By Jaisal Noor
“Its a victory for hip-hop, immigrants’ rights movements, immigrant vendors, a victory for the South Bronx” - Rodstarz
The case against the South Bronx-based hip-hop artists Rodrigo and Gonzalo Venegas was were dropped June 18, exactly a year to the day after the brothers were aggressively arrested by NYPD while coming to the aid of a Hunts Point street vendor who they say was being harassed by police.
Judge Darcel Clark unexpectedly granted a motion to dismiss the brothers’ two misdemeanors charges of obstruction of justice and resisting arrest, citing their positive impact in the community. Rodrigo “RodStarz” and Gonzalo “G1” are part of the group Rebel Diaz, along with Teresita “Lah Tere” Ayala.
The incident occurred after Rodstarz and G1 offered to translate on behalf of the street vendor, who did not speak English. After asking for the officers’ badge numbers, they were violently arrested. The brothers were originally charged with assaulting a police officer, however, a friend caught the incident on video and was able to quickly put it on YouTube. Within hours, 150 community members had rallied at the local precinct. Prosecutors withdrew the assault charge but continued to pursue the two misdemeanor charges.
Leah Horowitz is an attorney with the Bronx Defenders and represented Rodstarz during the case. She filed the motion to dismiss in the interest of justice on March 2 though she thought it unlikely the court would grant the motion.
The motion was accompanied by letters from over thirty members of the South Bronx community as well as individuals and groups Rebel Diaz had worked with in the United States and around the world.
Horowitz told The Indypendent she credits Rebel Diaz’s community support, saying it “impressed a court system that isn’t easily impressed. And isn’t easily affected by those sorts of things. I think what it says is that organizing — which is what I’ve always known and believed in — is the way to go.”
She added, “It was obvious [the judge] thought very hard about it, and who they are, and the ridiculous nature of the case shone through,” adding, “She’s a good judge, she’s a tough judge, when she says something like that, it’s a tremendous sign of respect.”
”The church I represent is one of the churches that wrote letters of support” said Claudia De La Cruz, a resident of the South Bronx and pastor of San Romeros De Las Americas Church in Washington Heights. She added, “I was there in the court [for the decision] and I feel like it was a victory not just for Rebel Diaz, but a victory for our communities and so it was a happy moment because …justice was actually served.“
Rodstarz emphasized the importance of the letter writing campaign: “At the end of the day, if we hadn’t had those letters, I don’t think we would have had our case dismissed. People really took their time out of their day to write letters of support and it proved to work.”
The decision came as a surprise to Rebel Diaz’s lawyers, supporters and Rebel Diaz themselves. The judge’s parting words also came as somewhat of a shock. “The last words the judge left us with was “keep up the good work,” said G1. “I think it’s keep up the good fight, and that’s what we are doing. We left that courtroom with more conviction in what we do.”
Claudia De La Cruz was also impressed by the judge’s final words. She said, “I think it’s an affirmation and it’s interesting that it’s coming from a judge. I think it has a lot to do with that it was a black judge who said this … even though as a judge she represents the system that is systematically abusing our people, she was able to affirm herself as she affirmed the work that they do.”
Since they were arrested Rodstarz and G1 have emphasized that their case was part of a systemic problem. “The outcome of the case, it’s really easy to come to the conclusion that the system works,” said G1, adding “I would say it’s not so much that the system works, [but] that the system has cracks. As a community we have to exploit those cracks in the system. We need to find the small spaces of democracy that are left within this police state, whether through technology, through direct action through our communities, within our block.”
He added the community rallying around the case showed its resilience and defiance to the system, “In the process of fighting the case, we opened up a community center here in the South Bronx four blocks away from the precinct that locked us up,” said G1.
The Rebel Diaz Arts Collective opened in March. Located on 478 Austin Place in the South Bronx, the Collective includes “a performance space, a multimedia studio, and a computer lab art gallery… It’s all been made possible really by contributions from the members of the community,” G1 added.
Rebel Diaz not only organizes on a local level, but uses their music to fight injustice all over the world. On June 17th, the day before the decision, they took part in a concert fundraiser for George Galloway’s 2nd Viva Palestina Convoy trip to Gaza.
Rodstarz said, “I can’t sit here and fight against gentrification in the South Bronx and ignore the situation in Gaza. I can’t sit here and talk about police brutality in Brooklyn or Harlem and not talk about people being assassinated in Oaxaca, because they are being displaced too in Mexico. I can’t talk about Palestine and not talk about independence for Puerto Rico.“ He continued, “If we are not making those connections we are blind. We got to start talking about things in the real landscape; the world is under attack. There’s colonization going on worldwide and gentrification going on worldwide.”
Rodstarz told The Indypendent that the ordeal has left the group the group even more determined to make a difference, “More than anything we are going to keep up the struggle for immigrant rights, keep fighting youth incarceration, against police profiling young black and brown men in the South Bronx. We are going to keep calling out the powers that be.” He added, “There is gentrification going on in the South Bronx. That is the reason they are doing immigrant street vendor sweeps, that is the reason why they are arresting young people… We are going to keep fighting with more strength than ever.”
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Rhyme Is Mightier than the Sword
By Jaisal Noor
Innovation in mainstream rap means new ways to rhyme the same four-letter words, fresh ways to degrade women or the invention of new epithets to use against homosexuals. While so-called “conscious” hip-hop has proliferated in recent years, it often lacks raw emcee skills or production quality. This makes die-hard fans who are also politically progressive cringe and think twice before breaking the cellophane off the latest album.
Such fears are already buried by the time the intro track ends and “Vietnam,” the first song in The Narcicyst’s new self-titled album, begins. When the bass line kicks and the Narcicyst tears into the first verse you might have already forgotten the last dozen tracks you heard on the radio that nearly made you vomit. The horns and violins — which could have been recorded by Miri Ben Ari, hip-hop’s premier violinist — are mixed with a hard-hitting beat that you can’t keep your head from bumping to. The production is reminiscent of a mix between Kanye West and Jedi Mind Tricks’ producer Stoupe the Enemy of Mankind — two of hip-hop’s finest.
Palestinian singer Shadia Mansour’s exquisite voice graces the track “Hamdulilah” (Arabic for “Be Thankful to God, Thank you God”) and The Narcicyst, a.k.a. Yassin Alsalman, lays down smooth rhymes. In the track “P.H.A.T.W.A.” which has an accompanying music video, the Canadian-Iraqi Alsalman is racially profiled, detained and threatened at an airport while entering the United States. Yet he somehow manages to turn the experience into something humorous. It might even make you laugh before realizing that the song could be based on the rapper’s personal experiences (minus the hooded Guantánamo prisoners in orange jumpsuits doing the doo-wop while The Narcicyst gets interrogated). “Iraqi Prime Time News” and the track “Sumeria” with the hook: “My only love is the land of Sumeria/Where my grandma was buried in” gives insight to someone of Iraqi descent being a helpless observer to the destruction of their four thousand year old civilization.
Going farther than his previous releases, the album also tastefully delves into the rapper’s personal life, including the loss of loved ones and even his relationship with his wife. And yes, completely absent from the album are the word “bitch,” threats to homosexuals and promises to wipe out the residents of nearby neighborhoods. A practicing Muslim, Alsalman reveals himself as a peace advocate.
Lyrically, The Narcicyst holds down the entire album, flowing on beat while staying original and keeping his rhymes fresh. The Narcicyst is the rapper’s ninth album. His versatile rhymes match the diverse beats from his eight different producers (including himself). No two tracks sound alike. Some listeners may not appreciate the diversity and leave the album craving more bangers like “Vietnam,” but all will feel they’ve gotten their money’s worth: out of 19 tracks, there are at least a dozen quality songs. Some even remind you why you fell in love with hiphop all those years back.
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
Jaisal Noor of The Indypendent recently caught up with Yassin Alsalman to talk about music and politics:
Jaisal Noor: One of the major topics you cover in your music are conflicts in the Middle East. And you also talk about your personal experiences — the animosity that you face on a daily basis as someone of Arab descent. How do you turn that into something positive?
Yassin Alsalman: If I was to get violent, then I would be doing exactly what the system wants me to do and at the same time continuing a long legacy of mistakes on a human level. Hamdidillah, I have never been through war, but I have family members who have. So, the way I stay non-violent is by writing. As much as that doesn’t do that much to change things, it’s the least and the most I can do. As anyone else, if I got punched in the face I would try to punch someone back in the face. But I don’t believe violence is the answer against the system because the system will use that against you in the long run. As the Prophet said, the pen is mightier than the sword.
JN: You have several tracks that deal with the way society looks upon Arabs and people of Middle Eastern descent.
YA: [The story in the] My P.H.A.T.W.A. video really happened. I combined three different trips to the United States for the video. I have been held at borders for three hours and questioned; and they went through my computer and all my stuff and asked me to write down people’s names, why I am doing this, why my mother is a teacher, and why my father is an architect. They strip you of anything that you know and make you paranoid. I haven’t faced the worst of it, but with my artwork I would like to be able to shed light on these things that happen and show people how ridiculous this shit is. It’s so ridiculous to be profiled knowing that the white guy in front of me, the black guy behind me and the Mexican guy behind him didn’t have to go through what I just went through. It’s obvious that it’s a racist thing, but you are telling me it’s not a race thing. It’s just as ridiculous as a guy from Guantánamo doing the doo-wop behind you while you are being questioned. And that’s the exact reason. We put the doo-wop in the video, because it shows how ridiculous this situation is.
JN: You included several humiliating experiences at airports in your video, which is actually hilarious. Can you go through that process with us?
YA: I leave those situations drained but I almost can’t believe what just happened — that was a joke right? Because they will do all that shit and they’ll ask you ludicrous questions and fingerprint you and pat you down, and go through all your bags and then say, “You’re allowed into the States, no problem.” Initially when it happens, you are really vexed. But later on you realize how silly it was. I wanted to show people in the video that number one, despite all these things we go through, you can’t bring us down. You can’t make us feel like we aren’t anything, because we know what our worth is as human beings, and as a culture. And number two, [the video] is funny to the point of discomfort, like when the Israeli officer comes in the room and says, “Why don’t you tase him already?” and the guard says, “The Palestinian is in the other room bro.” When I premiered it, I’ve seen people laugh, but at the same time [they] experience this almost guilty discomfort for laughing. That’s exactly why we did this, because it’s really not a joke.
Innovation in mainstream rap means new ways to rhyme the same four-letter words, fresh ways to degrade women or the invention of new epithets to use against homosexuals. While so-called “conscious” hip-hop has proliferated in recent years, it often lacks raw emcee skills or production quality. This makes die-hard fans who are also politically progressive cringe and think twice before breaking the cellophane off the latest album.
Such fears are already buried by the time the intro track ends and “Vietnam,” the first song in The Narcicyst’s new self-titled album, begins. When the bass line kicks and the Narcicyst tears into the first verse you might have already forgotten the last dozen tracks you heard on the radio that nearly made you vomit. The horns and violins — which could have been recorded by Miri Ben Ari, hip-hop’s premier violinist — are mixed with a hard-hitting beat that you can’t keep your head from bumping to. The production is reminiscent of a mix between Kanye West and Jedi Mind Tricks’ producer Stoupe the Enemy of Mankind — two of hip-hop’s finest.
Palestinian singer Shadia Mansour’s exquisite voice graces the track “Hamdulilah” (Arabic for “Be Thankful to God, Thank you God”) and The Narcicyst, a.k.a. Yassin Alsalman, lays down smooth rhymes. In the track “P.H.A.T.W.A.” which has an accompanying music video, the Canadian-Iraqi Alsalman is racially profiled, detained and threatened at an airport while entering the United States. Yet he somehow manages to turn the experience into something humorous. It might even make you laugh before realizing that the song could be based on the rapper’s personal experiences (minus the hooded Guantánamo prisoners in orange jumpsuits doing the doo-wop while The Narcicyst gets interrogated). “Iraqi Prime Time News” and the track “Sumeria” with the hook: “My only love is the land of Sumeria/Where my grandma was buried in” gives insight to someone of Iraqi descent being a helpless observer to the destruction of their four thousand year old civilization.
Going farther than his previous releases, the album also tastefully delves into the rapper’s personal life, including the loss of loved ones and even his relationship with his wife. And yes, completely absent from the album are the word “bitch,” threats to homosexuals and promises to wipe out the residents of nearby neighborhoods. A practicing Muslim, Alsalman reveals himself as a peace advocate.
Lyrically, The Narcicyst holds down the entire album, flowing on beat while staying original and keeping his rhymes fresh. The Narcicyst is the rapper’s ninth album. His versatile rhymes match the diverse beats from his eight different producers (including himself). No two tracks sound alike. Some listeners may not appreciate the diversity and leave the album craving more bangers like “Vietnam,” but all will feel they’ve gotten their money’s worth: out of 19 tracks, there are at least a dozen quality songs. Some even remind you why you fell in love with hiphop all those years back.
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
ARTWORK: DAVID HOLLENBACH
Jaisal Noor of The Indypendent recently caught up with Yassin Alsalman to talk about music and politics:
Jaisal Noor: One of the major topics you cover in your music are conflicts in the Middle East. And you also talk about your personal experiences — the animosity that you face on a daily basis as someone of Arab descent. How do you turn that into something positive?
Yassin Alsalman: If I was to get violent, then I would be doing exactly what the system wants me to do and at the same time continuing a long legacy of mistakes on a human level. Hamdidillah, I have never been through war, but I have family members who have. So, the way I stay non-violent is by writing. As much as that doesn’t do that much to change things, it’s the least and the most I can do. As anyone else, if I got punched in the face I would try to punch someone back in the face. But I don’t believe violence is the answer against the system because the system will use that against you in the long run. As the Prophet said, the pen is mightier than the sword.
JN: You have several tracks that deal with the way society looks upon Arabs and people of Middle Eastern descent.
YA: [The story in the] My P.H.A.T.W.A. video really happened. I combined three different trips to the United States for the video. I have been held at borders for three hours and questioned; and they went through my computer and all my stuff and asked me to write down people’s names, why I am doing this, why my mother is a teacher, and why my father is an architect. They strip you of anything that you know and make you paranoid. I haven’t faced the worst of it, but with my artwork I would like to be able to shed light on these things that happen and show people how ridiculous this shit is. It’s so ridiculous to be profiled knowing that the white guy in front of me, the black guy behind me and the Mexican guy behind him didn’t have to go through what I just went through. It’s obvious that it’s a racist thing, but you are telling me it’s not a race thing. It’s just as ridiculous as a guy from Guantánamo doing the doo-wop behind you while you are being questioned. And that’s the exact reason. We put the doo-wop in the video, because it shows how ridiculous this situation is.
JN: You included several humiliating experiences at airports in your video, which is actually hilarious. Can you go through that process with us?
YA: I leave those situations drained but I almost can’t believe what just happened — that was a joke right? Because they will do all that shit and they’ll ask you ludicrous questions and fingerprint you and pat you down, and go through all your bags and then say, “You’re allowed into the States, no problem.” Initially when it happens, you are really vexed. But later on you realize how silly it was. I wanted to show people in the video that number one, despite all these things we go through, you can’t bring us down. You can’t make us feel like we aren’t anything, because we know what our worth is as human beings, and as a culture. And number two, [the video] is funny to the point of discomfort, like when the Israeli officer comes in the room and says, “Why don’t you tase him already?” and the guard says, “The Palestinian is in the other room bro.” When I premiered it, I’ve seen people laugh, but at the same time [they] experience this almost guilty discomfort for laughing. That’s exactly why we did this, because it’s really not a joke.
Reclaiming Einstein: New Book Reveals Famed Scientist as an Opponent of Israel
By Jaisal Noor
Einstein on Zionism and Israel: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East
By Fred Jerome
St. Martin’s Press, May 2009
Countless books and articles have been written about the life of the great physicist and thinker Albert Einstein, and since his death in 1955, a near consensus has existed that Einstein was a staunch supporter of the state of Israel.
Veteran journalist Fred Jerome uses hundreds of pages of Einstein’s own letters, articles and interviews — many published for the first time — to refute this thesis.
It is well known that Einstein, a German Jew, witnessed European anti-Semitism firsthand and spoke out against both prejudice and Nazism. These experiences convinced Einstein to support Zionism and a Jewish homeland. After gaining immense fame for his scientific breakthroughs, he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 after the death of the country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann.
In reality, while Einstein was sympathetic to the Zionist cause, he repeatedly warned that a “narrow nationalism” may arise if a Jewish-only state was founded and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians was not achieved. Instead, Einstein advocated Cultural Zionism — the creation of Jewish cultural and educational centers within a bi-national state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jews.
When Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion stated, “I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.” In a letter written in the same year, Einstein compared the Zionists’ project with that of the Pilgrims, noting, “how tyrannical, intolerant and aggressive [they] became after a short while.” And in Einstein’s last media interview, which ran in the New York Post a month before his death, he stated “We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better.”
Jerome has authored two previous books about Einstein; The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist and Einstein on Race and Racism, co-authored with Rodger Taylor. These books are essential to understanding Einstein, a self-described “revolutionary,” who publicly stated that he would use his fame and celebrity status to bring attention to the causes important to him. For example, Einstein on Race and Racism details for the first time Einstein’s 20-year friendship with Paul Robeson. While the first two books were aimed at filling a large gap in the knowledge about Einstein’s radical beliefs and political activism, Einstein on Zionism and Israel seeks to debunk the myth that Einstein was a supporter of Israel.
In the process, Jerome reveals much about the nature of mainstream propaganda. Einstein’s opposition to Israel was widely known and reported on during his life. In fact, the myth of Einstein’s support of Israel was born the day after Einstein’s death in his obituary in The New York Times, which shamelessly wrote that he “championed” the establishment of the Jewish state. This contradicted decades of reporting from the “Paper of Record.” Jerome provides some examples, including a 1930 article headlined “Einstein attacks British Zion Policy,” a 1938 article stating Einstein was “Against Palestine State” and a 1946 article stating Einstein “Bars Jewish State.”
The book ends with a quote from author and intellectual Gore Vidal, “The only question that really matters: Why?” Jerome follows with, “Why have we not known?”
The New York Society of Ethical Culture will host a reception to celebrate the release of Einstein on Zionism and Israel May 28, 6:30 p.m. 2 West 64th Street in Manhattan. The event is free.
The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor sat down with author Fred Jerome to discuss why Albert Einstein is remembered for his physics and not his politics.
Jaisal Noor: Why did you decide to write this book on Einstein and his views on Israel and Zionism?
Fred Jerome: When Einstein met Paul Robeson in 1952, Einstein had just turned down the offer to be president of Israel. According to Lloyd Brown [who was present at that meeting] Einstein told Robeson why he had turned down the invitation: He didn’t agree with Israel, with the nationalism, the establishment of the state of Israel, and so on. In both my previous books, there was a brief discussion about Israel. In addition, it is so clearly one of the central issues of today’s world. We cannot ignore this issue and pretend to be concerned about the world or people in the world. It seemed logical to me that if I was going to be concerned about what was happening in Israel, particularly the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians … it would be a logical step to write more on what Einstein had to say. I contacted the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem, and they actually thought it would be a good idea and encouraged me and said that they could provide information that probably had never been published before.
JN: You started with the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem — where else did you go?
FJ: Einstein gave all his papers to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem because he actually helped to found the Hebrew University. As a Cultural Zionist, he was in favor of cultural centers, like universities, but opposed to a Jewish state or nation. I also tried to talk to as many people as possible who talked to Einstein, knew Einstein, who remember Einstein. The most important was [eminent Egyptian journalist] Mohammed Heikel in Cairo. I included this interview, which was certainly never mentioned in any of the more than 100 books on Einstein.
JN: Could you describe the reaction the press had to your previous works on Einstein and the reaction you expect from this one?
FJ: The press’s reaction to the first book, The Einstein File [2002], was one of very significant interest, maybe because J. Edgar Hoover had fallen out of favor with the media in the past 20 years. And so you have a bad guy versus a good guy, Einstein being the good guy. He had just been named Person of the Century by Time Magazine in the year 2000 when I was working on the first book, and I had come up with this file that no one else had — the entire file. So it was a combination of new information and kind of a sexy theme. Then The New York Times devoted a full page of its science section when the book first came out — that helped get the book covered by lots of other media outlets.
When the book Einstein on Race and Racism [2006] came out, there was virtually no coverage in the mainstream media. There was some coverage in the Black press, including the Amsterdam News, some of the websites and so on. Publisher’s Weekly did a review in which they said that it was a good book, was well written, well researched, no complaints, no criticisms. Einstein was a race man, but so what? Six months after the book came out The New York Times finally did do a review of the book, a very favorable review of the book, and published it only in the New Jersey edition, which has very few readers compared to their other editions.
So the contrast was striking. I think primarily because the mainstream media in America really don’t want to write about racism in America and certainly don’t want to identify Einstein with an anti racist position. The other reason the media have ignored this book is that part of the book is Einstein’s friendship with Paul Robeson and while they finally did put Paul Robeson on a postage stamp, after much struggle and protest, clearly the mainstream media and the corporate interests they represent are still afraid of Paul Robeson’s leftism, his socialism, activism, the resistance to them he represented. Outside of the mainstream media it has gotten a very positive reaction. [Co-author] Rodger Taylor and I are still getting invited to speak, five years after the book was published, by students and other groups around the country. But the media reaction was clearly “don’t touch it.”
And my anticipation for this book is that most of the mainstream media will have the same reaction to this book, because I think that their attitude on Israel-Palestine for the most part is well over 150 percent support for Washington’s total backing of the Israeli government. They have been saying in the mainstream media that Einstein was a big supporter of Israel, and they have been saying that since the day he died, over 60 years ago. They never said it while he was alive.
Einstein on Zionism and Israel: His Provocative Ideas About the Middle East
By Fred Jerome
St. Martin’s Press, May 2009
Countless books and articles have been written about the life of the great physicist and thinker Albert Einstein, and since his death in 1955, a near consensus has existed that Einstein was a staunch supporter of the state of Israel.
Veteran journalist Fred Jerome uses hundreds of pages of Einstein’s own letters, articles and interviews — many published for the first time — to refute this thesis.
It is well known that Einstein, a German Jew, witnessed European anti-Semitism firsthand and spoke out against both prejudice and Nazism. These experiences convinced Einstein to support Zionism and a Jewish homeland. After gaining immense fame for his scientific breakthroughs, he was offered the presidency of Israel in 1952 after the death of the country’s first president, Chaim Weizmann.
In reality, while Einstein was sympathetic to the Zionist cause, he repeatedly warned that a “narrow nationalism” may arise if a Jewish-only state was founded and peaceful co-existence with the Palestinians was not achieved. Instead, Einstein advocated Cultural Zionism — the creation of Jewish cultural and educational centers within a bi-national state with equal rights for both Arabs and Jews.
When Einstein was offered the Israeli presidency, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion stated, “I’ve had to offer him the post because it was impossible not to, but if he accepts we are in for trouble.” In a letter written in the same year, Einstein compared the Zionists’ project with that of the Pilgrims, noting, “how tyrannical, intolerant and aggressive [they] became after a short while.” And in Einstein’s last media interview, which ran in the New York Post a month before his death, he stated “We had great hopes for Israel at first. We thought it might be better than other nations, but it is no better.”
Jerome has authored two previous books about Einstein; The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist and Einstein on Race and Racism, co-authored with Rodger Taylor. These books are essential to understanding Einstein, a self-described “revolutionary,” who publicly stated that he would use his fame and celebrity status to bring attention to the causes important to him. For example, Einstein on Race and Racism details for the first time Einstein’s 20-year friendship with Paul Robeson. While the first two books were aimed at filling a large gap in the knowledge about Einstein’s radical beliefs and political activism, Einstein on Zionism and Israel seeks to debunk the myth that Einstein was a supporter of Israel.
In the process, Jerome reveals much about the nature of mainstream propaganda. Einstein’s opposition to Israel was widely known and reported on during his life. In fact, the myth of Einstein’s support of Israel was born the day after Einstein’s death in his obituary in The New York Times, which shamelessly wrote that he “championed” the establishment of the Jewish state. This contradicted decades of reporting from the “Paper of Record.” Jerome provides some examples, including a 1930 article headlined “Einstein attacks British Zion Policy,” a 1938 article stating Einstein was “Against Palestine State” and a 1946 article stating Einstein “Bars Jewish State.”
The book ends with a quote from author and intellectual Gore Vidal, “The only question that really matters: Why?” Jerome follows with, “Why have we not known?”
The New York Society of Ethical Culture will host a reception to celebrate the release of Einstein on Zionism and Israel May 28, 6:30 p.m. 2 West 64th Street in Manhattan. The event is free.
The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor sat down with author Fred Jerome to discuss why Albert Einstein is remembered for his physics and not his politics.
Jaisal Noor: Why did you decide to write this book on Einstein and his views on Israel and Zionism?
Fred Jerome: When Einstein met Paul Robeson in 1952, Einstein had just turned down the offer to be president of Israel. According to Lloyd Brown [who was present at that meeting] Einstein told Robeson why he had turned down the invitation: He didn’t agree with Israel, with the nationalism, the establishment of the state of Israel, and so on. In both my previous books, there was a brief discussion about Israel. In addition, it is so clearly one of the central issues of today’s world. We cannot ignore this issue and pretend to be concerned about the world or people in the world. It seemed logical to me that if I was going to be concerned about what was happening in Israel, particularly the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians … it would be a logical step to write more on what Einstein had to say. I contacted the Einstein Archives in Jerusalem, and they actually thought it would be a good idea and encouraged me and said that they could provide information that probably had never been published before.
JN: You started with the Einstein Archive in Jerusalem — where else did you go?
FJ: Einstein gave all his papers to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem because he actually helped to found the Hebrew University. As a Cultural Zionist, he was in favor of cultural centers, like universities, but opposed to a Jewish state or nation. I also tried to talk to as many people as possible who talked to Einstein, knew Einstein, who remember Einstein. The most important was [eminent Egyptian journalist] Mohammed Heikel in Cairo. I included this interview, which was certainly never mentioned in any of the more than 100 books on Einstein.
JN: Could you describe the reaction the press had to your previous works on Einstein and the reaction you expect from this one?
FJ: The press’s reaction to the first book, The Einstein File [2002], was one of very significant interest, maybe because J. Edgar Hoover had fallen out of favor with the media in the past 20 years. And so you have a bad guy versus a good guy, Einstein being the good guy. He had just been named Person of the Century by Time Magazine in the year 2000 when I was working on the first book, and I had come up with this file that no one else had — the entire file. So it was a combination of new information and kind of a sexy theme. Then The New York Times devoted a full page of its science section when the book first came out — that helped get the book covered by lots of other media outlets.
When the book Einstein on Race and Racism [2006] came out, there was virtually no coverage in the mainstream media. There was some coverage in the Black press, including the Amsterdam News, some of the websites and so on. Publisher’s Weekly did a review in which they said that it was a good book, was well written, well researched, no complaints, no criticisms. Einstein was a race man, but so what? Six months after the book came out The New York Times finally did do a review of the book, a very favorable review of the book, and published it only in the New Jersey edition, which has very few readers compared to their other editions.
So the contrast was striking. I think primarily because the mainstream media in America really don’t want to write about racism in America and certainly don’t want to identify Einstein with an anti racist position. The other reason the media have ignored this book is that part of the book is Einstein’s friendship with Paul Robeson and while they finally did put Paul Robeson on a postage stamp, after much struggle and protest, clearly the mainstream media and the corporate interests they represent are still afraid of Paul Robeson’s leftism, his socialism, activism, the resistance to them he represented. Outside of the mainstream media it has gotten a very positive reaction. [Co-author] Rodger Taylor and I are still getting invited to speak, five years after the book was published, by students and other groups around the country. But the media reaction was clearly “don’t touch it.”
And my anticipation for this book is that most of the mainstream media will have the same reaction to this book, because I think that their attitude on Israel-Palestine for the most part is well over 150 percent support for Washington’s total backing of the Israeli government. They have been saying in the mainstream media that Einstein was a big supporter of Israel, and they have been saying that since the day he died, over 60 years ago. They never said it while he was alive.
An Interview with George Galloway
By Jaisal Noor
The Indypendent recently caught up with British Parliamentarian and anti-war leader George Galloway who recently lead an aid convoy to the devastated Gaza strip and was subsequently prevented from entering Canada who accused him of providing financial support to Hamas
Q: What is your reaction to the swearing in of the new right-wing Israeli government on March 31?
A: After all, they had the option of re-electing the brutal killers of Gaza. But, they chose even more brutal, even more desperate killers in Netanyahu and Lieberman. And this poses a big question for the rest of us. Are we going to continue, absurdly, to treat the breakers of international law, the occupiers in defiance of international law, the people who are regularly launching brutal assaults, and very effective brutal assaults that kill, maim, orphan thousands, are we going to continue to give them the money, the weapons and diplomatic and political support to do that, while boycotting their victims. This is adding insult to injury. The people who are the victims of this are the ones who are called the terrorists, and the people who are perpetrating it are called the victim of terrorism.
So, I believe the rest of us have to say, we can no longer continue to fund, arm and support, for what 42 years now has been an illegal occupation, and we intend to hold Israel to the same standards that we would require of any other member of the international community, and if they don’t live up to them, they’ll have to be sanctioned, and boycotted, and divested from and shunned, as Apartheid South Africa was shunned. Instead of shunning their victims, we have to start shunning the perpetrators.
Q: The right wing gained popularity in the lead up to the election the Israeli offensive in Gaza did not go far enough. Netanyahu has called for the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza. What is your response?
A: As it happens, I am not a supporter of Hamas, but I am a supporter of democracy. And no body has the right to choose who speaks for the Palestinians except the Palestinians themselves. And has been established many many times, by such failed enterprises as the invasion of Lebanon two years ago, the attack on Gaza over Christmas/New Year, there is no military force that can uproot and destroy the resistance, because the resistance is the people themselves. You can kill a hundred, five hundred, five thousand, but they have sons, and brothers, and neighbors and friends, and this will keep coming back stronger and stronger, and all you are doing by creating more martyrs is creating more revenge.
Q: Recent report in Haaretz leaked database, leaked by Israeli group Peace Now, last year they had saw the greatest escalation of and creation of settlements on Palestinian land. That was under the ‘moderate-centrist’ Kadima part. Now what do you expect to see from the right wing coalition that has taken power?
A: First I have to challenge the characterization of as Kadima moderate or centrist. This is one of the things that bedevils this whole affair. Every time Israel moves right, we are invited to consider the previous the right the center and this march has lead all the way to Lieberman. The two-state solution envisioned in the Oslo agreement, which I supported as a supporter of the line of President Arafat, is dead. As a result of the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, the building of the apartheid wall, the growth of the settlements, the massacre of Gaza, and the absolute determination of at least 90% of Israelis never to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. So, I have a better idea. lets fight for a single, democratic and secular state, from the river to the sea, where all the Jews, where all the Muslims and all the Christians can live as equals before the law, with one man, one woman, one vote.
Q: Your response to the Canadian government turning you away from the border?
A: Its backfired you know. Its been a far bigger audience and a far greater interest for what I have to say as a result of this foolish ban. I don’t know why they did it. They did it at the behest of something called the Jewish Defense league, which certainly doesn’t speak for Jews and doesn’t have much to do with defense, which is regarded by the FBI here in the US as a dangerous groups of thugs. I don’t think the Canadian people want to be lead by such people. They pleased their friends in Likud with this ban, but they angered their own people left and right, whether they agreed with me or not. And it backfired. I am confident I will be back in Canada, but meanwhile I will be speaking to them via the internet. The idea that a 23- year member of British Parliament, who has toured Canada many times before, who is currently touring the United States of America, is a terrorist or a security risk, is simply laughable. And what they mean is that I took ambulances and medicine to Gaza, and gave it to the local authorities there. Well, you call that terrorism, you really are bankrupting the whole idea, you are leaving the word with no meaning, and that dangerous as well as foolish.
The Indypendent recently caught up with British Parliamentarian and anti-war leader George Galloway who recently lead an aid convoy to the devastated Gaza strip and was subsequently prevented from entering Canada who accused him of providing financial support to Hamas
Q: What is your reaction to the swearing in of the new right-wing Israeli government on March 31?
A: After all, they had the option of re-electing the brutal killers of Gaza. But, they chose even more brutal, even more desperate killers in Netanyahu and Lieberman. And this poses a big question for the rest of us. Are we going to continue, absurdly, to treat the breakers of international law, the occupiers in defiance of international law, the people who are regularly launching brutal assaults, and very effective brutal assaults that kill, maim, orphan thousands, are we going to continue to give them the money, the weapons and diplomatic and political support to do that, while boycotting their victims. This is adding insult to injury. The people who are the victims of this are the ones who are called the terrorists, and the people who are perpetrating it are called the victim of terrorism.
So, I believe the rest of us have to say, we can no longer continue to fund, arm and support, for what 42 years now has been an illegal occupation, and we intend to hold Israel to the same standards that we would require of any other member of the international community, and if they don’t live up to them, they’ll have to be sanctioned, and boycotted, and divested from and shunned, as Apartheid South Africa was shunned. Instead of shunning their victims, we have to start shunning the perpetrators.
Q: The right wing gained popularity in the lead up to the election the Israeli offensive in Gaza did not go far enough. Netanyahu has called for the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza. What is your response?
A: As it happens, I am not a supporter of Hamas, but I am a supporter of democracy. And no body has the right to choose who speaks for the Palestinians except the Palestinians themselves. And has been established many many times, by such failed enterprises as the invasion of Lebanon two years ago, the attack on Gaza over Christmas/New Year, there is no military force that can uproot and destroy the resistance, because the resistance is the people themselves. You can kill a hundred, five hundred, five thousand, but they have sons, and brothers, and neighbors and friends, and this will keep coming back stronger and stronger, and all you are doing by creating more martyrs is creating more revenge.
Q: Recent report in Haaretz leaked database, leaked by Israeli group Peace Now, last year they had saw the greatest escalation of and creation of settlements on Palestinian land. That was under the ‘moderate-centrist’ Kadima part. Now what do you expect to see from the right wing coalition that has taken power?
A: First I have to challenge the characterization of as Kadima moderate or centrist. This is one of the things that bedevils this whole affair. Every time Israel moves right, we are invited to consider the previous the right the center and this march has lead all the way to Lieberman. The two-state solution envisioned in the Oslo agreement, which I supported as a supporter of the line of President Arafat, is dead. As a result of the ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem, the building of the apartheid wall, the growth of the settlements, the massacre of Gaza, and the absolute determination of at least 90% of Israelis never to allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. So, I have a better idea. lets fight for a single, democratic and secular state, from the river to the sea, where all the Jews, where all the Muslims and all the Christians can live as equals before the law, with one man, one woman, one vote.
Q: Your response to the Canadian government turning you away from the border?
A: Its backfired you know. Its been a far bigger audience and a far greater interest for what I have to say as a result of this foolish ban. I don’t know why they did it. They did it at the behest of something called the Jewish Defense league, which certainly doesn’t speak for Jews and doesn’t have much to do with defense, which is regarded by the FBI here in the US as a dangerous groups of thugs. I don’t think the Canadian people want to be lead by such people. They pleased their friends in Likud with this ban, but they angered their own people left and right, whether they agreed with me or not. And it backfired. I am confident I will be back in Canada, but meanwhile I will be speaking to them via the internet. The idea that a 23- year member of British Parliament, who has toured Canada many times before, who is currently touring the United States of America, is a terrorist or a security risk, is simply laughable. And what they mean is that I took ambulances and medicine to Gaza, and gave it to the local authorities there. Well, you call that terrorism, you really are bankrupting the whole idea, you are leaving the word with no meaning, and that dangerous as well as foolish.
A Glimpse From the Belly of the Beast: A Review of Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Latest Book
By Jaisal Noor
Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners V. the USA
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
City Lights, 2009
In Mumia Abu-Jamal’s latest book, the award-winning journalist, former Black Panther and current death row inmate introduces us to the world of jailhouse lawyers — inmates who, despite lacking formal legal education and sometimes even basic literacy at first, mount legal defenses for themselves and other prisoners. The need for jailhouse lawyers arises from a criminal justice system whose scales of justice have always been tipped against defendants from disenfranchised classes and especially African Americans.
Frustrated by inept court-appointed attorneys, many prisoners took it upon themselves to redress mistreatment in prison and even mount appeal cases; their work has led to the reform of statewide policies and has sometimes meant the difference between life and death.
Abu-Jamal has spent the last three decades behind bars — much of it on death row — and the book is largely based on his experiences helping other inmates. His legal work has earned him the recognition of the National Lawyers Guild, for whom he serves as a vice president of it’s co-jailhouse lawyer committee.
But the heart of the book is the stories Abu-Jamal tells of jailhouse lawyers who fought for creating legal protection for those engaged in the field. Legally-sanctioned punishment for jailhouse lawyering formally ended with the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Johnson V. Avery. However, those engaged in the field continue to be targeted for their work. A 1991 study revealed that jailhouse lawyers were more likely to be reprimanded than any other prison population.
Bill Clinton’s 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which sought to stop frivolous lawsuits against prisons, rolled back many of the protections that jailhouse lawyers and inmates had won over previous decades — the book makes a powerful case for its repeal. “Is it surprising,” Abu-Jamal asks, “that a nation that began its existence with Slave Codes, then continued for a century with an equally repressive set of Black Codes, would institute … Prison Codes? Such is the stuff American law is made of today.”
While much of the world was appalled by the revelations of torture and prisoner abuse at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, those aware of the conditions inside U.S. prisons were not. The same tactics and abuses have long been carried out domestically, largely against African Americans and Latinos. Were Gitmo-level abuses exposed within a U.S. prison, explains Abu-Jamal, the PLRA would prevent the victim from seeking damages.
Abu-Jamal has long helped galvanize millions worldwide to not only protest the U.S. death penalty, but also rally against the prison-industrial complex. His latest work makes an invaluable contribution towards understanding those resisting it from behind bars; this book offers a rare glimpse into the hidden world and history of jailhouse lawyers.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection April 6 of Abu-Jamal’s appeal for a new trial, he continues to fight for his freedom. This would not have been possible without the support of millions worldwide. He reminds the reader of the more than two million Americans behind bars in similar situations to himself, and that those in the free world have a responsibility to those trapped “in the bowels of the slave ship, in the hidden dank dungeons of America.”
Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners V. the USA
By Mumia Abu-Jamal
City Lights, 2009
In Mumia Abu-Jamal’s latest book, the award-winning journalist, former Black Panther and current death row inmate introduces us to the world of jailhouse lawyers — inmates who, despite lacking formal legal education and sometimes even basic literacy at first, mount legal defenses for themselves and other prisoners. The need for jailhouse lawyers arises from a criminal justice system whose scales of justice have always been tipped against defendants from disenfranchised classes and especially African Americans.
Frustrated by inept court-appointed attorneys, many prisoners took it upon themselves to redress mistreatment in prison and even mount appeal cases; their work has led to the reform of statewide policies and has sometimes meant the difference between life and death.
Abu-Jamal has spent the last three decades behind bars — much of it on death row — and the book is largely based on his experiences helping other inmates. His legal work has earned him the recognition of the National Lawyers Guild, for whom he serves as a vice president of it’s co-jailhouse lawyer committee.
But the heart of the book is the stories Abu-Jamal tells of jailhouse lawyers who fought for creating legal protection for those engaged in the field. Legally-sanctioned punishment for jailhouse lawyering formally ended with the 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision Johnson V. Avery. However, those engaged in the field continue to be targeted for their work. A 1991 study revealed that jailhouse lawyers were more likely to be reprimanded than any other prison population.
Bill Clinton’s 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which sought to stop frivolous lawsuits against prisons, rolled back many of the protections that jailhouse lawyers and inmates had won over previous decades — the book makes a powerful case for its repeal. “Is it surprising,” Abu-Jamal asks, “that a nation that began its existence with Slave Codes, then continued for a century with an equally repressive set of Black Codes, would institute … Prison Codes? Such is the stuff American law is made of today.”
While much of the world was appalled by the revelations of torture and prisoner abuse at Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, those aware of the conditions inside U.S. prisons were not. The same tactics and abuses have long been carried out domestically, largely against African Americans and Latinos. Were Gitmo-level abuses exposed within a U.S. prison, explains Abu-Jamal, the PLRA would prevent the victim from seeking damages.
Abu-Jamal has long helped galvanize millions worldwide to not only protest the U.S. death penalty, but also rally against the prison-industrial complex. His latest work makes an invaluable contribution towards understanding those resisting it from behind bars; this book offers a rare glimpse into the hidden world and history of jailhouse lawyers.
Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection April 6 of Abu-Jamal’s appeal for a new trial, he continues to fight for his freedom. This would not have been possible without the support of millions worldwide. He reminds the reader of the more than two million Americans behind bars in similar situations to himself, and that those in the free world have a responsibility to those trapped “in the bowels of the slave ship, in the hidden dank dungeons of America.”
Carrying the White Man’s Burden: Obama Pulls U.S. Out of U.N. World Conference against Racism
By Jaisal Noor
After taking part in preparatory discussions, the Obama administration announced on Feb. 27 that it would boycott the U.N. World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20-24.
Also not participating are Canada, Italy and Israel, all close U.S. allies. Nonetheless, delegates from many nations are scheduled to meet in Geneva as a followup to the first conference, Durban I, held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.
The State Department said the United States was withdrawing because it objected to language affirming the Durban I conference call for reparations for slavery. The Department also stated that the conference “must not single out any one country or conflict.”
This statement is widely seen as referring to Israel. In 2001, the official U.S. delegation walked out of Durban I after a draft declaration included language referring to “ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine” and described Zionism as being “based on racial superiority.”
A revised draft was released on March 17 that removed references to Israel but as The Indypendent went to press the White House had not changed its position.
Lobbying against U.S. participation were pro-Israel groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which said, “President Obama’s decision not to send U.S. representation to the April event is the right thing to do and underscores America’s unstinting commitment to combating intolerance and racism in all its forms and in all settings.”
Many observers were critical of the U.S. withdrawal, however. Jared Ball, who sought the Green Party presidential nomination in 2008, told The Indypendent that the White House’s refusal to participate “is another in a series of acts which demonstrate [Obama is] an appointee of the most elite elements of this nation to re-brand a weakening U.S. empire.”
Nora Barrows-Friedman, co-host of Flashpoints on Pacifica radio, commented, “It is not surprising that the Obama administration is taking steps to distance itself from criticism at the Durban conference.” She said the U.S. withdrawal is a reaction to the “growing global outrage in civil society against both the United States’ entrenchment of its lethal occupations and wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s expanding projects of occupation and genocidal actions in Palestine.”
Barrows-Friedman added, “Israel’s systematic racism against the indigenous, occupied and dispossessed people of Palestine continues to have the full support of the U.S. government.”
Over the last four decades, the United States has vetoed scores of U.N. resolutions regarding Israel, and Israel is currently in violation of at least 28 Security Council resolutions.
Recently, the president of the Israeli Association for Civil Rights said, “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” and last year the group reported that Israel’s occupation is “reminiscent of the apartheid regime in South Africa.”
Ball argues that even with a Black president, the United States is unable to come to terms with the legacy of slavery, colonialism or modern-day racism. Obama’s boycott, he said, “is further evidence of the fact of his blackness having nothing to do with his politics and less to do with his ability to articulate, defend or advance the causes and struggles of African-descended people here or abroad.”
The U.S. withdrawal is of significant concern because it is happening at a time when there is “exponential growth in hate crimes, ethnic tensions and other manifestations of … racism,” according to journalist and analyst Roberto Lovato.
Within the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups “continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000 — an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama.” The center also reports “a 40 percent growth in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2007.”
Another concern is racism within the U.S. prison system. One in every 31 adults, or 7.3 million people, are now in the US corrections system, and a disproportionate number are Latino and African-American. In a recent study titled “Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States,” Human Rights Watch documented the “structural racism” of the prison-industrial complex.
Ball asserts that because a “pro-Israeli lobby” was able to “influence a Black president out of a global conference against racism and out of an international discussion of reparations for enslavement … only wide-ranging and well-organized social movements can produce the ‘change we can believe in,’ not marketing campaigns and well-crafted speeches.”
After taking part in preparatory discussions, the Obama administration announced on Feb. 27 that it would boycott the U.N. World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, April 20-24.
Also not participating are Canada, Italy and Israel, all close U.S. allies. Nonetheless, delegates from many nations are scheduled to meet in Geneva as a followup to the first conference, Durban I, held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001.
The State Department said the United States was withdrawing because it objected to language affirming the Durban I conference call for reparations for slavery. The Department also stated that the conference “must not single out any one country or conflict.”
This statement is widely seen as referring to Israel. In 2001, the official U.S. delegation walked out of Durban I after a draft declaration included language referring to “ethnic cleansing of the Arab population in historic Palestine” and described Zionism as being “based on racial superiority.”
A revised draft was released on March 17 that removed references to Israel but as The Indypendent went to press the White House had not changed its position.
Lobbying against U.S. participation were pro-Israel groups, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which said, “President Obama’s decision not to send U.S. representation to the April event is the right thing to do and underscores America’s unstinting commitment to combating intolerance and racism in all its forms and in all settings.”
Many observers were critical of the U.S. withdrawal, however. Jared Ball, who sought the Green Party presidential nomination in 2008, told The Indypendent that the White House’s refusal to participate “is another in a series of acts which demonstrate [Obama is] an appointee of the most elite elements of this nation to re-brand a weakening U.S. empire.”
Nora Barrows-Friedman, co-host of Flashpoints on Pacifica radio, commented, “It is not surprising that the Obama administration is taking steps to distance itself from criticism at the Durban conference.” She said the U.S. withdrawal is a reaction to the “growing global outrage in civil society against both the United States’ entrenchment of its lethal occupations and wars against Iraq and Afghanistan and Israel’s expanding projects of occupation and genocidal actions in Palestine.”
Barrows-Friedman added, “Israel’s systematic racism against the indigenous, occupied and dispossessed people of Palestine continues to have the full support of the U.S. government.”
Over the last four decades, the United States has vetoed scores of U.N. resolutions regarding Israel, and Israel is currently in violation of at least 28 Security Council resolutions.
Recently, the president of the Israeli Association for Civil Rights said, “Israeli society is reaching new heights of racism that damages freedom of expression and privacy,” and last year the group reported that Israel’s occupation is “reminiscent of the apartheid regime in South Africa.”
Ball argues that even with a Black president, the United States is unable to come to terms with the legacy of slavery, colonialism or modern-day racism. Obama’s boycott, he said, “is further evidence of the fact of his blackness having nothing to do with his politics and less to do with his ability to articulate, defend or advance the causes and struggles of African-descended people here or abroad.”
The U.S. withdrawal is of significant concern because it is happening at a time when there is “exponential growth in hate crimes, ethnic tensions and other manifestations of … racism,” according to journalist and analyst Roberto Lovato.
Within the United States, the Southern Poverty Law Center reports that the number of hate groups “continued to rise in 2008 and has grown by 54 percent since 2000 — an increase fueled last year by immigration fears, a failing economy and the successful campaign of Barack Obama.” The center also reports “a 40 percent growth in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2007.”
Another concern is racism within the U.S. prison system. One in every 31 adults, or 7.3 million people, are now in the US corrections system, and a disproportionate number are Latino and African-American. In a recent study titled “Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States,” Human Rights Watch documented the “structural racism” of the prison-industrial complex.
Ball asserts that because a “pro-Israeli lobby” was able to “influence a Black president out of a global conference against racism and out of an international discussion of reparations for enslavement … only wide-ranging and well-organized social movements can produce the ‘change we can believe in,’ not marketing campaigns and well-crafted speeches.”
NYPD’s Racist Tactics Exposed
By Jaisal Noor
Ten years after the shooting of Amadou Diallo and subsequent public outcry against racial profiling, the New York Police Department continues to disproportionately target blacks and Latinos.
According to the New York Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) report, the NYPD stopped 543,982 individuals in 2008, more than 80 percent of whom were black or Latino.
Whites, who make up 44 percent of the city’s population, made up only 10 percent of those stopped and questioned.
In the last year of the Mayor Rudolph Giuliani administration, police stopped 86,705 individuals in 2001. The 2008 total represents a 71,886-stop increase from the 2007 total of 472,096 stops and is 15 percent higher than the 2005 to 2007 average of 459,000 stops per year.
The report notes the disparity in frisking after stops: Between 2005 and June 2008, only 8 percent of whites stopped were also frisked, while 85 percent of blacks and Latinos who were stopped were also frisked.
The number of stops is on the rise despite the police’s own data that show that almost 90 percent of those stopped over the past three years were never charged with a crime. Only 2 percent of stops resulted in recovery of weapons or contraband. Furthermore, according to the CCR, “Police stops-and-frisks without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment, and racial profiling is a violation of fundamental rights and protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
While the NYPD continues to deny allegations of profiling based on race, City Council member Charles Barron (D-East New York) told The Indypendent that the data “validates what activists have been saying now for decades: the police are out of control. This report is an important tool to make the case that the police … freely profile, harass and brutalize people. This is real, its not race-baiting that activists are making up.”
TEN YEARS AFTER THE DIALLO KILLING
The Feb. 4, 1999, shooting of Diallo — an unarmed West African immigrant who was killed outside his Bronx home in a barrage of 41 bullets fired by four undercover police officers — galvanized a wave of protests against police brutality of the Giuliani administration. More than 1,700 people, including many of the city’s elected black and Latino officials, were arrested for engaging in acts of civil disobedience.
A subsequent federal investigation concluded the NYPD’s Street Crimes Unit engaged in racial profiling. Public pressure forced the city to officially ban the practice. As part of a case filed by the CCR in response to the Diallo killing, the NYPD was required to keep stop-and-frisk data.
A new lawsuit, Floyd v. The City of New York, was filed in January 2008, and in September a federal judge ordered the police to release all of the past 10 years worth of stop-and-frisk data.
“The vast majority of stops are police initiated,” said CCR Staff Attorney Darius Charney. “Police are in certain neighborhoods and on their own initiative they decide to stop someone.” Charney also said that police data shows the least common reason for an NYPD stop was encountering an individual who fit a description of a suspect.
While Charney states that he doesn’t “want to assume bad intentions on the part of the police,” he argues that, “whatever the motivation, profiling is simply not an effective crime fighting strategy. And its continued use is building a lot of distrust in between police and community.”
Barron believes that the latest stop-and-frisk revelations highlight Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failings as a city leader.
“Bloomberg has a protectionist policy,” Barron said. “It allows his commissioner to violate the law without reprimanding him or changing policies. The police have set up ‘impact zones’ and Bloomberg has allowed for police containment and harassment instead of job creation or economic development. He chooses to build more prisons and increase police presence while denying economic job creation — 40 to 50 percent of black men in New York City are unemployed.”
The CCR report recommends the NYPD enforce existing reporting requirements and that the city expand the power and the scope of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which currently investigates complaints of police misconduct, but has no enforcement powers.
For the full CCR report, see ccrjustice.org/criminal-justiceand-mass-incarceration.
Ten years after the shooting of Amadou Diallo and subsequent public outcry against racial profiling, the New York Police Department continues to disproportionately target blacks and Latinos.
According to the New York Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) report, the NYPD stopped 543,982 individuals in 2008, more than 80 percent of whom were black or Latino.
Whites, who make up 44 percent of the city’s population, made up only 10 percent of those stopped and questioned.
In the last year of the Mayor Rudolph Giuliani administration, police stopped 86,705 individuals in 2001. The 2008 total represents a 71,886-stop increase from the 2007 total of 472,096 stops and is 15 percent higher than the 2005 to 2007 average of 459,000 stops per year.
The report notes the disparity in frisking after stops: Between 2005 and June 2008, only 8 percent of whites stopped were also frisked, while 85 percent of blacks and Latinos who were stopped were also frisked.
The number of stops is on the rise despite the police’s own data that show that almost 90 percent of those stopped over the past three years were never charged with a crime. Only 2 percent of stops resulted in recovery of weapons or contraband. Furthermore, according to the CCR, “Police stops-and-frisks without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment, and racial profiling is a violation of fundamental rights and protections of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
While the NYPD continues to deny allegations of profiling based on race, City Council member Charles Barron (D-East New York) told The Indypendent that the data “validates what activists have been saying now for decades: the police are out of control. This report is an important tool to make the case that the police … freely profile, harass and brutalize people. This is real, its not race-baiting that activists are making up.”
TEN YEARS AFTER THE DIALLO KILLING
The Feb. 4, 1999, shooting of Diallo — an unarmed West African immigrant who was killed outside his Bronx home in a barrage of 41 bullets fired by four undercover police officers — galvanized a wave of protests against police brutality of the Giuliani administration. More than 1,700 people, including many of the city’s elected black and Latino officials, were arrested for engaging in acts of civil disobedience.
A subsequent federal investigation concluded the NYPD’s Street Crimes Unit engaged in racial profiling. Public pressure forced the city to officially ban the practice. As part of a case filed by the CCR in response to the Diallo killing, the NYPD was required to keep stop-and-frisk data.
A new lawsuit, Floyd v. The City of New York, was filed in January 2008, and in September a federal judge ordered the police to release all of the past 10 years worth of stop-and-frisk data.
“The vast majority of stops are police initiated,” said CCR Staff Attorney Darius Charney. “Police are in certain neighborhoods and on their own initiative they decide to stop someone.” Charney also said that police data shows the least common reason for an NYPD stop was encountering an individual who fit a description of a suspect.
While Charney states that he doesn’t “want to assume bad intentions on the part of the police,” he argues that, “whatever the motivation, profiling is simply not an effective crime fighting strategy. And its continued use is building a lot of distrust in between police and community.”
Barron believes that the latest stop-and-frisk revelations highlight Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s failings as a city leader.
“Bloomberg has a protectionist policy,” Barron said. “It allows his commissioner to violate the law without reprimanding him or changing policies. The police have set up ‘impact zones’ and Bloomberg has allowed for police containment and harassment instead of job creation or economic development. He chooses to build more prisons and increase police presence while denying economic job creation — 40 to 50 percent of black men in New York City are unemployed.”
The CCR report recommends the NYPD enforce existing reporting requirements and that the city expand the power and the scope of the Civilian Complaint Review Board, which currently investigates complaints of police misconduct, but has no enforcement powers.
For the full CCR report, see ccrjustice.org/criminal-justiceand-mass-incarceration.
Artists Juxtapose a World of Dispossession
Artists Juxtapose a World of Dispossession
By Jaisal Noor
Material for a film (2004–) and Material for a film (performance) (2006)
By Emily Jacir
Guggenheim Museum Through April 15
Museum as Hub Becoming Dutch: “Exodus 2048”
By Michael Blum
New Museum Through March 29
The ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has recently found an outlet in the gallery world. Israeli artist Michael Blum’s futuristic installation Exodus 2048, currently at the New Museum, and the highly acclaimed Palestinian-American artist Emily Jacir’s commemoration of slain Palestinian artist and intellectual Wael Zuiater at the Guggenheim, catapult the viewer into a world of dispossession and dislocation. Both evoke cultural and political oppression, themes all too common to the Palestinian and Jewish experience.
Due to the high birthrates among Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and Israeli Arabs, combined they are projected to outnumber Israeli Jews by 2025. One possible outcome of this “demographic problem,” explored in Exodus 2048, is the Arab Israelis’ overthrow of the Jewish state and the forced migration of the Israelis.
PHOTO COURTESY: NEW MUSEUM
PHOTO COURTESY: NEW MUSEUM
The world Blum creates includes a new Jewish state in Uganda, Israel’s government in exile in Brooklyn, and the refugee ship Exodus 2048, which wanders the seas for months before finally being accepted by the Dutch government. The exhibit depicts a refugee camp in a museum in the Netherlands where 150 of the boat’s passengers find shelter.
The exhibit opens with six text panels chronicling the events from Dec. 26, 2047, the start of the Arab uprising, to the end of the state of Israel five months later.
Viewers can sneak a peek through curtains into a refugee camp scene. The room is jammed with cots and bunk beds and the floor strewn with personal belongings, newspapers, children’s toys, open bags of potato chips, spilled coffee, dirty rags, shopping carts full of bags and clothes. Televisions pump out Hebrew language programming and the radios blare Israeli music.
Jacir’s two-part exhibition, which won the Guggenheim’s 2008 Hugo Boss prize, resurrects the life and work of Zuiater, a Palestinian born in Nablus who lived much of his life in exile as an artist and served as a spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He was assassinated by Mossad agents in Rome in 1972 for his alleged association with Black September, the group responsible for the murder of 11 Israeli Olympians in that year’s Munich Games. No evidence has been offered linking him to the attacks, and by many accounts Zuiater was dedicated to nonviolence.
The exhibit includes personal effects from Zuiater: postcards he wrote to his girlfriend Janet, photos of him with family and friends, and photos of places that he frequented. It also brings Zuiater to life through audio recordings of him translating his writings from Arabic to Italian and conversations captured by Italian police wiretaps. When Zuiater was killed, he was carrying a copy of 1,001 Arabian Nights (his life’s ambition was to translate the work into Italian). One of the bullets was lodged in the spine of the novel. Jacir devotes a room to displaying 1,000 blank books with bullet holes, which she shot with a .22 caliber pistol, similar to that which took Zuiater’s life.
According to a friend of Zuiater, “his ultimate goal was the reconciliation of the Jews with the Palestinians.” The violent elimination and marginalization of moderate and progressive voices has had a deep impact on the Palestinian national struggle. As the exhibit points out, the world will never know Zuiater’s opinion of Hamas, the Islamist movement that was founded more than a decade after his death.
Blum’s work obviously invokes the plight of displaced Palestinians, especially the hundreds of thousands who have lived in refugee camps for decades. Another reference to the conflict comes from a fictitious Jewish leader who vows before leaving Israel, “You shouldn’t consider our escape as treason or cowardice, but as a strategic retreat while preparing for the next battle.” These words could have come from the mouth of any number of Arab leaders throughout the last 60 years of defeats.
South African intellectual and anti-apartheid activist Breyten Breytenbach has noted that “No two peoples are as similar and have as much of a shared commonality as the Israelis and the Palestinians.” These exhibits provide a rare glimpse into their intertwined history and future.
By Jaisal Noor
Material for a film (2004–) and Material for a film (performance) (2006)
By Emily Jacir
Guggenheim Museum Through April 15
Museum as Hub Becoming Dutch: “Exodus 2048”
By Michael Blum
New Museum Through March 29
The ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has recently found an outlet in the gallery world. Israeli artist Michael Blum’s futuristic installation Exodus 2048, currently at the New Museum, and the highly acclaimed Palestinian-American artist Emily Jacir’s commemoration of slain Palestinian artist and intellectual Wael Zuiater at the Guggenheim, catapult the viewer into a world of dispossession and dislocation. Both evoke cultural and political oppression, themes all too common to the Palestinian and Jewish experience.
Due to the high birthrates among Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and Israeli Arabs, combined they are projected to outnumber Israeli Jews by 2025. One possible outcome of this “demographic problem,” explored in Exodus 2048, is the Arab Israelis’ overthrow of the Jewish state and the forced migration of the Israelis.
PHOTO COURTESY: NEW MUSEUM
PHOTO COURTESY: NEW MUSEUM
The world Blum creates includes a new Jewish state in Uganda, Israel’s government in exile in Brooklyn, and the refugee ship Exodus 2048, which wanders the seas for months before finally being accepted by the Dutch government. The exhibit depicts a refugee camp in a museum in the Netherlands where 150 of the boat’s passengers find shelter.
The exhibit opens with six text panels chronicling the events from Dec. 26, 2047, the start of the Arab uprising, to the end of the state of Israel five months later.
Viewers can sneak a peek through curtains into a refugee camp scene. The room is jammed with cots and bunk beds and the floor strewn with personal belongings, newspapers, children’s toys, open bags of potato chips, spilled coffee, dirty rags, shopping carts full of bags and clothes. Televisions pump out Hebrew language programming and the radios blare Israeli music.
Jacir’s two-part exhibition, which won the Guggenheim’s 2008 Hugo Boss prize, resurrects the life and work of Zuiater, a Palestinian born in Nablus who lived much of his life in exile as an artist and served as a spokesperson for the Palestine Liberation Organization. He was assassinated by Mossad agents in Rome in 1972 for his alleged association with Black September, the group responsible for the murder of 11 Israeli Olympians in that year’s Munich Games. No evidence has been offered linking him to the attacks, and by many accounts Zuiater was dedicated to nonviolence.
The exhibit includes personal effects from Zuiater: postcards he wrote to his girlfriend Janet, photos of him with family and friends, and photos of places that he frequented. It also brings Zuiater to life through audio recordings of him translating his writings from Arabic to Italian and conversations captured by Italian police wiretaps. When Zuiater was killed, he was carrying a copy of 1,001 Arabian Nights (his life’s ambition was to translate the work into Italian). One of the bullets was lodged in the spine of the novel. Jacir devotes a room to displaying 1,000 blank books with bullet holes, which she shot with a .22 caliber pistol, similar to that which took Zuiater’s life.
According to a friend of Zuiater, “his ultimate goal was the reconciliation of the Jews with the Palestinians.” The violent elimination and marginalization of moderate and progressive voices has had a deep impact on the Palestinian national struggle. As the exhibit points out, the world will never know Zuiater’s opinion of Hamas, the Islamist movement that was founded more than a decade after his death.
Blum’s work obviously invokes the plight of displaced Palestinians, especially the hundreds of thousands who have lived in refugee camps for decades. Another reference to the conflict comes from a fictitious Jewish leader who vows before leaving Israel, “You shouldn’t consider our escape as treason or cowardice, but as a strategic retreat while preparing for the next battle.” These words could have come from the mouth of any number of Arab leaders throughout the last 60 years of defeats.
South African intellectual and anti-apartheid activist Breyten Breytenbach has noted that “No two peoples are as similar and have as much of a shared commonality as the Israelis and the Palestinians.” These exhibits provide a rare glimpse into their intertwined history and future.
Blocking the ‘Washington Consensus’: New Book Reveals How Bolivia Rolled Back Neoliberalism
Blocking the ‘Washington Consensus’: New Book Reveals How Bolivia Rolled Back Neoliberalism
By Jaisal Noor
Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization
Edited By Jim Shultz and Melissa Crane Draper
University of California Press, 2009
Ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable that in 2009 Bolivia would approve a constitution rejecting neoliberal policies and recognizing indigenous rights. Drawing on a decade of advocacy, research and reporting from Bolivia, the Democracy Center looks for lessons from the struggle in Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization. Editors Jim Shultz and Melissa Crane Draper weave together eyewitness accounts and interviews framed by insightful analysis.
The book presents a range of perspectives within the globalization debate, from Bolivian officials on the payroll of the U.S.-based Inter-American Development Bank, to Doña Porfira, one of the countless Bolivians whose livelihood was washed away during the massive Enron and Shell oil spill of 2000. The book documents the enormous gap between the reality on the ground and the theoretical benefits of policies dictated by the “Washington Consensus,” under which funds are loaned to developing nations on the condition they privatize state industries and cut public spending.
Bolivia has the greatest number of indigenous people in South America and is among the continent’s poorest nations. This poverty can be traced back to the extraction of vast amounts of silver from “Cerro Rico” by the Spanish, which financed its empire for the next two centuries, but left Bolivia deeply impoverished. Chronic poverty translated into chronic political instability and dependence on foreign aid. Starting in the 1980s, the economic policies of the “Washington Consensus” were leveraged upon Bolivia in return for desperately needed financial aid. This succeeded in enriching the elite few, while the vast majority suffered.
Recently, Bolivians have had increasing success rejecting these policies. During the Water Revolt of 2000, Bechtel took control of Cochabamba’s water supply and distribution and jacked up the price. In response, residents organized,took to the streets and drove Bechtel out of the city. Shultz was awarded for his reporting in Cochabama by Project Censored. Ever since, Bolivia has found itself at the forefront of opposition to neoliberalism, and the Democracy Center has been on the ground to report on events and to organize campaigns in solidarity.
When Bechtel sued Bolivia for $50 million dollars for the loss of the water contract in 2004, international solidarity movements pressured the company to settle for a five-cent symbolic payment. Bolivian social movements and indigenous groups have also had increasing success, for the first time propelling one of their own, Evo Morales, to the presidency in 2005. With this victory Bolivians firmly rejected the neoliberal policies that perpetuate poverty. The editors point out that while Morales has begun directing profits from the sale of Bolivia’s natural resources towards the indigenous majority, an abundance of resources alone is not enough to guarantee wealth. Bolivia’s challenge is to create a sustainable model of resource extraction and growth.
Bolivia held a constitutional referendum January 25. The referendum was hotly contested, and the version put to ballots was considered watered down by many of the nation’s indigenous groups who had pushed for stronger language addressing land distribution. The referendum passed easily, and included provisions for political reforms, land reform, the advancement social programs and indigenous rights and will make changes to the country’s oil and gas laws.
On January 23rd, I spoke with Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center, which is located in Cochabamba, Bolivia. He is also the co-editor, along Melissa Crane Draper of the book “Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization” published last month. An excerpt of our conversation follows.
Jaisal Noor: The release of your book coincides with two historic events. You have the inauguration of the first African-American president in the US, and you have the vote on the constitutional referendum on Sunday January 25 in Bolivia, which is expected to pass. Could you describe the mood right now towards the constitutional referendum, which is seen by many as a compromise compared to what was originally sought by the indigenous people of Bolivia?
Jim Shultz: After 11 years in Bolivia, I’ve seen quite a few elections and this is one of the stranger ones. Up until the very last few days, there’s been almost no visibility of campaigning on the streets. Not in the urban area here in Cochabamba where I work or the rural area of Tikiawa (?) where I live. Usually for almost a month before an election you see lots and lots of campaigning. On the other hand, the few times that I have snuck a peak at television here and there, it’s pretty obvious that the airwaves in Bolivia are just carpeted with ads. I mean, [practically]the only ads on the air are ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ads on the constitution. And some of them are completely over the top. You know, an image of Evo Morales and an image of Jesus - “Which side are you on? Vote ‘no’ on the constitution” is one of the ads that have been running.
The political interests that are promoting the yes or no vote have certainly invested resources on television to make their case. But I don’t see a lot of popular engagement in the vote. If you contrast that with, for example, the election in December 2005 in which Evo [Morales] was elected, my gosh — for weeks you couldn’t walk out of your door without being plastered with some sort of campaign activity. There were mass rallies in stadiums, there were caravans, there were people leaf-letting on corners for candidates — this has been almost absent in this vote.
Most Bolivians are just trying to deal with the day-to-day struggles of making ends meet in an economy that is in deep trouble, and trying to find some economic opportunity in a country where there isn’t much, dealing with the rises in the prices of food. I just think that [this vote] hasn’t really connected with people as something that has a real direct impact on their lives. And Bolivia’s problems that are really about how the government can have a strategy to generate economic opportunity in this country for the people who have been frozen out of economic opportunity.
Now certainly people without land who focus on land as the economic opportunity that they’re seeking have pinned their hopes on the new constitution. But land reform has been watered down so much in this new constitution that I’m not quite sure what difference it’s going to make. All of the big tracts of land that are currently out there that are “in production” are now exempt from land reform under this watered-down proposal. Certainly people’s hopes are that if Bolivia can get more control of its gas and oil resources and get involved in the sale of those and the marketing of those that those resources can be used to invest in infrastructure projects and education and those kinds of things to lift up people’s lives.
But again the problem is that, one, Bolivia has had a real hard time getting its state oil company up and running and efficient. Two, just as in Venezuela and elsewhere in the world, oil revenues are not going to be in the coming years what they were in the last few. So it’s not going to be the raining gold that people thought it was as oil prices and gas prices are reduced. And three, under any political party and ideology in this country Bolivian governments have a real hard time operating honestly and efficiently to deliver the goods. So it’s unclear how schools are going to suddenly get better. It’s unclear how a pretty decrepit public health system is going to suddenly get better. These issues of reclaiming natural resources and all of these things are extremely important and certainly that was the original intent of the constitutional process, but I sense more and more of a disconnect between the process of political change in the country and how people’s day to day lives are impacted.
Jaisal Noor: One of the core themes in Dignity and Defiance is the basic human desire for self-determination, which is something I fear many in the West, especially in the United States, take for granted. One of the watershed moments in Bolivia’s anti-globalization movement was the Cochabamba water revolt, which was a struggle against corporate globalization. Do you see any difference in a Clinton administration and a Bush administration, which were dominated by corporations, to an Obama administration, which is dominated by corporations? Do you think there is a hope that U.S.-Bolivian relations will change? They have been tense in the last several months of the Bush administration.
Jim Schultz: Your point is right about self-determination. The fundamental point about the Democracy Center is that democracy isn’t about elections and all by itself. Democracy is the right of every person on this planet to understand and influence the public decisions that shape their lives. What the book documents is how organizations like the IMF and the World Bank - which are controlled by the United States government structurally - undermine that principle of democracy and took away from the people some basic decisions about who controls their water, who controls their gas, and oil, how money should be raised and spent in their national budget. Bolivia was the lab rat for 20 years of the Washington Consensus or the neoliberal model, exported to poor countries under pressure from the World Bank and the I.M.F., and the lab rat rebelled. And that’s what’s so profound. Not just the [Cochabama water war of 2000] but other struggles after are David and Goliath- quite literally David versus Goliath with a sling and that’s all people had here as well.
The lesson from that is that people do want to make these decisions for themselves. And the question of whether or not the United States will be a force on the side of democracy in this regard or against it under new administration, that’s the right question to ask. It’s not about the politicians who sit in the chair. There’s no question that we have a right to be more hopeful that Obama’s sitting in the chair than George Bush or even Bill Clinton, but it’s not about what the politicians do. The politicians will ultimately stick their fingers in the wind and try to figure out which way the wind is going. That’s what they do. The issue is now how do we connect the people in the United States with the people in Latin America to influence the government of the United states and the governments of Latin America to make policy that’s based on what the people need and what the people are demanding.
Let me give you an example. You talked about the decline in the relationship between the Bush administration and the Morales administration which was stunning, I mean, they kicked each others ambassadors out and all of that. Well one of the things that the Bush administration did to retaliate against Bolivia was basically try to nuke 20,000 Bolivian jobs by taking Bolivia out of this Andean Trade Preferences program. And we have a project; we call it voices from Latin America, which is very simple. We use old fashioned organizing and new technology to bring people’s voices into the debates that affect their lives. And so, a team of young people from the democracy center, Bolivian and U.S., fanned out by jeep and bus around the country and interviewed the people who were going to lose their jobs. Put together a five minute video within a week, put it up on YouTube, tied it to an electronic petition and then we hammered on the Bush Administration until they agreed to actually let that video and that testimony be aired at the Washington hearing that the law required that the administration hold on Bush’s plan. And so, these people’s voices were actually right there in that room in Washington, heard. And I think doing that kind of thing is the way we educate people in the United States about what’s happening, it’s the way we educate and pressure politicians in the United States to take the different view of the way they’re handling countries like Bolivia and regions like Latin America. At the end of the day, What Bolivia teaches us is that change happens not because politicians led the way, but because people led the way. And ultimately change will happen in the United States because people lead the way. And ultimately change will happen in the way globalization works on this planet based on whether people link up across national lines and come up with new strategies to challenge globalization to be something that can serve the interest of people in stead of take away their democratic decisions and take away their natural resources, and make them essentially tools of what the world should look like.
Jaisal Noor: As much as your book deals with the successes of the anti-corporate globalization movement, it doesn’t gloss over its shortcomings. Could you share some of your insights on the future of the struggle in Bolivia?
Jim Schultz: It’s a sad fact that nine years after the Water Revolt, which was a global inspiration, the public water company’s situation here in Cochabamba is still miserable — it’s still inefficient, it’s still corrupt, it’s still not doing the job. Part of the lesson here is if we don’t follow up these great victories in the street with nutsand- bolts work of creating the alternative that actually delivers the goods, then the victory ends up being hollow. And sooner or later, if public control of these resources doesn’t work, the people in places like Bolivia are going to begin to turn around and say, “Gosh, we really should have corporations doing this.” So as a movement for social justice we have to pay much more careful attention to building these public systems that can deliver the goods.
That privatization of water is certainly no panacea, and in places such as Cochabamba, it is certainly not the answer. And this gap between the theory and reality is something that is extremely important. The flip-side of that, and this is something we document in the book as well, is the gap between the romance of kicking the corporations out and the hard work involved in actually making things work. Look at it- its a sad fact that nine years after the Water Revolt, which was a global inspiration, the public water company here in Cochabamba is still miserable, its still inefficient, its still corrupt, its still not doing the job. And you know the Democracy Center as an organization, we sort of straddle the line that not many organizations do. One hand, we’re very integrated and very involved in social justice movements that involve protest and direct action, and all of those things.
Jaisal Noor: What do you think the future holds for US-Latin American relations?
Jim Schultz: Oddly enough, the one upside to the “global war on terror” is that the Bush Administration didn’t pay any attention to Latin America while an important pendulum swung with the election of a whole class of left-of-center national governments. They range in ideology and policy quite a bit, and governing style, but from Lula in Brazil, to Chavez in Venezuela, to Morales here in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador - the list is quite long. Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, South America is in very different political space the last time the United States tried to bully people around. And they are a very united force. After the violence in Bolivia in September and October [2008], the South American presidents not the United States intervened.
The way we make sure a difference happens is by linking citizens with citizens, people with people in the United States and Latin America. Diplomatic relationships between the United States and its neighbors ought to be determined by the people of the United States and those neighbors as opposed to just diplomatic experts. That’s really new, we’re very accustomed to having lots and lots of citizen engagement and activism in protest and advocacy on domestic issues, not so much on foreign policy issues. If there’s a war, people will come out on the streets. But this idea of saying “You know what? Diplomatic relationships between the United States and its neighbors ought to be determined by the people of the United States and those neighbors as opposed to just diplomatic experts”. That’s what we are trying to build and that’s what I think we’re going to see in the next 10 years. That’s what we are trying to build and that’s what I think we’re going to see in the next 10 years.
For more information about the tour, visit the Dignity and Defiance website:
democracyctr.org/publications/dignitydefiance/
By Jaisal Noor
Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization
Edited By Jim Shultz and Melissa Crane Draper
University of California Press, 2009
Ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable that in 2009 Bolivia would approve a constitution rejecting neoliberal policies and recognizing indigenous rights. Drawing on a decade of advocacy, research and reporting from Bolivia, the Democracy Center looks for lessons from the struggle in Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization. Editors Jim Shultz and Melissa Crane Draper weave together eyewitness accounts and interviews framed by insightful analysis.
The book presents a range of perspectives within the globalization debate, from Bolivian officials on the payroll of the U.S.-based Inter-American Development Bank, to Doña Porfira, one of the countless Bolivians whose livelihood was washed away during the massive Enron and Shell oil spill of 2000. The book documents the enormous gap between the reality on the ground and the theoretical benefits of policies dictated by the “Washington Consensus,” under which funds are loaned to developing nations on the condition they privatize state industries and cut public spending.
Bolivia has the greatest number of indigenous people in South America and is among the continent’s poorest nations. This poverty can be traced back to the extraction of vast amounts of silver from “Cerro Rico” by the Spanish, which financed its empire for the next two centuries, but left Bolivia deeply impoverished. Chronic poverty translated into chronic political instability and dependence on foreign aid. Starting in the 1980s, the economic policies of the “Washington Consensus” were leveraged upon Bolivia in return for desperately needed financial aid. This succeeded in enriching the elite few, while the vast majority suffered.
Recently, Bolivians have had increasing success rejecting these policies. During the Water Revolt of 2000, Bechtel took control of Cochabamba’s water supply and distribution and jacked up the price. In response, residents organized,took to the streets and drove Bechtel out of the city. Shultz was awarded for his reporting in Cochabama by Project Censored. Ever since, Bolivia has found itself at the forefront of opposition to neoliberalism, and the Democracy Center has been on the ground to report on events and to organize campaigns in solidarity.
When Bechtel sued Bolivia for $50 million dollars for the loss of the water contract in 2004, international solidarity movements pressured the company to settle for a five-cent symbolic payment. Bolivian social movements and indigenous groups have also had increasing success, for the first time propelling one of their own, Evo Morales, to the presidency in 2005. With this victory Bolivians firmly rejected the neoliberal policies that perpetuate poverty. The editors point out that while Morales has begun directing profits from the sale of Bolivia’s natural resources towards the indigenous majority, an abundance of resources alone is not enough to guarantee wealth. Bolivia’s challenge is to create a sustainable model of resource extraction and growth.
Bolivia held a constitutional referendum January 25. The referendum was hotly contested, and the version put to ballots was considered watered down by many of the nation’s indigenous groups who had pushed for stronger language addressing land distribution. The referendum passed easily, and included provisions for political reforms, land reform, the advancement social programs and indigenous rights and will make changes to the country’s oil and gas laws.
On January 23rd, I spoke with Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center, which is located in Cochabamba, Bolivia. He is also the co-editor, along Melissa Crane Draper of the book “Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia’s Challenge to Globalization” published last month. An excerpt of our conversation follows.
Jaisal Noor: The release of your book coincides with two historic events. You have the inauguration of the first African-American president in the US, and you have the vote on the constitutional referendum on Sunday January 25 in Bolivia, which is expected to pass. Could you describe the mood right now towards the constitutional referendum, which is seen by many as a compromise compared to what was originally sought by the indigenous people of Bolivia?
Jim Shultz: After 11 years in Bolivia, I’ve seen quite a few elections and this is one of the stranger ones. Up until the very last few days, there’s been almost no visibility of campaigning on the streets. Not in the urban area here in Cochabamba where I work or the rural area of Tikiawa (?) where I live. Usually for almost a month before an election you see lots and lots of campaigning. On the other hand, the few times that I have snuck a peak at television here and there, it’s pretty obvious that the airwaves in Bolivia are just carpeted with ads. I mean, [practically]the only ads on the air are ‘yes’ or ‘no’ ads on the constitution. And some of them are completely over the top. You know, an image of Evo Morales and an image of Jesus - “Which side are you on? Vote ‘no’ on the constitution” is one of the ads that have been running.
The political interests that are promoting the yes or no vote have certainly invested resources on television to make their case. But I don’t see a lot of popular engagement in the vote. If you contrast that with, for example, the election in December 2005 in which Evo [Morales] was elected, my gosh — for weeks you couldn’t walk out of your door without being plastered with some sort of campaign activity. There were mass rallies in stadiums, there were caravans, there were people leaf-letting on corners for candidates — this has been almost absent in this vote.
Most Bolivians are just trying to deal with the day-to-day struggles of making ends meet in an economy that is in deep trouble, and trying to find some economic opportunity in a country where there isn’t much, dealing with the rises in the prices of food. I just think that [this vote] hasn’t really connected with people as something that has a real direct impact on their lives. And Bolivia’s problems that are really about how the government can have a strategy to generate economic opportunity in this country for the people who have been frozen out of economic opportunity.
Now certainly people without land who focus on land as the economic opportunity that they’re seeking have pinned their hopes on the new constitution. But land reform has been watered down so much in this new constitution that I’m not quite sure what difference it’s going to make. All of the big tracts of land that are currently out there that are “in production” are now exempt from land reform under this watered-down proposal. Certainly people’s hopes are that if Bolivia can get more control of its gas and oil resources and get involved in the sale of those and the marketing of those that those resources can be used to invest in infrastructure projects and education and those kinds of things to lift up people’s lives.
But again the problem is that, one, Bolivia has had a real hard time getting its state oil company up and running and efficient. Two, just as in Venezuela and elsewhere in the world, oil revenues are not going to be in the coming years what they were in the last few. So it’s not going to be the raining gold that people thought it was as oil prices and gas prices are reduced. And three, under any political party and ideology in this country Bolivian governments have a real hard time operating honestly and efficiently to deliver the goods. So it’s unclear how schools are going to suddenly get better. It’s unclear how a pretty decrepit public health system is going to suddenly get better. These issues of reclaiming natural resources and all of these things are extremely important and certainly that was the original intent of the constitutional process, but I sense more and more of a disconnect between the process of political change in the country and how people’s day to day lives are impacted.
