 2780 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN