Troubled Galaxy Destroyed Dreams, Chapter 393
Palash Biswas
Police had earlier claimed that the outlawed CPI (Maoist) was responsible for the killings. Police now suspect the involvement of a gang led by Boran Sada, who is said to have a support base among the Musahar caste in the riverine belt of Kosi.
Most of the victims were backward caste Kurmis.
Sada was a member of the CPI (Maoist) till a few years ago but was thrown out of the outlawed organisation. Another gang led by Sada's relative Sikandar Sada and Sajjan Choudhary could also be involved, sources said.
"We are still carrying out investigations. But the possibility of Maoist involvement is less," Superintendent of Police of Khagaria Indranand Mishra told Hindustan Times.
Mishra, however, reiterated that a land dispute between the Musahars and Kurmis led to the massacre.
Direct Maoist involvement also looked unlikely because Maoists usually do not target children (five children were among the victims) and of late have started using sophisticated weapons during their operations, the police said.
"Sophisticated weapons were not used. We have only recovered bullet casings of .315 bore," said Mishra.
Seven people have been arrested in connection with the killings. Thirty-seven people, mostly from Amousi village, have been named in the FIR lodged in the case.
Sources said Boran Sada, Sikandar Sada and Sajjan Choudhary have been active in the area for four years, after snapping ties with the CPI (Maoist).
Sada and his men have been mobilising Musahars to assert themselves and grab land that belonged to the erstwhile estates in the Kosi region.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Bihar-killers-were-not-Maoists-Police/H1-Article1-460995.aspx
Thus, Bengali Intelligentsia has launched a PETITION demanding the release of CHHATRADHAR MAHATO AND RESUME TALKS! While the Investigating agencies tag Mahto directly linked to Maoists. It is calaimed that Mahato has informed that some of the Inteligentsia and Civil Soiety are in the Contact of the Maoist. According to police, no less than 160 individuals listed to be helping Maoists economically or strategically! The State Power has decided to launch an OFFENCISIVE against the Maoist Menace discarding DEVELOPMENT.On the Other hand, Bengali Marxist Govt. is all set for a CRACK DOWN against the SYMPATHISERS including ICONS!It is known that the CID has already begun the GRILLING blacking outthe OMNIPRESENT Media. Corpoarte Brahaminical Hegemony has set FREE the HORSES of the GREAT War to CAPTURE the ABORIGINAL INDIGENOUS Belt.
The Red rebels had called the 24-hour bandh to protest against the recent arrest of Chhatradhar Mahato, a key leader of a Maoist-backed outfit in West Bengal's West Midnapore district.
Police said CPI(Maoist) cadres had felled trees on the road connecting the district with Bhubaneswar. Even the 100-km forest road from Malkangiri to Motu, the southernmost town in Orissa, wore a deserted look because no vehicle ventured beyond Malkangiri. The Maoists had also blocked roads at several places between their strongholds of Kalimela and Motu.
"Life has been completely thrown out of gear in the district. Most weekly haats and markets in Maoist-dominated areas remained closed. No person dared to ply his vehicle on the Malkangiri-Motu road. People are facing problems due to the frequent bandhs called by Maoists," a Malkangir resident said.
Police said anti-Maoist operation has been intensified in and around the district. Security forces are on high alert to prevent possible influx of the rebels from Andhra Pradesh and Chattisgarh into the state.
"At present, the situation is under control. Though traffic has been badly hit no Maoist violence has been reported from the district. Security personnel are on high alert to thwart any untoward incident. We are trying to lift the road blockades," a police officer in Malkangiri said.
The district had remained cut-off from rest of the state for over a week due to blockades put up by rebels at Govindpally road in May. The extremists had felled over 200 trees at that time.
In a separate incident, traffic between Machkund and Lamtaput in Koraput district was hit as Maoists dug up the road to obstruct vehicular movement.
Samarji, claiming to be secretary of South Chhotanagpur Committee of Jharkhand, called local Hindi newspapers late Saturday and informed them about the condition. The rebel said the Jharkhand intelligence official would be freed if the police release Ghandy, Chhatradhar Mahto and Chandra Bhushan Yadav.
"The abducted police official of the intelligence department is in our custody. He is safe. He will be released after the arrested leaders - Kobad Ghandy, Chhatradhar Mahto and Chandra Bhushan Yadav - are released," the local Hindi newspapers quoted Samarji as saying.
"Do not torture relatives of Kundan Pahan and other people otherwise we will abduct family members of government officials," he added.
Police suspect the role of the Kundan Pahan group - active in the border areas of Ranchi, Khuti and Jamshedpur districts - in the abduction of the Jharkhand intelligence official.
Francis Indwar, the intelligence official, was abducted from Hembrum market under Arki police station of Khuti district, around 65 km from Ranchi, on Wednesday. He had gone to the market to collect information about Maoist rebels.
"We are verifying the authenticity of the calls. How can Jharkhand rebels put such conditions when Kobad Ghandy and Mahto are not with us. In the past, a man impersonating as a Maoist rebel had threatened Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Home Minister P Chidambaram and Congress president Sonia Gandhi," said Jharkhand Police spokesperson S N Pradhan told IANS.
The 63-year-old London-educated Kobad Ghandy, a senior leader of the banned Communist Party of India-Maoist (CPI-Maoist), was arrested in New Delhi Sep 21, though his party says he was picked up by police four days earlier on Sep 17. He is in judicial custody till Oct 6.
The West Bengal Police claimed that Chhatradhar Mahato, arrested tribal leader of Lalgarh, had admitted these facts during interrogation.
Mahato (44) reportedly disclosed the names of 20 Kolkata-based university students and three of their professors, who have direct links with the Maoists, the police claimed.
Leader of the People's Committee Against Police Atrocities (PCAPA) that led the anti-government movement in Lalgarh, about 160 km southwest of Kolkata, Mahato was arrested by the state police's criminal investigation department (CID) on September 29.
"We have to verify Mahato's statement and gather evidence before taking any legal step against these persons," a high-ranking CID official told HT.
Top police officials decided on Saturday to summon some intellectuals for questioning.
According to the police, Mahato said the Maoists often consulted the professors on strategy matters. Mahato also allegedly mentioned some Kolkata-based intellectuals, who had connections with Maoists.
When Lalgarh and its surroundings became a no-entry zone for the police, the students frequently visited and stayed in Maoist dens. Some of them even received some sort of training from the Maoists.
The police claimed that they had been tracking these students for months and Mahato had only confirmed their names.
Maoists blow up track
Suspected Maoist rebels blew up railway tracks at two places in West Bengal and Jharkhand on Friday night, disrupting train services till Saturday afternoon.
About two feet of track was blown up in the blast at Purulia, 325 km west of Kolkata.
Seventeen trains were cancelled immediately and several others were rescheduled or diverted.
The second blast that blew up 18 metre rail track at Poisaita in Jharkhand, 150 km south west of Ranchi, disrupted train services on the Howrah-Mumbai route.
"Development must go hand in hand with the fight against Naxalites; deprived people in the heartland cannot be expected to wait on their misery until the government is done with its long-haul campaigns," Mahendra Kumawat, who retired as director-general of the BSF last month, told The Telegraph today.
"The government is going to lose more hearts and minds to the Maoists if it forges ahead with a strike policy that brings nothing but bloodshed and disruption to people in the affected zones. That is going to multiply our problems, not solve them. I wish the government all the best, but it isn't going to work."
The scorch-then-salve policy, advocated for long by hardline think-tanks, has found favour with home minister P. Chidambaram, but it has also alarmed sceptics within the security establishment who believe strictly police solutions are a "counter-productive half measure". Recently unshackled by retirement, Kumawat may be articulating their concerns.
Kumawat speaks from a decade's "on ground" experience of dealing with Naxalites in the Andhra-Orissa-Chhattisgarh triangle. Before assuming command of the BSF, he was also chairman of the national anti-Naxalite task force in the Union home ministry during Shivraj Patil's tenure as internal security boss.
The outlawed Communist Party of India-Maoist, claimed it "has nothing to do with the incident".
"The Maoists have no hand in the massacre of the people in Khagaria," local Hindi newspapers quoted Maoist leader Sanesh, who is secretary of the north Bihar zonal committee of CPI-Maoist.
He said the name of CPI-Maoist was taken to defame the outfit. "We have sympathy with those killed and their families. The CPI-Maoist would punish those behind the massacre by the end of this year," Sanesh added.
However, the Bihar Police suspect the involvement of Maoist guerrillas in the massacre.
The police Saturday said they have arrested 11 people, including the mastermind, in Khagaria district, about 200 km north of Patna.
Police have said Thursday night's massacre appeared to be due to a dispute over ownership of land. It took place in Amausi village in Khagaria district. All the victims belonged to the Kurmi caste and were from Amba Ichwara village, a few kilometres from the incident site. The attackers had tied their hands and feet before shooting them dead.
The victims were from the Kurmi caste and the Maoist guerrillas were from the Sada (Mushahar) - a Mahadalit caste that is considered the poorest of poor in Bihar.
Additional director general of police (headquarters) Neelmani said over a dozen people were arrested, including mastermind O P Mahto. She said: "Mahto has revealed that the massacre was planned at the residence of Amousi mukhiya (village head) on September 14. Those who attended the meeting had resolved to take possession of the disputed land at any cost."
The activists of the Bihar Pradesh Rashtriya Yuva Samata burnt an effigy of CM Nitish Kumar at Income Tax roundabout. The activists, led by state president Satyanand Prasad Dangi, said that Nitish should resign on his own as the people of the state are not safe in his regime. They said that killing of 16 persons in Khagaria district has exposed the tall claims of `sushasan raj' in the state.
The activists of Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI) and Rahul Gandhi Vichar Manch also burnt an effigy of the CM at Saheed Bhagat Singh Chowk and Income Tax roundabout respectively.
Meanwhile, separate probe teams of the Congress, CPI and Sahid Jagdeo Sena, which reached the affected village, said that administrative failure led to the killing of 16 persons in Khagaria district.
Congress legislature party leader in legislative council Mahachandra Prasad Singh said that had the local administration been alert, the killing could have been averted. He said that the locals told the Congress team that they had informed the district administration about such incidents. No steps were taken by the district administration despite the fact that Alauli block was Naxalite-infested, he said. Singh said that the CM should resign owning moral responsibility for the mass killing.
The state unit of the CPI sought immediate arrest of the killers, Rs 10 lakh compensation each to family members of the deceased, adequate steps to check Naxalism, special campaign for land reforms and immediate suspension of Alauli BDO.
Calcutta, Oct. 3: Around 400 youths from Lalgarh and its adjoining areas were trained by Maoists to use firearms and plant improvised explosive devices, Chhatradhar Mahato is said to have revealed to police.
The arrested leader of the Maoist-backed People's Committee Against Police Atrocities, police sources said, also explained how and where the Maoists trained the youths.
"He broke down during an interrogation session that started last night. We are looking for more specific information about the Maoist leaders camping in Lalgarh," said a senior CID officer.
Top CID officers, including additional director-general Raj Kanojia and inspector-general Somen Mitra, interrogated Mahato throughout the day. Director-general of police Bhupinder Singh too questioned him, the sources said.
According to CID sources, Mahato, who is the brother of Maoist leader Sashadhar, said the leaders of the banned outfit used to visit Lalgarh occasionally before the November blast on the chief minister's convoy route in Salboni.
"They swung into action after the police arrested three school boys on the charge of exploding the IED in Salboni. They managed to win over many tribals during secret meetings in the villages," Mahato reportedly told the police.
He also confirmed that he was first a spokesperson for the Maoists. "Forming the people's committee was their (the Maoists') brainchild and initially I was not involved in it. I was later told to issue statements on behalf of the committee. But there was mass support for the committee and the Maoists in Lalgarh," a source quoted him as saying.
According to Mahato's statement to the police, the Maoists chose boys between 14 years and 25 years of age for the training. "We found out that the boys were first given fitness training through physical exercises before they were handed firearms. The training was conducted in the forests of Pingboni, Kadashole and Jhitka in the nine months when Lalgarh became inaccessible to the administration," another officer said.
Chhatradhar also disclosed the names of villages where Maoists leaders Kishanji and Bikash often camped. "He told us that after sunset, the top leaders of the outfit leave their hideouts and roam along the metalled road between Lalgarh and Ramgarh. They come to Barapelia bazaar where a TV is kept to watch the news," said the officer.
Mahato, however, did not disclose the names of the villagers who allowed Kishanji, to stay at their houses.
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091004/jsp/bengal/story_11572735.jsp |
| A.B. Bardhan |
New Delhi, Oct. 3: CPI general secretary A.B. Bardhan has said his party is opposed to using armed forces in Maoist-infested areas, including Lalgarh, over fears communists and trade union workers may end up being targeted.
"This (the operation against Maoists) can target any-one who says lal salam and salutes a red flag. And they include all communists and trade union workers," Bardhan said.
The stand appears at odds with the stance of partner CPM, which feels "there is little scope for debate" on the army's involvement as the guerrillas have been operating almost like an army. "The Maoists are operating as a regular army and they can be dealt with effectively by an army response," Benoy Konar, a member of the CPM state secretariat in Bengal, had said last month.
Asked what his stand would be if the army was called into Lalgarh, Bardhan said yesterday: "We will oppose it."
Bardhan tried to argue that the army wasn't needed. "They (CPM) asked for more forces. There is police and there is paramilitary to deal with the situation," he said, asked if his stand contradicted the CPM.
RELEASE CHHATRADHAR MAHATO AND RESUME TALKS
The petition
To
The Chief Minister
West Bengal
Writers' Building
Kolkata-700001
Sir,
CHHATRADHAR MAHATO, spokesperson of the PULISHI SANTRAS BIRODHI JANASADHARANER COMMITTEE, has been arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. This is in direct contravention of the previous stand of the West Bengal state government that the Act will apply only to members of the CPI(Maoist). While even this is a debatable policy, Chhatradhar Mahato can in no way fall within its ambit. Moreover, the modus operandi of his arrest was in complete disregard of law and proper procedure. There is no doubt that Chhatradhar Mahato should be released immediately.
In any case, he is the spokesperson of an organization with which the state government was in active dialogue before the government withdrew unilaterally and the joint armed forces were sent in. In this petition we urge you and your government to withdraw the joint armed forces, help create a climate conducive to dialogue, resume talks and sit across the table with Chhatradhar Mahato as a free man.
Sign the petition
Fields marked * are required.
| * Name: | |
|---|---|
| * Email: | |
| Comments: | |
| Display my name as anonymous on the signatures list | |
| Yes, I want iPetitions to contact me on similar campaigns or petitions. | |
Petition sponsor
Mahasweta Devi, the petition sponsor, is a writer, activist and social critic. In this effort aimed at social and political justice for the struggling adivasi people of Lalgarh and adjoining areas in Pashchim Medinipur, West Bengal, she is joined by a large number of citizens deeply worried over the tragic events unfolding in the region.
Links
For a narrative of events and the chronic injustice that led to the upsurge in Lalgarh and the creation of Pulishi Santras Birodhi Janasadharaner Committee, of which Chhatradhar Mahato has been an active spokesperson, see:http://sanhati.com/front-page/...
The views expressed in this petition are solely those of the petition's sponsor and do not in any way reflect the views of iPetitions. iPetitions is solely a provider of technical services to the petition sponsor and cannot be held liable for any damages or injury or other harm arising from this petition. In the event no adequate sponsor is named, iPetitions will consider the individual account holder with which the petition was created as the lawful sponsor.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/releasetalk123/
"FOR A NATIONAL STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM & ZIONISM"
PRESS CONFERENCE
& THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR"
:CHIEF GUEST:
MUKUL SINHA (distinguished Lawyer & Trade Unionist from Gujarat)
:SPEAKERS:
PRATIMA JOSHI (Senior Columnist - Maharashtra Times), URMILA PAWAR (Poetess & Writer), FEROZE MITHIBORWALA (National Convenor - Awami Bharat), GHAZALA AZAD (Muslim Intellectual Forum) & JYOTI BADEKAR (Marathi Bharti)
VENUE: PRESS CLUB, AZAD MAIDAN, CST, MUMBAI.
DATE: 3rd October '09 (Saturday) / TIME: 3-5pm
The recent revelations have once again underlined the fact that the encounter killings in the case of Ishrat Jahan, Sohrabuddin as well as the rest, were faked by the police with the silent complicity & more, by Right-Wing sections both within the Bharatiya Janata Party as well as the Congress.
The US-Israeli Imperial doctrine & rhetoric of a 'Global War on Terror' has been imbibed by both our political & corporate media elite & these in turn created the social conditions that have led to the heightened phase of Islamophobia & thus the communalization of encounter killings.
As we approach the Maharashtra state elections, we will also be discussing the attitude of the 'secular' governments & their own role in covering up encounter deaths.
Thus Mukul Sinha, who is leading the struggle in Gujarat against the fascist Modi regime & who is one of the leading lights of the legal fraternity as well as the Trade Union Movement, will both be dissecting the encounter killings as well as delving into the National & International political, economic & religio-ethnic issues that are creating this crisis.
:ORGANIZERS:
ASLAM GHAZI, KISHORE JAGTAP, ASIF KHAN, RESHMA JAGTAP, AVINASH KAMBLE, MUNAWAR AZAD
YAVAR KAZI, MUNAWWAR AZAD, GHAZALA AZAD, VILAS GAIKWAD, ARIF KAPADIA & JYOTI BADEKAR
Sayeed Khan, Varsha V V, Arif Kapadia, Chetna Birje (Awami Bharat), Rehan Ansari, Kazim Malik (Jamaat-i-Islami-Hind), Dinu Randive (Senior Journalist), Sudhir Dhawale, Shyam Sonar (Republican Panther), Maulana Milli Rehman (All India Milli Council), (National Minorities Federation), Jagdish Nagarkar, Mulniwasi Mala (Phule-Ambedkari Vichar Manch), Madhav Wagh, Dattatreya Dalvi (OBC Parishad),
Amol Madame (Republican People of India), Harshvardhan Vartak (Marathi Bharti), Mehmood Parvez Ansari (NEEDS), Pooja Badekar,
Tejasvini Bhonkar (Vidyarthi Bharti), Shadab Sheikh (Muslim Intellectual Forum), Valjibhai Virash (Gujrati Intellectual Forum),
Harshavardhan Vartak (Hindu Vikasini), Vilas Gaikwad (Jhunzaar - Republican Students Organization),
Christian Panther (Tito Eapen) & Aarti Balekar, Nilesh Pokade (Yuva Sarkar)
INQUILAB ZINDABAD !!
| Veteran questions Maoist fight | ||
| SANKARSHAN THAKUR | ||
New Delhi, Oct. 3: One of India's topmost anti-Naxalite strategists has questioned the Centre's new "crackdown-first development-later" credo and warned that any use of air power against Maoists could saddle the nation with "Afghanistan and Iraq-like" security liabilities. "Development must go hand in hand with the fight against Naxalites; deprived people in the heartland cannot be expected to wait on their misery until the government is done with its long-haul campaigns," Mahendra Kumawat, who retired as director-general of the BSF last month, told The Telegraph today. "The government is going to lose more hearts and minds to the Maoists if it forges ahead with a strike policy that brings nothing but bloodshed and disruption to people in the affected zones. That is going to multiply our problems, not solve them. I wish the government all the best, but it isn't going to work." The scorch-then-salve policy, advocated for long by hardline think-tanks, has found favour with home minister P. Chidambaram, but it has also alarmed sceptics within the security establishment who believe strictly police solutions are a "counter-productive half measure". Recently unshackled by retirement, Kumawat may be articulating their concerns. Kumawat speaks from a decade's "on ground" experience of dealing with Naxalites in the Andhra-Orissa-Chhattisgarh triangle. Before assuming command of the BSF, he was also chairman of the national anti-Naxalite task force in the Union home ministry during Shivraj Patil's tenure as internal security boss. Kumawat wouldn't take names, but he made it apparent that his experience as head of the national co-ordination desk in North Block did not inspire too much optimism over the anti-Naxalite offensive in the works under Chidambaram. "We may think nationally but we do not act nationally," he said. "There is little or no co-ordination between states which are actually as big as countries. West Bengal, for instance, would not share information with Jharkhand. There are debilitating turf battles between various agencies, intelligence is routinely held back or delayed, and most of the intelligence and documentation we have is poor in any case. All that needs to change if the government is to have half a chance of success." The retired top cop was critical of the manner in which governments approached the "very alarming" Naxalite challenge, saying: "We don't prepare well enough. Information is critical and it is not available in the market, it has to be gathered and analysed all the time and over a long period of time. How many of our states have done that? Probably Andhra Pradesh, and they have had some success to show for homework done. But the same cannot be said for the rest. We are ill-prepared." Asked whether there was virtue to Chidambaram's argument that Naxalite-dominated areas first needed to be "cleansed" of their "disruptive dominance" before development initiatives can be effectively mounted, Kumawat said: "Well, the home minister has himself said this will be a long battle, how long are people to wait for the welfare state to come to them? The challenge and the ingenuity of governance lies is doing both at the same time, the security component will have to be built in to development projects, as has been successfully done in parts of the Northeast. It may be tough to do, but that is what governments are about." Cautioning against using too hard a hand, Kumawat said: "We are hearing things about the use of the Indian Air Force, but the government should be extremely careful it is only logistical use, nothing else. And even so, the Naxalites are very capable of trapping the air force in ugly situations where they will have no option but to retaliate. Once that begins to happen, there will be the huge risk of collateral damage to populations and further alienation. The Naxalites are clever tacticians, they will engage and scoot, innocent people will get killed, you will have mess on your hands. Look at what the drone attacks are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq." He sounded utterly unsurprised by indications emerging from Naxalite circles that they plan a bloody cat-and-mouse with security forces in the weeks and months to come. "If they are talking of encircling the government rather than getting encircled, it is nothing to scoff at or be smug about. That is classical Maoist tactic -- you go looking for them in their strongholds and you find they have melted away, their mobility is an advantage they employ to the hilt," Kumawat said, adding that this Naxalite tactic, too, bedevils government plans. "They will melt away, or just merge with populations. An operation, even if it is based on good and specific tip-offs, can end up hurting innocent people and creating greater disaffection against the state." | ||
 |
'The khatam line was what killed us'
3-foot crater at blast spot
 |
| The spot where Maoists blew up the railway line in Purulia. (Mita Roy) |
Purulia, Oct. 3: Maoists last night triggered an explosion that ripped off three feet of a railway track in Purulia and held up trains for over 14 hours.
"This is the first major blast in any railway division in south Bengal," a senior railway official said in Calcutta.
No one was injured in the attack around midnight, believed to be the rebels' bid to enforce an all-India bandh today to protest the arrest of Chhatradhar Mahato, the leader of the Maoist-backed People's Committee Against Police Atrocities.
The site of the blast is about a kilometre from Urma station, around 25km from Purulia. The blast happened in the Adra-Chandil section of south eastern railway.
The explosion was so powerful that it blew a three-foot section of the track about 100m away, tore overhead wires and left a crater over three-foot-deep.
The station master at Urma, Ratan Karketta, said the bomb went off at 11.47pm.
Hours later, another explosion was reported, this time in the Rourkela-Chakradharpur section, in Jharkhand around 1.45am. This blast damaged about 10m of a railway track. The blast spot is near the border of Jharkhand and Orissa, states with strong Maoist presence.
The Howrah-bound Gitanjali Express which takes this route was stopped at Jharsuguda in Orissa.
Station master Karketta said: "Some persons on the platform (in Urma) saw a flash of light followed immediately by a loud sound. A goods train had passed the spot just a few seconds before. Its driver informed the signal room about the blast."
The station control and security control rooms at Adra, the divisional headquarters of south eastern railway, were immediately informed. "All movement of trains was stopped within 12 minutes of the blast," said Purulia station master S.P. Majumdar.
Last night's blast spot near Adra is not far from where another explosion, of lesser intensity, damaged the same tracks on the eve of the chief minister's visit to Purulia on July 19. Train services had resumed within a couple of hours then.
On June 22, a line man found a powerful improvised explosive device 100m from Biramdih station in the same Adra-Chandil section.
All three incidents happened on days the Maoists had called strikes.
Divisional security commissioner S.K. Rajbangshi reached the Purulia blast spot this morning. "The explosion was quite strong. Besides the tracks and overhead wires on both the up and down tracks, panto rods (which support the overhead wires) and two concrete sleepers were destroyed," he said.
Divisional railway manager A.K. Garkare said up services (towards Chandil) resumed at 9.25 this morning, while down services (towards Purulia and Adra) resumed at 2pm.
Senior Railway Protection Force personnel said wires and metal fragments, possibly parts of the bomb, were found and sent to forensic labs to determine the nature of the explosives.
Houses torched
About a hundred Maoists raided two villages in West Midnapore and torched seven houses — two of CPM leaders and five of other activists— tonight.
The rebels were looking for CPM panchayat leader Renupada Singh and local branch committee secretary Lakshman Ghosh. When they did not find them in Nayagram and Tushbandhi, they marched their families out and set their houses on fire. Later, the group went to Ausbandhi village and set fire to the five other houses.
Arundhati Roy on anti-Maoist offensive and Kashmir
9/28 Democracy Now
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to a woman the New York Times calls India's most impassioned critic of globalization and American influence, Arundhati Roy, world-renowned Indian author and global justice activist. Her first novel, The God of Small Things, won the Booker Prize in 1997. She has a new book; it's called Field Notes on Democracy: Listening to Grasshoppers. An adapted introduction to the book is posted at tomdispatch.com, called "What Have We Done to Democracy?" Arundhati Roy joins us now from New Delhi, India, on the country's biggest national holiday of the year.
........
ANJALI KAMAT: Meanwhile, inside India, the focus has shifted to a different adversary. The stage is set for a major domestic military offensive against an armed group that the Indian prime minister has repeatedly called the country's, quote, "gravest internal security threat."
Operation Green Hunt will reportedly send between 75,000 and 100,000 troops to areas seen as Maoist strongholds in central and eastern India. In June, India labeled the Naxalite group, the Communist Party of India—Maoist—a terrorist organization, and earlier this month India's home minister came to the United States to share counterterror strategies.
The Indian government blames the deaths of nearly 600 people this year on Maoist violence and claims that Maoist rebels are active in twenty out of the twenty-eight states in the country. The Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh outlined the threat to a conference of state police chiefs earlier this month.
PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH: In many ways, the left-wing extremism poses perhaps the gravest internal security threat our country faces. We have discussed this in the last five years. And I would like to state, frankly, that we have not achieved as much success as we would have liked in containing this menace.
ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, let me just pick up on what Anjali was talking about just now, about the assault that's planned on the so-called Maoists in central India. You know, when September 11th happened, I think some of us had already said that a time would come when poverty would be sort of collapsed and converge into terrorism. And this is exactly what's happened. The poorest people in this country today are being called terrorists.
And what you have is a huge swath of forest in eastern and central India, spreading from West Bengal through the states of Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh. And in these forests live indigenous people. And also in these forests are the biggest deposits of bauxite and iron ore and so on, which huge multinational companies now want to get their hands on. So there's an MoU [Memorandum of Understanding] on every mountain, on every forest and river in this area.
And about in 2005, let's say, in central India, the day after the MoU was signed with the biggest sort of corporation in India, Tatas, the government also announced the formation of the Salwa Judum, which is a sort of people's militia, which is armed and is meant to fight the Maoists in the forest. But the thing is, all this, the Salwa Judum as well as the Maoists, they're all indigenous people. And in, let's say, Chhattisgarh, something like the Salwa Judum has been a very cruel militia, you know, burning villages, raping women, burning food crops. I was there recently. Something like 640 villages have been burned. Out of the 350,000, first about 50,000 people moved into roadside police camps, from where this militia was raised by the government. And the rest are simply missing. You know, some are living in cities, you know, eking out a living. Others are just hiding in the forest, coming out, trying to sow their crops, and yet getting, you know, those crops burnt down, their villages burnt down. So there is a sort of civil war raging.
And now, I remember traveling in Orissa a few years ago, when there were not any Maoists, but there were huge sort of mining companies coming in to mine the bauxite. And yet, they kept—all the newspapers kept saying the Maoists are here, the Maoists are here, because it was a way of allowing the government to do a kind of military-style repression. Of course, now they're openly saying that they want to call out the paramilitary.
And if you look at—for example, if you look at the trajectory of somebody like Chidambaram, who's India's home minister, he—you know, he's a lawyer from Harvard. He was the lawyer for Enron, which pulled off the biggest scam in the history of—corporate scam in the history of India. We're still suffering from that deal. After that, he was on the board of governors of what is today the biggest mining corporation in the world, called Vedanta, which is mining in Orissa. The day he became finance minister, he resigned from Vedanta. When he was the finance minister, in an interview he said that he would like 85 percent of India to live in cities, which means moving something like 500 million people. That's the kind of vision that he has.
And now he's the home minister, calling out the paramilitary, calling out the police, and really forcibly trying to move people out of their lands and homes. And anyone who resisted, whether they're a Maoist or not a Maoist, are being labeled Maoist. People are being picked up, tortured. There are some laws that have been passed which should not exist in any democracy, laws which make somebody like me saying what I'm saying now to you a criminal offense, for which I could just be jailed. Even sort of thinking an anti-government thought has become illegal. And we're talking about, you know, as you said, 75,000 to 100,000 security personnel going to war against people who, since independence, which was more than sixty years ago, have no schools, no hospitals, no running water, nothing. And now, now they're being—now they're being killed or imprisoned or just criminalized. You know, it's like if you're not in the Salwa Judum camp, then you're a Maoist, and we can kill you. And they are openly celebrating the Sri Lanka solution to terrorism, to terrorism.
.......
AMY GOODMAN: Arundhati Roy, talk about Kashmir. I think it's something, certainly here in the United States, a conflict people understand very little.
ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, Kashmir—Kashmir was an independent sort of kingdom in 1947 at the time of independence and partition. And when—I mean, just to cut a very complicated story short, when partition happened, both India and Pakistan fought over it and hived off parts of it, and both now have military presence in this divided Kashmir. But to give you some idea of the military presence, it's—you know, let's say the US has 165,000 troops in Iraq. India has 700,000 troops in Kashmir.
Kashmir used to have a Hindu king and a largely Muslim population, which was very, very backward and so on at the time, because at the time, you know, Muslims were discriminated against by that princely—in that princely state.
But now, for—I mean, in 1990, after a whole series of events, which culminated in a sort of fake election, a rigged election in 1987, there was an armed uprising in Kashmir. And really, since then, it's been convulsed by militancy and military occupation, encounters, disappearances and so on. Last year, there was a—you know, last year, they began to say everything is normal, you know, tourists are going back to the valley. But, of course, that was just wishful thinking, because there was a huge nonviolent uprising in which hundreds of thousands of people, you know, flocked the streets, day and night, demanding independence. It was put down with military force.
And now, once again, you have a situation where you can hardly walk from, you know, twenty meters without someone with an AK-47 in your face. Sometimes in places like Srinagar, which is the capital, it's well hidden. But it's a place where every action, every breath that people, you know, breathe in and breathe out, is kind of controlled by military force. And this is how—you know, people are just being asphyxiated; they cannot breathe.
And, of course, there's a huge publicity machine. You know, I mean, I'd say that the only difference between what's happening in Palestine and Kashmir is that, so far, India has not used air power on the people of Kashmir, as they are threatening to do, by the way, in Chhattisgarh, you know, to its own poorest. It has not—you know, the people, technically, they are able to move around, unlike the people of Gaza and the West Bank. Kashmiris are able to move around in the rest of India, though it isn't really safe, because their young get picked up and disappeared and tortured and so on. So, you know, it's not something that they easily will do. And there has not been this kind of system of settlements, you know, where you're trying to sort of take over by pushing in people from the mainland. So, other than those three, I think we're talking about an outright occupation.
........
ANJALI KAMAT: Arundhati, can you talk a little bit about encounter deaths? You mentioned this a little earlier in the program. What are police encounters, fake encounters? This is something that's quite common in India. But can you explain to our audience what you mean by "encounter deaths"?
ARUNDHATI ROY: Well, what happens now is that, you know, one of the ways in which people—the police and the security establishment deals with, you know, dissent, resistance and terrorism, or what they call terrorism, is to just deliver summary justice: kill people and say, oh, they were killed in an encounter, in cross-firing, or so on, and so on. So, in places like Kashmir and in the northeast, in Manipur and Nagaland, it's an old tradition. In places like Andhra Pradesh, they had, you know, many, many hundreds of encounter deaths.
And, in fact, recently, there was a photo essay of an encounter death in Manipur, where the, you know, security grid just—security forces just surrounded this young boy. And it was a photo essay, you know. He was unarmed. He was a former militant, I think, who had laid down his arms, and he was in the market. And you just saw a policeman pulling out his gun, shooting him, and then they said, oh, he was killed in crossfire, you know.
So, it's a very—you have people—we have cops here who are given medals for being encounter specialists. You know, so the more people they've killed, the more medals they'll get. And in places like Kashmir, they actually get promotions. So, in fact, it's something to be proud of, an encounter killing, for, you know, both the army as well as the police and the counterinsurgency forces.
......
But here in India, there's the smell of fascism in the air. Earlier, it was a kind of an anti-Muslim, religious fascism. Now we have a secular government, and it's a kind of right-wing ruthlessness, where people openly say, you know, every country that has progressed and is developed, whether you look at Europe or America or China or Russia, they have a quote-unquote "past," you know, they have a cruel past, and it's time that India stepped up to the plate and realized that there are some people that are holding back this kind of progress and that we need to be ruthless and move in, as Israel did recently in Gaza, as Sri Lanka has recently done with its hundreds of thousands of Tamils in concentration camps. So why not India? You know? Why not just do away with the poor so that we can be a proper superpower, instead of a super-poor superpower?
AMY GOODMAN: Arundhati Roy, we just have less than a minute. What gives you hope?
ARUNDHATI ROY: What gives me hope is the fact that this way of thinking is being resisted in a myriad ways in India, you know, from the poorest person in a loincloth in the forest saying, "We're going to fight," right up to me, who's at the other end, you know. And all of us are joined together by the determination that, even if we lose, we're going to fight, you know? And we're not going to just let this happen without doing everything we can to stop it. And that gives me a tremendous amount of hope.
Exclusive to Maoist Revolution - by Anand Swaroop Verma
-------------------------------------------------------
Interview of Prachand, Chairman, UCPN (Maoist) by Anand Swaroop Verma
7 August 2009
Following is the transcript of an interview of Prachanda, Chairman of the Unified Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).
Q : There has been a sudden stop in the political process of the country which was witnessed after 12 point agreement of November 2005 till announcement of republic. Confusion has gripped both the countries, Nepal and India and it appears that the process of development has been caught in a bind. Who is responsible for it and what is the road to come out of it?
A: Thanks. You have asked important question. The main aim of the 12 point agreement was to establish a new democratic constitution through constituent assembly. At that time the main aim of the peoples movement was to have a joint struggle against the autocratic monarchy. This is clear that monarchy was abolished and democracy could be brought in. We succeeded in our immediate task. The election to the constituent assembly was accomplished and the Maoists emerged as the single largest party. The government was also formed under the leadership of the Maoists. But while we were moving forward to take the peace process to a logical conclusion and working with an all round strategy to write the constitution, a debate on the issue of the supremacy of the military and the people erupted. What ever orders I issued on behalf of the government, the army general repeatedly violated those instructions of an elected government. He refused to accept them. He challenged them. This created a piquant situation for me. If the army refused to accept the supremacy of an elected government, the supremacy of the peoples, and does not come under the peoples' government then a major problem would crop up. And for this reason I decided to remove the army general. Other people meaning the Nepali Congress and UML supported the army's supremacy. As a result the situation acquired a complicated shape. This is the reason that a debate is still going on: should it be civilian supremacy or military supremacy? We have been consistently telling the parties which claim to uphold the supremacy of parliamentary system that since you talk of parliamentary supremacy then on the issue of army general and the unconstitutional steps taken by the President in this connection should be debated in the parliament. But they are not ready for this. They are completely going against the democracy, peace process and drafting of constitution. Obviously those persons who favour the army general and oppose the peoples government are responsible for this situation.
Q : Yesterday I talked to prime minister, Mr Madhav Nepal and sought to know his views on this issue. He told that there was no provision in the constitution under which the parliament could debate the steps taken by the President. Is it so?
A : Certainly not. This is not a monarchy where in the decision of the king could not be debated in parliament. During the days of monarchy no debate in parliament could be permitted on any step of king. There is no such provision now in the constitution. We can debate about President. There is no problem. These people are intentionally pursuing dogmatism.
Q : The prime minister, Mr Madhav Nepal has assured you people that he would rectify the unconstitutional decision of the President and for this he had sought one month's time so that you should allow the parliament to function. What the government so far has done in this direction.?
A : We talked to him with responsibility and he in the parliament told that he would evolve a consensus on this issue after talking to various political parties within a month and try to solve the problem. This was the assurance of the prime minister and it was our expectation too that it would be solved within a month. But so far he did nothing. After five days were left I told him emphatically that it is imperative to talk or else the problem would continue to exist. However one talk was held with the leaders of Nepali Congress and UML but the prime minister does not appear to be keen to solve this. Today is the last day of the time frame. Since nothing substantial has emerged we would now be raising this issue in parliament and on streets. We are raising this issue in a peaceful and democratic manner. But these people are not showing any seriousness.
Q : I have been witnessing since the days of Raja Tribhuvan that the politics of Nepal has been to a major extent India centric. Whoever has been in power while taking a decision looked towards India. This was for the first time that you refused to accept the dictate of India. The disappointment of India could be understood but other political parties did not support you either. Do you think that the politics of Nepal being India centric has been the prime reason for most of the problems?
A : Your question is of strategic importance. Not only from the days of King Tribhuvan instead this situation has been prevailing when British ruled India. You will recall that a war took place between British India and Nepal and following that in 1815 the Sugauli Treaty was signed. After that the influence of ruling elite of India continued to increase here. Nepal is an independent country but the fact is after the Sugauli treaty it turned like a semi colony of India. When the peoples movement was going on against Ranas (Ranashahi) at that time King Tribhuvan took shelter in India and with the help of India through the " Delhi agreement" the rule of Rana was abolished. This helped strengthen the rule of Shah dynasty. India played a major role. After that in the move for bringing democracy, which started in Nepal, the Nepali Congress often adopted a stance of compromise, understanding and surrender towards India. In this backdrop democracy was installed but its functioning continued to follow the old pattern. The moment the main leader of the Nepali Congress Mr B P Koirala started talking of little freedom he was ousted. India encouraged the autocratic move of the King. The autocratic panchayati system, independent authoritarian establishment could keep its identity in Nepal only due to the support extended by India. Due to the struggle of CPN (Maoist) the process of major transformation of Nepal's economic, social and political condition has emerged. Now when the Maoists emerged as the major political party in the constituent assembly elections to address this process of transformation then again problem has cropped up. On my tour to India I had in specific words told that there was imperative need to address this transformation. Nepal has undergone a major political change and with this there is need for some change in our historical relation with India. I had told in clear words that people of Nepal are not happy with the 1950 friendship treaty. They view it as unequal treaty. This needs to be changed as it is not based on equality. We don't want any bitterness with India instead we long for good relation. But keeping in view the revolutionary change that is going on in Nepal the relation between the two countries should be changed, should be developed accordingly. Only then we can improve the relations between the two countries. Our special economic, political, geographical, cultural and historical relations should be rearranged according to the prevailing time. But unfortunately this is not happening. Delhi has a psychology that Nepal has to obey what India dictates. No change has taken place in the psyche though a number of changes have taken place in India. End of the British rule and strengthening of India through sustained economic growth did not have desired impact on the mind set of the ruling class of India. The amount of change which should have taken place has not occurred. Nepal has witnessed a major political change but India is not serious to understand this and also to reshape the relation between the two countries in the perspective of the changed scenario. This is the reason problems keep on emerging. I wish the India Nepal relation should be redefined in the background of the recent political and socio-economic changes. This should be developed further.
Q : After you formed the government in August 2008 it appeared that the government of India has accepted the situation and its attitude towards your government was quite cordial and cooperative. But its displeasure on the Katwal issue came out openly. What mistake did you commit during your rule that changed the approach of India? Were you careless while dealing with China that made India unhappy?
A : I don't think so. My party and I too seriously thought over this. But the more I think, the more I am clear that neither my party nor me committed any mistake. When my government was installed, in the neighbouring country China Olympic games were on. On the inaugural day my government was formed. The President of Nepal was invited to participate at the inauguration but he could not go. Before the Olympic concluded my government was formed and I was invited to participate at the closing ceremony. I thought it would not look nice if being the neighbouring country I would not had participated at the event where American President, Mr Bush, Ms. Sonia Gandhi and her family from India, the Prime Minister of UK and rulers of many other countries would be present. What mattered most was being the leader of the party, which had brought about such a change in Nepal it was proper to go there for interacting and meeting with more people. Nepal has a tradition that after swearing in of the government the Prime Ministers undertake their first visit to India. I did not give so much of credence to that tradition. I felt this was not a good tradition. But it did not imply that I have first visited China. Any visit should be in conformity to the necessity. According to need we can go to India first and even to China. I felt the Olympics closing ceremony was being held for which I have been invited and so I should go there. In fact some people had put pressure on me that I should not go to China, it would break the tradition, India will feel bad etc. But I sought to know why the relation with India sour? If Mr Bush and Ms. Gandhi could go why cannot I? China is our neighbouring country and I decided to go and went. When I turn back and look at the event I have the feeling that this had a some psychological impact on India. In my perception what happened was a natural development but the ruling elite of India did not like it. Besides this before formation of my government one major incident had taken place in Tibet. Some incidents of vandalism had taken place. Some people had died in Lhasa. Chinese government nursed the impression that people active in creating disturbances in Tibet were using the land of Nepal. I feel that in view of that incident some intellectuals and officials of China started frequently visiting Nepal. They wanted to know that the political changes that were taking place in Nepal whether would benefit China. China from the beginning has been supporting monarchy as it felt stability in Nepal could be possible through monarchy. From the days of Mao Tse Tung China maintained a cordial relation with monarchy. Now we have uprooted monarchy and created a new political set up. However India felt that since Maoists have come to power in Nepal the flow of the Chinese visitors to Nepal had increased and Maoists were tilting towards China. But these were mere coincidences: end of monarchy, vandalism in Tibet and Maoists coming to power in Nepal. And even if the Chinese have been frequently coming to Nepal to understand the changes that took place it should not have been enough to become suspicious. According to me it is wrong. Because this was happening not due to us, but due to them. I repeatedly made it clear that I would strive to maintain the good relations between the two countries. Besides I did not want to do any thing in haste. I was firmly committed to address the aspirations of the people. I was gradually and steadily moving in the direction of giving a concrete shape to the peoples' aspiration of change. People wanted a reform in security sector. Keeping this in view I brought about certain changes in the police department and armed constabulary department. Naturally in this background the issue of Katwal cropped up before me. People were aware of the fact that Katwal was not in favour of change, he was not in favour of integration of army, he was not in favour of constitution, he was not in favour of democracy and was regularly challenging the government. Obviously some action has to be taken against him. May be some of my friend did not like it. I don't think that I ever took any action which should have been the factor for straining the relations with India. I tried to develop the relations with China and India keeping in view the needs of the Nepali people and Nepali nation.
Q : Do you think that you adopted liberal stance in the matter of Katwal? Did you agree that just after becoming prime minister if you had acted on the Raymajhi Commission report and removed Katwal then in that case you would had received massive public support? What was the reason?
A : Girija Babu's government was in power when the Raymajhi Commission report came. I had raised this question but Girija Babu was not ready to take action. Of course people ask me why I did not take action soon after I came to power. My endeavour was to evolve a consensus among the coalition partners before taking any action. I tried but other parties did not agree. I held with other parties giving consent the task would be easier; particularly with giving consent by the UML. I was having talks with the UML. They told me to wait till their Congress. After the Congress concluded a serious talk was held with their president Jhalnath Khanal, vice president Bamdeo Gautam and general secretary Ishwar Pokhrel and all of them gave their consent. They told me to take action against Katwal and assured me of their help. Once UML supported, the Madhesi forum also agreed. After this Sadbhavana Party and others also consented and then only I took action. Had I known that they would succumbed to the internal and external pressures and retreat from their positions then in that case I would have taken action within a month of my becoming the prime minister. Even children of Nepal know from where the pressure was coming.
Q : Yesterday I had asked prime minister Madhav Nepal that your party president had given his consent for removal of Katwal and I had also read a statement purporting to it. But he refused and said that his party president never gave consent for it.
A : He is misleading. Now it is clear to the parliament also.
Q : On the issue of integration of both the armies nearly one month back I had read the statement of Indian ambassador, Mr Rakesh Sood in which he said that there is no reference to integration of two armies in the peace accord and integration meant integration of the PLA soldiers in the Nepali society. Recently Mr Girija Prasad Koirala also repeated the same line. In this background are you apprehensive of peace process getting derailed?
A ; This is the reason that I have been repeatedly saying that the unconstitutional step taken by the President was not his own instead it is a part of the well thought out strategy against the peace process and also against the process for creation of constituent assembly. That is why I have been consistently saying that till the issue of civilian supremacy is not resolved, till the wrong step taken by a ceremonial president, who has been pretending to work as the functional president is not rectified, this issue could not be resolved. I am saying this only for the reason that this action was against democracy and also against the democratic traditions. But these people are not ready to take any corrective measure. They intend that the issue of army integration should be completely dropped as in the detailed peace agreement it is specifically mentioned that the army integration and rehabilitation would take place. Army integration meant unification of both armies. This is clearly written in the agreement. But when people like Rakesh Sood, Girija Prasad Koirala speak one language, speak against the peace accord and resort to distorted arguments on the issue of integration of army as the integration of soldiers in the society and try to create confusion in the world then it obviously implied that we are left with no other option but to resort to movement. Which is why we have decided to go for movement; inside the parliament and also outside. If they go against the peace accord and oppose the interim government, democratic values and supremacy of the people then we are left with no option but to start movement and we are actually doing that from today. But side by side we would keep on talking to other parties. We would continuously strive to evolve a national consensus on this issue. Our stand is there is only one solution to this issue: we should be allowed to place our views in the Parliament. A formal atmosphere should be created inside the house to debate our issue. We are saying only this much but they are not agreeing to this proposal. It simply meant that they want confrontation. They don't want peace. They don't want democracy. Instead they want autocracy.
Q : The central committee of your party had decided for national government of general consensus which would be led by the Maoists. How is it possible in the present situation?
A : The central committee of our party debated various aspects of this issue and we reached at the conclusion that we should firmly stand in the favour of the peace process and in the creation of constituent assembly and form a national government with general consensus under the leadership of Maoists. We feel this is possible. The first thing is the question does not arise to form the government with any party which justifies the unconstitutional action of the President. If they don't agree to rectify the presidential action then in that case we will not take in the new government. They have to change their old stand on the issue of army general. In spite of this we visualize the possibility of the government as majority of the members of parliament of UML are opposed to the President's step. They want to debate the issue in the Parliament as they are aware that the majority would be in the favour of the Maoists. We believe even if they are not agreeable for a debate we can protest the step of President with the help of the MPs of UML and other parties. The Madhesh parties will also join us and by then we will come into the position of forming the government. We have majority in parliament.
Q : Does it imply that the issue of civilian supremacy is the biggest issue for you?
A : Certainly. Civilian supremacy in comparison to the military supremacy is the biggest issue.
Q : Two line struggle has often been going in your party. Without trying to know who represents which line I would like to ask what are the two lines.
A : The reply is complicated. It is not so easy, even then I will explain about the two lines. Certainly our party had two line struggle and the just concluded central committee meeting had a long discussion. At this meeting through discussion the two line issue has been resolved. Now based on a new foundation a new unity has developed in the party. In fact a good number of comrades were sceptical whether the party was following in the lines of UML. Is it drowning in parliamentarism? Is it moving towards reformism? They were quite disturbed due to these questions. Our cadres were seriously anxious. This was a bigger problem. We were telling them that we were advancing only after making a thorough analysis of the basic principles of Marxism; concrete analysis of the concrete situation. We were advancing keeping in view our socialist and communist ideals and also our strategy for peoples revolution. One section held this view. Other section felt that instead of moving towards revolution we were inching towards compromise and parliamentarism. This is the essence of debate. But after my resignation our comrades have come to believe that there was no deviation in the party. They felt that the party in the correct manner was progressing towards revolution by taking the people alongwith it. From outside my resignation would appear to be a negative step but whereas the unity of the party and the confusion in the party are concerned this has left a significant positive impact. Comrades who nursed the feeling that the leadership has developed lust for power are now feeling relieved. Their misconceptions have been removed. I had resigned with the commitment to struggle against the counterrevolutionary and reactionary elements and not to surrender to the dictates of foreign lords. I had told that I would not tolerate any kind of foreign intervention. This has created an atmosphere inside the party that the leadership was pursuing the correct line towards revolution. As a result of this not only the unity of the party has been strengthened but also credibility amongst the people has enhanced. After my resignation even the urban middle class has come to realize that our party could protect the national interest and preserve its sovereignty and pride.
Q: Your critics say that you have abandoned the base areas and disarmed the Janamukti Sena (PLA). How far is it correct?
A : This is not true. When we came in peace process and also came for democracy then it broadly implied that we were successful. We dislodged monarchy, constituted the constituent assembly and emerged as the biggest party in the constituent assembly. Obviously I don't find any weakness. As for as the issue of base area and PLA are concerned; PLA is in the cantonment and the arms are with them. The keys of the boxes having the guns are with the PLA. This makes clear that we have not surrendered the arms. If the other side is willing to abide the peace accord then we are also ready for integration of the army. But we are not for surrender. Which is why the people who criticize us on this count are wrong. They fail to understand the true situation prevailing in Nepal. They are not able to comprehend the development of the revolution and its dynamics. They look at the entire scene in a narrow and mechanical manner. Our base areas are intact and the people in those areas are firm. The organization in those areas is also strong. I in fact believe that we have succeeded in expanding our base areas. It has been spread through out the country. At present in a way the whole country has become our base area. Our victory and the manner in which we have amalgamated with the people, for me this is expansion of the base area. For this reason I don't believe that we have left our base areas.
Q: If the integration of the army takes place and if a unified National Army is constituted as the result of the merger of the Nepali army and the PLA, in that case are you conscious of the impending dangers? What I want to say cannot that army be used against you once you are out of power? The reason for this is what is the guarantee that the army constituting of the revolutionary cadres of the PLA and regular armymen nursing feudal would stand in the favour of people?
A; That danger is there, but we have faith in people. I have faith in integration of the army. If the integration of the army takes place then it should be viewed as the victory of the situation created through the peoples struggle. Obviously the entire army will stand in favour of the people. The army will stand in favour of the nation. And under the leadership of the party we could lead the country in a better way. This is my belief. Just some time back you wanted to know why the Indian ambassador, Mr Rakesh Sood and Mr Girija Prasad Koirala of Nepali Congress has been opposed to integration of army. Do you think they would have opposed this if the reactionary forces have visualized that the integrated army would stand in favour of reactionary forces? Once the integration takes place this army would ceased to be theirs. This would be completely the army of the people. Which is why they are speaking against it and trying to create hurdles. One should realize that the integration of army is not against Maoists. This is not against the people. This is in favour of people. This is the reason that the reactionary forces outside the country and also inside quite active against it. One should understand this.
Q: What is the programme for insurrection? And what should be its character?
A : I believe that Nepal would not have that nature of insurrection that took place in Russia under Lenin or the peoples revolution that was witnessed in China under Mao Tse Tung. A new type and new form of insurrection is possible in Nepal. We cannot import any revolution in a mechanical manner. We would have to show the courage and strength of developing it. We are striving in this direction. And for this we are advancing in the right direction by pursuing a completely new style, in our own way and keeping in view the global situation. We have to chalk out the programme and strategy of the Nepali revolution keeping in view the global and regional balance of power and also in the background of relations with China and India. We are striving in this direction. Which is why we do not understand the insurrection in a mechanical way. I don't think proper to speak more than this on this issue at this stage.
Q : The movement which you are going to launch may create the law and order situation, the government would also resort to repressive measures and the people may also take to resistance movement. In this background do you visualize that the movement may turn violent? Do you think that the situation would go to such extent that you would be forced to take to armed struggle of the days of the peoples' war?
A : The programmes of movement that we have announced are of peaceful nature. We would steer it in constitutional and peaceful manner inside and outside the parliament. In case the government resorts to repression then in that situation the people would come to realize that the Maoists intended to place their views in a peaceful manner but were not being allowed. The Maoists has been struggling for democracy and civilian supremacy through the constitutional means. The people would also see that the Maoists have been demanding to have a debate on this inside the parliament. If the government resorts to repression the people would find out their own way to resist. We are talking of 'Jan Andolan 3' (third peoples' movement). We will proceed through peoples' movement and they would be forced to accept the peoples' demand. We don't have any plan to resort to violent or arms struggle. The people will certainly resist in case the state perpetrates violence and repression. In this situation the Maoists would support the peoples' resistance movement.
Q: Don't you think this is hindering the process of drafting of the constitution for which you people have been elected.?
A : No. The work of drafting of constitution is going on smoothly. Both the movement and drafting of constitution will continue. We will not create any obstruction in the task of constitution drafting. We are obstructing its parliamentary part. There are separate committees for drafting of constitution with different functioning and we are not creating any obstruction in that. We would continue to take active part.
Q: How do you visualise the future of Nepal in coming days?
A : The people of Nepal will win. We are trying for taking forward the revolution of the country in a different manner and confident of getting success.
(Published in the October 2009 issue of Hindi journal Samkalin Teesari Duniya, New Delhi.)
Dear All, The article by Yakov Rabkin, is a must read.
(the author of the seminal book 'A Threat from within - A century of Jewish opposition to Zionism')
Important for especially those who wish to understand both the 'secular' as well as the 'religious' roots of Zionism.Some would be surprised, but even in terms of sheer numbers, there are far more Christian Zionists than Jewish Zionists.
And even the so-called secular-socialist Zionism was extremely racist, colonialist & fascist in it's character.
Regards
Feroze
RABKIN: Demystifying Zionism October 2, 2009
by Yakov M Rabkin - September 2009
The word "Zionism" means different things to different people. Some use it a badge of honour, unconditionally defending the state of Israel right or wrong. Yet, many Zionists take umbrage at the appellation of Israel as a Zionist state. They insist that it is a "Jewish state", a "state of the Jewish people". Quite a few people who identify themselves as Zionists, are distressed by what Israel is and does, but remain reluctant to express their distress in public. Others, including quite a few Israelis, see Zionism as the main obstacle to peace in Israel/Palestine, a path to collective suicide. And, finally, in some circles the word is used as an insult.
This article proposes to demystify Zionism by outlining the origins of the Zionist idea and of its relationship with religion. It continues with a cursory look at the evolution of Zionism, from motley seemingly incompatible ideologies to a rather monolithic political stance prevalent nowadays. The article concludes by offering answers to two questions that concern many people today: what explains the solid support that Canadian, US and other Western governments offer the state of Israel, and why rejection of Zionism and criticism of Israel are often regarded as an anti-Semitic act.
Origins
Zionism is a product of European history and one of the last movements in contemporary history that set out to transform man and society. Both Zionists and their opponents agree that Zionism and the State of Israel constitute a revolution in Jewish history, a revolution that began with the emancipation and the secularization of European Jews in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Secularization, which affected many Jews in Europe, was a necessary, albeit not a sufficient, factor in the emergence of Zionism. Another important factor was resistance against the entry of Jews into European society, which coalesced into the secular ideology of racial or scientific anti-Semitism. Unlike Christian anti-Judaism, which aimed at salvation through conversion, modern anti-Semitism considers Jews to be a race or a people intrinsically alien, even hostile, to Europe, its population and its civilization.
Secularization also revolutionized Jewish identity from within: traditional Jews can be distinguished by what they do or should do; the new Jews by what they are. While they practice the same religion, it would be truly daring to assume that Jews from Poland, Yemen and Morocco belong to the same ethnic group, let alone are descendents of the Biblical Hebrews. Some, such as Professor Shlomo Sand of Tel-Aviv University, argue that the Jewish people, as an ethnic concept, was simply "invented" for the needs of Zionism in the late 19th century: after all, one needs a nation to be a nationalist.
In the words of the late Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz of Hebrew University in Jerusalem,
The historical Jewish people was defined neither as a race, nor as a people of this country or that, or of this political system or that, nor as a people that speaks the same language, but as the people of Torah Judaism and of its commandments, as the people of a specific way of life, both on the spiritual and the practical plane, a way of life that expresses the acceptance of … the yoke of the Torah and of its commandments. This consciousness exercised its effect from within the people. It formed its national essence; it maintained itself down through the generations and was able to preserve its identity irrespective of times or circumstances.
Zionism rejected the traditional definition in favour of a modern national one. Thus Zionists accepted the anti-Semites' view of the Jews as a distinct people or race and, moreover, internalized much of the anti-Semitic blame directed at the Jews, accused of being degenerate unproductive parasites. Zionists set out to reform and redeem the Jews from their sad condition. In the words of Professor Elie Barnavi, former Israeli ambassador in Paris, "Zionism was an invention of intellectuals and assimilated Jews… who turned their back on the rabbis and aspired to modernity, seeking desperately for a remedy for their existential anxiety". However, most Jews rejected Zionism from the very beginning. They saw that Zionists played into the hands of their worst enemies, the anti-Semites: the latter wanted to be rid of Jews while the former wanted to gather them to Israel. The founder of Zionism Theodore Herzl considered anti-Semites "friends and allies" of his movement.