Jaisal Noor: One of the core themes in Dignity and Defiance is the basic human desire for self-determination, which is something I fear many in the West, especially in the United States, take for granted. One of the watershed moments in Bolivia’s anti-globalization movement was the Cochabamba water revolt, which was a struggle against corporate globalization. Do you see any difference in a Clinton administration and a Bush administration, which were dominated by corporations, to an Obama administration, which is dominated by corporations? Do you think there is a hope that U.S.-Bolivian relations will change? They have been tense in the last several months of the Bush administration.
Jim Schultz: Your point is right about self-determination. The fundamental point about the Democracy Center is that democracy isn’t about elections and all by itself. Democracy is the right of every person on this planet to understand and influence the public decisions that shape their lives. What the book documents is how organizations like the IMF and the World Bank - which are controlled by the United States government structurally - undermine that principle of democracy and took away from the people some basic decisions about who controls their water, who controls their gas, and oil, how money should be raised and spent in their national budget. Bolivia was the lab rat for 20 years of the Washington Consensus or the neoliberal model, exported to poor countries under pressure from the World Bank and the I.M.F., and the lab rat rebelled. And that’s what’s so profound. Not just the [Cochabama water war of 2000] but other struggles after are David and Goliath- quite literally David versus Goliath with a sling and that’s all people had here as well.
The lesson from that is that people do want to make these decisions for themselves. And the question of whether or not the United States will be a force on the side of democracy in this regard or against it under new administration, that’s the right question to ask. It’s not about the politicians who sit in the chair. There’s no question that we have a right to be more hopeful that Obama’s sitting in the chair than George Bush or even Bill Clinton, but it’s not about what the politicians do. The politicians will ultimately stick their fingers in the wind and try to figure out which way the wind is going. That’s what they do. The issue is now how do we connect the people in the United States with the people in Latin America to influence the government of the United states and the governments of Latin America to make policy that’s based on what the people need and what the people are demanding.
Let me give you an example. You talked about the decline in the relationship between the Bush administration and the Morales administration which was stunning, I mean, they kicked each others ambassadors out and all of that. Well one of the things that the Bush administration did to retaliate against Bolivia was basically try to nuke 20,000 Bolivian jobs by taking Bolivia out of this Andean Trade Preferences program. And we have a project; we call it voices from Latin America, which is very simple. We use old fashioned organizing and new technology to bring people’s voices into the debates that affect their lives. And so, a team of young people from the democracy center, Bolivian and U.S., fanned out by jeep and bus around the country and interviewed the people who were going to lose their jobs. Put together a five minute video within a week, put it up on YouTube, tied it to an electronic petition and then we hammered on the Bush Administration until they agreed to actually let that video and that testimony be aired at the Washington hearing that the law required that the administration hold on Bush’s plan. And so, these people’s voices were actually right there in that room in Washington, heard. And I think doing that kind of thing is the way we educate people in the United States about what’s happening, it’s the way we educate and pressure politicians in the United States to take the different view of the way they’re handling countries like Bolivia and regions like Latin America. At the end of the day, What Bolivia teaches us is that change happens not because politicians led the way, but because people led the way. And ultimately change will happen in the United States because people lead the way. And ultimately change will happen in the way globalization works on this planet based on whether people link up across national lines and come up with new strategies to challenge globalization to be something that can serve the interest of people in stead of take away their democratic decisions and take away their natural resources, and make them essentially tools of what the world should look like.
Jaisal Noor: As much as your book deals with the successes of the anti-corporate globalization movement, it doesn’t gloss over its shortcomings. Could you share some of your insights on the future of the struggle in Bolivia?
Jim Schultz: It’s a sad fact that nine years after the Water Revolt, which was a global inspiration, the public water company’s situation here in Cochabamba is still miserable — it’s still inefficient, it’s still corrupt, it’s still not doing the job. Part of the lesson here is if we don’t follow up these great victories in the street with nutsand- bolts work of creating the alternative that actually delivers the goods, then the victory ends up being hollow. And sooner or later, if public control of these resources doesn’t work, the people in places like Bolivia are going to begin to turn around and say, “Gosh, we really should have corporations doing this.” So as a movement for social justice we have to pay much more careful attention to building these public systems that can deliver the goods.
That privatization of water is certainly no panacea, and in places such as Cochabamba, it is certainly not the answer. And this gap between the theory and reality is something that is extremely important. The flip-side of that, and this is something we document in the book as well, is the gap between the romance of kicking the corporations out and the hard work involved in actually making things work. Look at it- its a sad fact that nine years after the Water Revolt, which was a global inspiration, the public water company here in Cochabamba is still miserable, its still inefficient, its still corrupt, its still not doing the job. And you know the Democracy Center as an organization, we sort of straddle the line that not many organizations do. One hand, we’re very integrated and very involved in social justice movements that involve protest and direct action, and all of those things.
Jaisal Noor: What do you think the future holds for US-Latin American relations?
Jim Schultz: Oddly enough, the one upside to the “global war on terror” is that the Bush Administration didn’t pay any attention to Latin America while an important pendulum swung with the election of a whole class of left-of-center national governments. They range in ideology and policy quite a bit, and governing style, but from Lula in Brazil, to Chavez in Venezuela, to Morales here in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador - the list is quite long. Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, South America is in very different political space the last time the United States tried to bully people around. And they are a very united force. After the violence in Bolivia in September and October [2008], the South American presidents not the United States intervened.
The way we make sure a difference happens is by linking citizens with citizens, people with people in the United States and Latin America. Diplomatic relationships between the United States and its neighbors ought to be determined by the people of the United States and those neighbors as opposed to just diplomatic experts. That’s really new, we’re very accustomed to having lots and lots of citizen engagement and activism in protest and advocacy on domestic issues, not so much on foreign policy issues. If there’s a war, people will come out on the streets. But this idea of saying “You know what? Diplomatic relationships between the United States and its neighbors ought to be determined by the people of the United States and those neighbors as opposed to just diplomatic experts”. That’s what we are trying to build and that’s what I think we’re going to see in the next 10 years. That’s what we are trying to build and that’s what I think we’re going to see in the next 10 years.
For more information about the tour, visit the Dignity and Defiance website:
democracyctr.org/publications/dignitydefiance/
Gaza’s Facts on the Ground: A Summary of the Israeli Assault
Amnesty International released a report Nov. 5 stating that a five-and-a-half-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas “has brought enormous improvements in the quality of life in Sderot and other Israeli villages near Gaza.” However, it warned that a spate of Israeli and Palestinian attacks and counter-attacks in the previous 24 hours could “once again put the civilian populations of Gaza and southern Israel in the line of fire.”
Seven weeks later, Israel launched a massive military offensive into Gaza that shocked much of the world while gaining widespread support inside the Jewish state.
The Gaza offensive took 13 Israeli lives, including three civilians. Meanwhile more than 1,300 Palestinian lives were lost, more than half of which were civilians, including at least 400 children. At least 5,000 were injured. The price tag for the reconstruction of 21,000 homes, schools, hospitals, mosques and other infrastructure destroyed is estimated at more than $2 billion. The conflict destroyed half of Gaza’s agricultural industry, which provided a quarter of its food.
Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth; it holds 1.5 million people, half of whom are children under 15. The majority of Gazans are the descendants of Palestinians who were forced to flee during the founding of Israel in 1948. Eighty percent of Gazans subsist on less than $2 a day and depend on the United Nations for basic survival. Israel has imposed a 19-month-long blockade, stopping food, fuel and medical supplies from reaching Gaza despite U.N. pleas that the restrictions be lifted.
Israel stands accused of firing on and killing civilians waving white flags, those it ordered to flee their homes and on aid workers. Israel has also been accused of refusing to let the injured get medical care by impeding and firing on ambulances. A coalition of nine Israeli human rights groups called for an investigation into whether Israel committed war crimes, protesting the “wanton use of lethal force” against Palestinian civilians. The U.N.’s special rapporteur to Palestine said Israel could be in violation of the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international law and international humanitarian law. The Israeli explanation for high civilian casualties is that Hamas fighters concealed themselves within the civilian population.
Amnesty International accused Israel of using white phosphorus “in densely populated residential neighborhoods, [which] is inherently indiscriminate,” adding, “Its repeated use in this manner … is a war crime.” Israel has also been accused of using cluster bombs in densely populated areas, as well as using experimental weapons that are illegal under international law, including dense inert metal explosives (DIME) and GPS-guided mortars. A former U.S. Department of Defense official, now with Human Rights Watch, stated, “Experimenting has a different meaning for Americans. We think animal experimenting, but [its use was] indeed a field test.” Israel has dismissed all accusations of using illegal weapons and promised to protect its soldiers from prosecution.
It is difficult to say how many Israeli soldiers and reservists refused to take part in the fighting as the Israeli military was sending military resisters quietly home rather than jailing them and risking puncturing an aura of shared national purpose. One military resister who went public with his opposition was Yitzchak Ben Mocha, who refused to fight in Gaza because, “It’s not a war of defense. … You can’t separate the war in Gaza from the fact that the Palestinian nation is under occupation for more than 40 years.”
A DIFFERENT PATH FORWARD
According to the Israeli group Peace Now, Israel has escalated settlement expansion by 57 percent over the past year. The scope of the Israeli government’s complicity came into focus Jan. 30. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed that a secret database developed by the Israeli military confirms that many settlements are built on private Palestinian land and considered illegal under Israeli law. According to Haaretz, “in the vast majority of the settlements — about 75 percent — construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents.”
It has been reported that President Barack Obama may start indirect low-level talks with Hamas, similar to those that the Carter administration held with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the late 1970s. In 1982, Israel responded to the PLO’s willingness to negotiate by invading Lebanon, where the PLO was based, in a war that killed as many as 25,000 people. Twenty-seven years later the PLO’s Fatah party has been reduced to the role of collaborating in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and in spite of 16 years of negotiations it has been unable to stop Israeli expansion onto Palestinian lands.
It has been argued that the objective of Israel’s assault on Gaza was to knock out Hamas because it opposes the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem. According to a leading Israeli expert on the conflict Avi Shlaim, the “definition of terror is the use of violence against civilians for political purposes.” So while Hamas is a terrorist organization, “by the same token, Israel is practicing state terror, because it is using violence on a massive scale against Palestinian civilians for political purposes.”
An internationally-backed peace agreement has been on the table for more than 30 years: the creation of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. With Hamas now indicating it is willing to negotiate along these lines, the main obstacle to peace remains the U.S.-backed Israeli occupation, which only the U.S. public has the power to end.
To read more coverage on the Arab-Israeli conflict and related activism, click here.
Seven weeks later, Israel launched a massive military offensive into Gaza that shocked much of the world while gaining widespread support inside the Jewish state.
The Gaza offensive took 13 Israeli lives, including three civilians. Meanwhile more than 1,300 Palestinian lives were lost, more than half of which were civilians, including at least 400 children. At least 5,000 were injured. The price tag for the reconstruction of 21,000 homes, schools, hospitals, mosques and other infrastructure destroyed is estimated at more than $2 billion. The conflict destroyed half of Gaza’s agricultural industry, which provided a quarter of its food.
Gaza is one of the most crowded places on earth; it holds 1.5 million people, half of whom are children under 15. The majority of Gazans are the descendants of Palestinians who were forced to flee during the founding of Israel in 1948. Eighty percent of Gazans subsist on less than $2 a day and depend on the United Nations for basic survival. Israel has imposed a 19-month-long blockade, stopping food, fuel and medical supplies from reaching Gaza despite U.N. pleas that the restrictions be lifted.
Israel stands accused of firing on and killing civilians waving white flags, those it ordered to flee their homes and on aid workers. Israel has also been accused of refusing to let the injured get medical care by impeding and firing on ambulances. A coalition of nine Israeli human rights groups called for an investigation into whether Israel committed war crimes, protesting the “wanton use of lethal force” against Palestinian civilians. The U.N.’s special rapporteur to Palestine said Israel could be in violation of the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, international law and international humanitarian law. The Israeli explanation for high civilian casualties is that Hamas fighters concealed themselves within the civilian population.
Amnesty International accused Israel of using white phosphorus “in densely populated residential neighborhoods, [which] is inherently indiscriminate,” adding, “Its repeated use in this manner … is a war crime.” Israel has also been accused of using cluster bombs in densely populated areas, as well as using experimental weapons that are illegal under international law, including dense inert metal explosives (DIME) and GPS-guided mortars. A former U.S. Department of Defense official, now with Human Rights Watch, stated, “Experimenting has a different meaning for Americans. We think animal experimenting, but [its use was] indeed a field test.” Israel has dismissed all accusations of using illegal weapons and promised to protect its soldiers from prosecution.
It is difficult to say how many Israeli soldiers and reservists refused to take part in the fighting as the Israeli military was sending military resisters quietly home rather than jailing them and risking puncturing an aura of shared national purpose. One military resister who went public with his opposition was Yitzchak Ben Mocha, who refused to fight in Gaza because, “It’s not a war of defense. … You can’t separate the war in Gaza from the fact that the Palestinian nation is under occupation for more than 40 years.”
A DIFFERENT PATH FORWARD
According to the Israeli group Peace Now, Israel has escalated settlement expansion by 57 percent over the past year. The scope of the Israeli government’s complicity came into focus Jan. 30. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed that a secret database developed by the Israeli military confirms that many settlements are built on private Palestinian land and considered illegal under Israeli law. According to Haaretz, “in the vast majority of the settlements — about 75 percent — construction, sometimes on a large scale, has been carried out without the appropriate permits or contrary to the permits that were issued. The database also shows that, in more than 30 settlements, extensive construction of buildings and infrastructure (roads, schools, synagogues, yeshivas and even police stations) has been carried out on private lands belonging to Palestinian West Bank residents.”
It has been reported that President Barack Obama may start indirect low-level talks with Hamas, similar to those that the Carter administration held with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in the late 1970s. In 1982, Israel responded to the PLO’s willingness to negotiate by invading Lebanon, where the PLO was based, in a war that killed as many as 25,000 people. Twenty-seven years later the PLO’s Fatah party has been reduced to the role of collaborating in the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, and in spite of 16 years of negotiations it has been unable to stop Israeli expansion onto Palestinian lands.
It has been argued that the objective of Israel’s assault on Gaza was to knock out Hamas because it opposes the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Jerusalem. According to a leading Israeli expert on the conflict Avi Shlaim, the “definition of terror is the use of violence against civilians for political purposes.” So while Hamas is a terrorist organization, “by the same token, Israel is practicing state terror, because it is using violence on a massive scale against Palestinian civilians for political purposes.”
An internationally-backed peace agreement has been on the table for more than 30 years: the creation of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. With Hamas now indicating it is willing to negotiate along these lines, the main obstacle to peace remains the U.S.-backed Israeli occupation, which only the U.S. public has the power to end.
To read more coverage on the Arab-Israeli conflict and related activism, click here.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Interview with Jim Shultz on Bolivia's Constitutional Referendum by Jaisal Noor
Interview with Jim Shultz on Bolivia's Constitutional Referendum by Jaisal Noor
Bolivia is holding a constitutional referendum Sunday, January 25. The referendum has been hotly contested in Bolivia and its current version is much watered down compared to the original document. It is expected to pass easily and includes provision for political reforms, land reform, the advancement social programs and indigenous rights and will make changes to the country's oil and gas laws.
On Friday January 23rd, I spoke with Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center, which is located in Cochabamba, Bolivia. He is also the co-editor, with Melissa Crane Draper of the book “Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia's Challenge to Globalization”. They will be accompanying other Democracy Center activists on US tour in February to raise awareness of the impact of US policy towards Latin America. They will be in New York City on February 17th and 18th. For other dates, and more information you can visit the Dignity and Defiance website here: http://democracyctr.org/publications/dignitydefiance/.
Bolivia is holding a constitutional referendum Sunday, January 25. The referendum has been hotly contested in Bolivia and its current version is much watered down compared to the original document. It is expected to pass easily and includes provision for political reforms, land reform, the advancement social programs and indigenous rights and will make changes to the country's oil and gas laws.
On Friday January 23rd, I spoke with Jim Shultz, executive director of the Democracy Center, which is located in Cochabamba, Bolivia. He is also the co-editor, with Melissa Crane Draper of the book “Dignity and Defiance: Stories from Bolivia's Challenge to Globalization”. They will be accompanying other Democracy Center activists on US tour in February to raise awareness of the impact of US policy towards Latin America. They will be in New York City on February 17th and 18th. For other dates, and more information you can visit the Dignity and Defiance website here: http://democracyctr.org/publications/dignitydefiance/.
Listen to the interview (26 minutes).
Download URL: http://media.switchpod.com/users/jaisalnoor/Shultz40kbs .mp3
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Top Three Gaza Myths Debunked By Jaisal Noor
Despite the so-called "liberal" media’s endless barrage of pro-Israeli propaganda, a significant portion of the U.S. public is opposed to the current attack on Gaza. As the casualties mount and peace is pushed further out of reach, The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor exposes three big myths of the conflict.
MYTH # 1
The root of the conflict is that Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel.
It is true that Hamas commits unjustifiable terrorist acts and is on the United States’ terror list. The "terrorist" label is often used against enemies of U.S.-supported countries. When it was deemed in their interest, Israel and the United States bolstered both Hamas and its predecessor the
Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorist tactics were also used by the groups Irgun and the Stern Gang to aid in the creation of a Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel stands accused of indiscriminately targeting civilians by the United Nations and human rights groups.
The "terror" list currently includes the Lebanese Hezbullah which was born from the resistance to the 1982 Israeli invasion, and until last year included Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress.
Another former member of the U.S. terror list is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The original PLO charter concurs with the Hamas charter, proclaiming that "armed struggle" be used to reclaim Palestine. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once accused former PLO leader Yasser Arafat of being a "terrorist," and refused to negotiate with him. Today the PLO’s biggest party, Fatah, is the preferred peace partner.
Recently, Hamas has firmly maintained that it is now willing to participate in negotiations based on internationally recognized borders and rights. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that as early as 2006, Hamas leader Ismaeil Haniyeh offered "a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and … a truce for many years." Haniyeh called on President Bush to launch a dialogue with the Hamas government. "We are not warmongers, we are peacemakers and we call on the American government to have direct negotiations with the elected government." Hamas re-emphasized this position recently, adding, "our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation." The United States and Israel ignored the offer.
Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank — which were occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War — are recognized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 as the land for a future Palestinian state. This has become the international consensus for peace, with only Israel, the United States and a handful of other nations voting against the annual General Assembly resolution calling for a settlement based on "242."
MYTH # 2
Hamas is to blame for ending the cease-fire and Israel’s actions are in self-defense.
The three conditions for the June 2008 ceasefire were that (1) Israel would drastically reduce its military blockade of Gaza, (2) Israel would halt all military incursions into Gaza and, (3) Hamas would halt all rocket attacks into Israel.
From the outset of the cease-fire, Israel did little to ease its military blockade. As a result, Gazans continued to suffer from a lack of food, fuel, financial aid, electricity, clean water, medical supplies and more. The United Nations warned that Gaza would face "catastrophe" if the blockade were not lifted. The Israeli government maintained that the blockade was necessary to stop rocket attacks. However, as the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper reports, Hamas had ceased launching rockets into Israel during the cease-fire and even arrested members of militant groups who did fire a handful of rockets.
Despite the intense blockade against Gazan civilians, the cease-fire held until Nov. 4. On that date, Haaretz reports, it was the Israeli military that made an incursion into Gaza and killed six Palestinians. The Israeli government sought to justify these actions, saying that these Palestinians were suspected of plotting to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Predictably, militants responded to the attack by launching rockets into Israel. Thus began the unraveling of the cease-fire.
Following the end of the cease-fire, Israel moved closer to an invasion, claiming this was the only remaining option to eliminate rocket attacks from Gaza. According to Haaretz, Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire if Israel lifted its blockade. There is evidence that Israel was planning to strike Gaza before and during the cease-fire.
The White House said that Israel will cease its attack when Hamas has agreed to a truce. Hamas has said it would abide by a cease-fire if border crossings were reopened and the economic siege of Gaza ended. Israel has refused this offer.
Meanwhile, Israel unleashed its U.S.-supplied arsenal — which includes unconventional weapons — while attacking its own designated safe-areas. This forced the Red Cross and United Nations to briefly suspend relief work in Gaza, spurring the Vatican to compare the conditions there to a "concentration camp." The United States abstained from a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire.
MYTH #3
Israel and the United States are doing everything in their power to achieve peace.
For decades the United States has provided Israel with billions of dollars annually in military aid and backed Israel’s seizure of occupied lands. The number of settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem has increased from 200,000 in 1990 to more than 460,000 today. Claiming it received secret U.S. approval , Israel announced it would build thousands of new homes in 2008. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that this directly "contravenes both international law and Israel’s obligations" in the peace process.
Israel has also erected a "security barrier" through the West Bank, annexing large swaths of land. In 2004, the International Court of Justice declared construction of the wall "contrary to international law."
Meanwhile, even outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has recently stated that to achieve peace and recognition by the Arab world, Israel "should withdraw from almost all of the territories, including in East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights."
Amid reports that President-elect Obama may reverse U.S. policy and negotiate with Hamas, scholar Norman Finkelstein observes, "Hamas in recent months has supported a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, joining the international consensus. It’s abiding by the terms of the truce, showing it can be trusted to abide by its agreements, which means it was becoming a credible negotiating partner." He adds, "Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce ‘harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement.’ Translation: a protracted cease-fire that enhanced Hamas’ credibility would have undermined Israel’s strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank." Finkelstein concludes: "Israel was facing a new Palestinian peace offensive and therefore it has to knock out Hamas."
Click here to view a 2008 map of Israeli Settlements and separation barrier in the West Bank produced by the The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B'TSELEM.
Adam Sheets contributed to this article.
Despite the so-called "liberal" media’s endless barrage of pro-Israeli propaganda, a significant portion of the U.S. public is opposed to the current attack on Gaza. As the casualties mount and peace is pushed further out of reach, The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor exposes three big myths of the conflict.
MYTH # 1
The root of the conflict is that Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel.
It is true that Hamas commits unjustifiable terrorist acts and is on the United States’ terror list. The "terrorist" label is often used against enemies of U.S.-supported countries. When it was deemed in their interest, Israel and the United States bolstered both Hamas and its predecessor the
Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorist tactics were also used by the groups Irgun and the Stern Gang to aid in the creation of a Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel stands accused of indiscriminately targeting civilians by the United Nations and human rights groups.
The "terror" list currently includes the Lebanese Hezbullah which was born from the resistance to the 1982 Israeli invasion, and until last year included Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress.
Another former member of the U.S. terror list is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The original PLO charter concurs with the Hamas charter, proclaiming that "armed struggle" be used to reclaim Palestine. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once accused former PLO leader Yasser Arafat of being a "terrorist," and refused to negotiate with him. Today the PLO’s biggest party, Fatah, is the preferred peace partner.
Recently, Hamas has firmly maintained that it is now willing to participate in negotiations based on internationally recognized borders and rights. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that as early as 2006, Hamas leader Ismaeil Haniyeh offered "a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and … a truce for many years." Haniyeh called on President Bush to launch a dialogue with the Hamas government. "We are not warmongers, we are peacemakers and we call on the American government to have direct negotiations with the elected government." Hamas re-emphasized this position recently, adding, "our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation." The United States and Israel ignored the offer.
Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank — which were occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War — are recognized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 as the land for a future Palestinian state. This has become the international consensus for peace, with only Israel, the United States and a handful of other nations voting against the annual General Assembly resolution calling for a settlement based on "242."
MYTH # 2
Hamas is to blame for ending the cease-fire and Israel’s actions are in self-defense.
The three conditions for the June 2008 ceasefire were that (1) Israel would drastically reduce its military blockade of Gaza, (2) Israel would halt all military incursions into Gaza and, (3) Hamas would halt all rocket attacks into Israel.
From the outset of the cease-fire, Israel did little to ease its military blockade. As a result, Gazans continued to suffer from a lack of food, fuel, financial aid, electricity, clean water, medical supplies and more. The United Nations warned that Gaza would face "catastrophe" if the blockade were not lifted. The Israeli government maintained that the blockade was necessary to stop rocket attacks. However, as the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper reports, Hamas had ceased launching rockets into Israel during the cease-fire and even arrested members of militant groups who did fire a handful of rockets.
Despite the intense blockade against Gazan civilians, the cease-fire held until Nov. 4. On that date, Haaretz reports, it was the Israeli military that made an incursion into Gaza and killed six Palestinians. The Israeli government sought to justify these actions, saying that these Palestinians were suspected of plotting to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Predictably, militants responded to the attack by launching rockets into Israel. Thus began the unraveling of the cease-fire.
Following the end of the cease-fire, Israel moved closer to an invasion, claiming this was the only remaining option to eliminate rocket attacks from Gaza. According to Haaretz, Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire if Israel lifted its blockade. There is evidence that Israel was planning to strike Gaza before and during the cease-fire.
The White House said that Israel will cease its attack when Hamas has agreed to a truce. Hamas has said it would abide by a cease-fire if border crossings were reopened and the economic siege of Gaza ended. Israel has refused this offer.
Meanwhile, Israel unleashed its U.S.-supplied arsenal — which includes unconventional weapons — while attacking its own designated safe-areas. This forced the Red Cross and United Nations to briefly suspend relief work in Gaza, spurring the Vatican to compare the conditions there to a "concentration camp." The United States abstained from a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire.
MYTH #3
Israel and the United States are doing everything in their power to achieve peace.
For decades the United States has provided Israel with billions of dollars annually in military aid and backed Israel’s seizure of occupied lands. The number of settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem has increased from 200,000 in 1990 to more than 460,000 today. Claiming it received secret U.S. approval , Israel announced it would build thousands of new homes in 2008. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that this directly "contravenes both international law and Israel’s obligations" in the peace process.
Israel has also erected a "security barrier" through the West Bank, annexing large swaths of land. In 2004, the International Court of Justice declared construction of the wall "contrary to international law."
Meanwhile, even outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has recently stated that to achieve peace and recognition by the Arab world, Israel "should withdraw from almost all of the territories, including in East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights."
Amid reports that President-elect Obama may reverse U.S. policy and negotiate with Hamas, scholar Norman Finkelstein observes, "Hamas in recent months has supported a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, joining the international consensus. It’s abiding by the terms of the truce, showing it can be trusted to abide by its agreements, which means it was becoming a credible negotiating partner." He adds, "Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce ‘harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement.’ Translation: a protracted cease-fire that enhanced Hamas’ credibility would have undermined Israel’s strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank." Finkelstein concludes: "Israel was facing a new Palestinian peace offensive and therefore it has to knock out Hamas."
Click here to view a 2008 map of Israeli Settlements and separation barrier in the West Bank produced by the The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B'TSELEM.
Adam Sheets contributed to this article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)