Among the many tendencies within Zionism, the one that has triumphed formulated four objectives: 1) to transform the transnational and extraterritorial Jewish identity centred on the Torah into a national identity, like ones then common in Europe; 2) to develop a new national language based on biblical and rabbinical Hebrew; 3) to transfer the Jews from their countries of origin to Palestine; and 4) to establish political and economic control over the land, if need be by force. While other European nationalists, such as Poles or Lithuanians, needed only to wrest control of their countries from imperial powers to become "masters in their own houses," Zionists faced a far greater challenge in trying to achieve their first three objectives simultaneously.
Zionism has been a rebellion against traditional Judaism and its cult of humility and appeasement. It has been a valiant attempt to transform the meek pious Jew relying on divine providence into an intrepid secular Hebrew relying on his own power. This transformation has been an impressive success.
Zionism and Religion
According to a sarcastic remark of an Israeli colleague, « our claim to this land could be put in a nutshell: God does not exist, and he gave us this land. » Indeed, secular nationalism and religious rhetoric lie at the root of the Zionist enterprise.
Indeed, Zionism turned prayers and messianic expectations into calls for political and military action. In his intellectual history of Zionism, Professor Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University observes "Jews did not relate to the vision of the Return in a more active way than most Christians viewed the Second Coming. … The fact remains that for all of its emotional, cultural, and religious intensity, this link with Palestine did not change the praxis of Jewish life in the Diaspora: Jews might pray three times a day for the deliverance that would transform the world and transport them to Jerusalem, but they did not emigrate there." They did not because Jewish tradition discourages collective, let alone violent, return to the Promised Land: this return is to be operated as part of the messianic redemption of the entire world.
There is little wonder that the Zionist idea provoked immediate opposition among traditional Jews. "Zionism is the most terrible enemy that has ever arisen to the Jewish Nation. … Zionism kills the nation and then elevates the corpse to the throne", proclaimed a prominent European rabbi nearly a century ago. The Israeli scholar Yosef Salmon explains this opposition:
It was the Zionist threat that offered the gravest danger, for it sought to rob the traditional community of its very birthright, both in the Diaspora and in the Land of Israel, the object of its messianic hopes. Zionism challenged all the aspects of traditional Judaism: in its proposal of a modern, national Jewish identity; in the subordination of traditional society to new life-styles; and in its attitude to the religious concepts of Diaspora and redemption. The Zionist threat reached every Jewish community. It was unrelenting and comprehensive, and therefore it met with uncompromising opposition.
Rabbis were also concerned, long before the declaration of the state of Israel, that "the Zionists would ultimately create a Judaism of cannons and bayonets that would invert the roles of David and Goliath and would end in a perversion of Judaism, which had never glorified war and never idolized warriors." This has in fact happened, particularly within the National Religious movement that has been the engine of Zionist settlement in the territories conquered by Israeli troops in 1967.
Grafting traditional Jewish symbols on essentially secular Zionism, however incongruous, is very potent. Identification with Israel's reliance on force has increased even among many observant Jews, in spite of the principled rejection of Zionism by the rabbis they continue to revere. More importantly, Zionism has replaced Judaism as a new religion for millions of secular and atheistic people. They reflexively reject disapproval of Israel and avoid unpleasant facts about it. Believing to act as good Jews, they cherish and cheer on an ideal, virtual Israel, just as Western communists used to support an ideal Soviet Union, which had little to do with the real one.
At the same time, a broad variety of Jews continue to oppose Zionism, accusing it of destroying Jewish moral values and endangering Jews in Israel and elsewhere. It remains to be seen whether the fracture between those who hold fast to Jewish nationalism and those who abhor it may one day be mended. Or, like Christianity before it, Zionism will coalesce into a new identity independent of Judaism altogether.
While Zionism has profoundly divided the Jews, it has united tens of millions of evangelical Christians in the United States and elsewhere. Some of them claim that Israel is "more important for Christians than it is for Jews". For the prominent evangelical preacher Reverend Jerry Falwell the founding of the State of Israel in 1948 is "the most crucial event in history since the ascension of Jesus to heaven … Without a State of Israel in the Holy Land, there cannot be the second coming of Jesus Christ, nor can there be a Last Judgement, nor the End of the World". The coalition of Christians United for Israel claims many times more supporters than the sum total of Jews the world (between 13 and 14 million). Most Zionists today are Christian, which is hardly surprising since the very project of actually gathering the Jews in the Holy Land had emerged in Anglo-American Protestant circles well before Jews embraced it in late 19th century.
Evolution of Zionism
Political ideologies within Zionism used to vary from militant exclusive nationalism to humanistic socialism and national communism. While the former were convinced that the indigenous Palestinians would only acquiesce to Zionist colonization in the face of a overwhelming military force, the latter believed that eventual benefits of progress and modernization would lead to proletarian unity between the colonizers and the colonized. Unlike the right-wing Vladimir Jabotinsky, who openly endorsed the colonialist and therefore forceful character of Zionism, the socialist majority of the Zionist pioneers refused to acknowledge conflict over the land between Zionists and the indigenous population. Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini, who called for mobilization of the Jews for "war, revolt and sacrifice," derided the illusions of the Social-Zionists and their insistence on the "purity of arms".
In fact, emphasis on the use of force was almost as common among the socialist Zionists. True, thousands of socialist and communist rank-and-file Zionists were opposed to the idea of a Jewish state, that they considered reactionary and even fascist in the 1920s. At the same time, Labour Zionist leaders did not apply socialist egalitarian principles to local Arabs and Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. Socialism was for them no more than an instrument to be used in the cause of nationalism, rather than an intrinsic social or political value. David Ben-Gurion, the future founder of the state of Israel, declared in 1922:
It is not by looking for a way of ordering our lives through the harmonious principles of a perfect system of socioeconomic production that we can decide on our line of action. The one great concern that should govern our thought and work is the conquest of the land and building it up through extensive immigration. All the rest is mere words and phraseology, and — let us not delude ourselves — we have to go forward in an awareness of our political situation: that is to say, in an awareness of power relationships, the strength of our people in this country and abroad.
According to Zeev Sternhell, Israel's foremost historian of right-wing movements, Ben-Gurion's socialism was inspired by the German nationalist socialism of the years immediately following the Great War. In the introduction to his book, The Founding Myths of Zionism, Sternhell goes to great lengths to come up with the term "nationalist Socialism" to avoid calling Ben-Gurion's political outlook National Socialism. While some Zionists deplore the disappearance of the "small beautiful Israel" of the 1950s, which was admired by the international left, it was to be expected that practical Zionism, which involved displacement of local population, would evolve towards exclusive nationalism, away from socialist ideals that enthused Zionist pioneers.
Western Support
An Israeli political commentator once remarked that had Jean-Marie Le Pen transferred his party to Israel, it would find itself in the centre left of the country's political spectrum. Media in Israel have termed as "fascist" and "racist" the parliament elected in 2009. This election came in the wake of a popularly supported massive attack on Gaza that left behind thousands of civilian dead and wounded. The new government has proposed a series of repressive legislative measures, intensified police harassment of Jewish dissident groups, and barred entry to UN officials.
However, Western governments did not react to all this with disapproval, which followed the election of Hamas in Gaza or even the ministerial appointment of Heider in Austria. Most expressed confidence in the robustness of Israeli democracy and abstained from voicing criticism. Canada's Conservative government continued its policy of enthusiastic support and security cooperation with Israel. Why does Israel enjoy so much support from Western governments?
One of the reasons is the right wing shift in political, social and economic conditions in Israel. The gap between the rich and the poor increased, competition replaced social solidarity, and privatization encroached even on kibbutzim. This dovetailed with measures to dismantle the welfare state in major Western nations in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As if in reaction to the Soviets' internationalism, overt ethnic nationalism has made a comeback, first in the Baltic republics, and later in the rest of Europe. Egalitarian liberal discourse has ceded its once dominant place to attempts to exclude "the other".
Liberal values emerged during the post-colonial period when it became no longer admissible to proclaim the superiority of one culture over another, one religion over another, let alone one race over another. Cold War made racism illegitimate as intensive struggle was conducted between superpowers for sympathies in the Third World. There was shame and regret expressed with respect to past racist practices in Europe and in the colonies around the world. The end of the Cold War reversed this process. One has begun to hear justifications of colonial rule in France, to see monuments to SS troops erected in Ukraine, and watch Roma, Africans and Asians violently attacked throughout Europe. Mass massacres accompanied the collapse of Yugoslavia, while Czechoslovakia dissolved peacefully along ethnic lines. References to national and religious "intrinsic" factors of behaviour regained legitimacy as Western nations engaged in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Here again Israel, espousing ethnic, not civic, nationalism, appeared as a trendsetter. As Zionists would not admit that injustice against indigenous population lies at the foundation of their state, they would not attribute the enduring enmity of the displaced Palestinians to grievances about their deportation and dispossession. Rather, "the Arabs" are portrayed as irrational haters, religious fanatics or even modern-day Nazis. Some would compare them to animals and insects, a zoological vocabulary being common to many colonizers. Western reaction to the events of September 11 embraced Israel's narrative about the Arabs' irrational hatred of progress and freedom, their inborn hostility to "Judeo-Christian" values. Moreover, Israel has come to play a major role as a privileged source of expertise and equipment in "the war on terror" conducted by Western nations, while being hailed by the evangelical right, which sees in it a harbinger of the Second Coming of Christ.
However, Western support is fragile since it suffers from democratic deficit. Public opinion in the countries, whose governments enthusiastically endorse Israel, consistently considers it a major threat to world peace. While business circles express their admiration for Israel, unions and other grass-root associations condemn it as an apartheid state and campaign for boycott, disinvestment and sanctions. Israel has firmly positioned itself as a beacon for the right.
Is it anti-Semitic to reject Zionism and to criticize Israel?
Ever since 1948, when Zionists unilaterally declared independence against the will of the majority of Palestine's population – Christians, Muslims and quite a few Jews – Israeli leaders began to worry about ensuring a Jewish ethnic majority. They have used a range of methods to encourage immigration of Jewish citizens of other countries. Since most immigrants have moved to Israel under the threat – genuine or fake – of anti-Semitism, rather than for ideological reasons, anti-Semitism has always served Israel's interests.
Nowadays anti-Semitism is mostly fallout from the Middle East conflict. Jews are increasingly associated with Israel's bomber aircraft, gun-toting soldiers and Zionist settlers that fill the TV screens. However, Israeli authorities are not concerned that their policies towards the Palestinians breed anti-Semitism around the world. To the contrary, the rise of anti-Semitism supports their claim that only in Israel can a Jew feel safe, and, in practical terms, increases immigration.
At the same time, "vassals of Israel" (a term coined by the former Israeli ambassador to France Elie Barnavi for persons often mistaken for Jewish leaders), not only proclaim their loyalty to Israel, but also defiantly fly Israeli flags at the entrance of Jewish institutions, including old-age homes and hospitals. Such conflation of Israel and Jewish citizens of other countries provokes anti-Semitism and invites hostility. The standard Zionist claim that Israel – a distant and combative state most Jews neither control nor inhabit – is "the state of the Jewish people" implicates Jews around the world into what Israel is and does. Calling Israel the Jewish state predictably foments anti-Semitism and breeds anti-Jewish violence.
By stifling even the most moderate critique of Israel with accusations of anti-Semitism, these "vassals of Israel" further enhance anti-Jewish sentiment. Conversely, Jews who speak against Israeli actions – such as Independent Jewish Voices in Canada – undermine fundamental anti-Semitic beliefs. They embody the actual diversity of Jewish life – "two Jews, three opinions" – that flies in the face of the anti-Semitic canard of world Jewish conspiracy. But Jews need not be the only people "authorized" to discuss Zionism and Israel.
Conflation of Israel with Jews and their history serves to muddle and throttle rational discussion. This is why it is so important to make distinctions between the following concepts: Zionism and Judaism; Israel as a state, as a country, as a territory, and as the Holy Land; Jews (Israelis and others), Israelis (Jews and non-Jews), Zionists (Jews and Christians) and anti-Zionists (again Jews and Christians). Israel should be treated as any independent country: according to its own merits and faults, without references to the Holocaust or the pogroms in Odessa. To avoid anti-Semitic overtones in discussing Israel, it is important to remember that Zionism has been a daring revolt against Jewish continuity and to dissociate Jews and Judaism from the State of Israel and its actions.
One of Israel's experts in Zionism Boaz Evron brings a sense of rationality to this often emotional issue:
The State of Israel, and all the states of the world, appear and disappear. The State of Israel, clearly, will disappear in one hundred, three-hundred, five-hundred years. But I suppose that the Jewish people will exist as long as the Jewish religion exists, perhaps for thousands more years. The existence of this state is of no importance for that of the Jewish people…. Jews throughout the world can live quite well without it.
The author is Professor of History at the University of Montreal; his recent book, A Threat from within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism (Fernwood), has been translated to eight languages and nominated for the Governor General Award.
Dear All,
This was the very incident that led to the 'Second Intifada' on September 28, 2000 & also rightly called the 'Al-Aqsa Intifada'. After the failure of the Oslo accords, where in the name of a 'Peace Process' the Palestinian people could see very little 'peace' but could see the 'pieces' of their land being taken over by the Settlements. The anger & the sheer frustration of he masses finally erupted when Ariel Sharon (The Zionist Hitler & then there are Netanyahu, Olmert, Barak Lieberman as well . . . the list is far too long) went up to the Haram-i-Sharif to reclaim the site of the Masjid-i-Aqsa & the Qubbatus Sakhra (Dome of the Rock) for the Third Temple.
'Mandir Wahi Banayenge' (We will build our Temple at the very spot) was the war cry of the Brahmanical Hindutva stormtroopers when they demolished the Babri Masjid on the 6th of December 1992 & now we have a similar war cry in Jerusalem, that is getting stronger every passing year since 1967 & even prior since it has always been part of the religious Zionist imagery.
Those who still tend to understand the complexities of the Palestine-Israel imbroglio in uni-focal & simplistic terms, need to go back in history (ONE PALESTINE COMPLETE by TOM SEGEV would be a very good start) to trace the religious underpinnings, even within the British Empire that led to the creation of Israel. Undoubtedly the various political & economic factors that were also intrinsic to the Imperial agenda are a part of the entire myriad of our discourse.
This is especially addressed to those friends of our who are well meaning atheists communists, socialists or plain old human rights activists. This is the same section that committed a major error in India, in understanding religion & we cannot afford to again make the same 'Himalayan blunder' in Palestine.
Those of us who understand that the Palestine-Israel conflict is the central geo-political crisis of our times & thus are engaged in the struggle for a just solution that includes both the Palestinian & the Jewish people, need to understand certain basic 'facts':
The issues of Nationalism & Religion are interwoven along with political & economic issues. In fact Christian Zionism arose form the theological crisis within European Protestant Christianity whilst Jewish Zionism arose from both Christian Zionism as well the Judeophobia prevalent in European Christendom.
Thus Israel & Zionism are now the new God's of the Judeo-Christian civilization. Israel & Zionism have replaced the moral & ethical teachings of the Torah & the Talmud, whilst Christian Zionism has replaced the centrality of Jesus - by Israel. The sad irony of it all.
It was in fact Jesus Christ who had done away with the doctrine of the 'Jews as the chosen people of God', having replaced that tribalistic concept, with a Universalist & Humanistic, loving & merciful 'God of all Creation' & also having fought for the rights of women within religion & society.
Both Israel & Zionism have chosen Islam & Muslims as their target & thus the strategy of Islamophobia & the demonization of the Muslim community is part of their larger global strategy.
Thus at it's roots, this is not a civil war within the Abrahamic faiths or a war between Judaism, Islam & Christianity - this is our common struggle against Zionism & Imperialism.
In Solidarity
Feroze Mithiborwala
0091-9820897517
Muslims Repulse Jewish Attempt to Storm Al-Aqsa
9/28/2009
By Khalid Amayreh
http://palestinefreevoice.blogspot.com/
Dozens of Palestinians were hurt, two seriously, on Sunday, September 27, when crack Israeli policemen attacked worshipers who had just repulsed an attempt by Jewish extremists to hold Talmudic rituals at al-Haram al-Sharif.
"When the zealots were repulsed rather peacefully, the police became very outraged," Mahmoud Abu Atta, an eyewitness, told IslamOnline.net.
"As many as 70 policemen attacked us indiscriminately, young and old, with full force, using rubber-coated bullets, truncheons, tear gas and even poisonous gas."
An elderly man, identified as 73-year-old Muhammed Joulani, was hit with a rubber-coated bullet in the eye and his condition was described as "very serious."A young Palestinian, 22, was badly hurt in the head.
Dozens others suffered from tear gas inhalation as well as brutal beating by police which, eyewitnesses said, employed "exaggerated force."Eyewitnesses said tension began when dozens of Jewish religious zealots, disguised as tourists, stealthily entered Aqsa esplanade through its western gate, known as Bab el-Majles.
The intruders soon began, under police protection, performing Talmudic rites and making slogans calling for the destruction of the Islamic holy shrine.Muslim guards as well as ordinary worshipers chased the Jewish zealots out.
"The police chased worshipers inside Aqsa Mosque, where the soldiers fired heavily into the holy place, causing many people to suffocate as a result of gas inhalation," said Atta."I saw the police gang up on young people, beating them mercilessly. The police were not out to maintain law and order. They just wanted to retaliate and punish us for repulsing the fanatical settlers."
Atta said the worshipers sought desperately to defend themselves against police brutality, using little stones, shoes and chairs.Efforts by Jewish zealots to storm the Aqsa Mosque esplanade coincide with Yom Kippur holiday or Day of Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.It coincides with then opposition leader Ariel Sharon's provocative visit to al-Aqsa esplanade nine years ago which sparked off the al-Aqsa Intifada.
Muslim Duty; "Hence it is the responsibility of the entire Umma to protect and safeguard this holy place from Zionist plots and evil designs," Sheikh Sabri told IOL. Muslim officials in Al-Quds (occupied East Jerusalem) had earlier called on Muslims throughout the city to go to al-Haram al-Sharif to protect it from Jewish fanatics trying to gain a foot-hold.
"We constantly urge Muslims here to maintain a permanent and uninterrupted presence at the Aqsa Mosque," Dr. Sheikh Ikrma Sabri, the imam of Aqsa Mosque, told IOL.Hundreds of Jerusalemites and other Muslims from across the Green Line (Israel) arrived at the Mosque to repulse the zealots.
Confrontations broke out near Bab el-Majles when Israeli police prevented hundreds of Muslims, including leaders of the Islamic movement, from entering the Haram compound.Many were detained and taken away to nearby police lockups.
Israeli police also assaulted Abdul Azim Salhab, head of the Supreme Muslim Council, as he was trying to enter al-Haram al-Sharif through the northern Gate, known as Bab el Asbat.They also prevented a number of prominent Muslim religious and civic figures from entering the Aqsa esplanade, including Dr. Sheikh Sabri.Hatem Abdul Qader, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, was also barred from entering the Haram.
"The preservation of Aqsa Mosque is not the sole responsibility of Muslims in Palestine, because the holy sanctuary belongs to the entire Muslim Umma," insisted Sheikh Sabri."Hence it is the responsibility of the entire Umma to protect and safeguard this holy place from Zionist plots and evil designs."Al-Aqsa is the Muslims' first Qiblah [the direction Muslims take during prayers] and it is the third holiest shrine after Al Ka`bah in Makkah and Prophet Muhammad's Mosque in Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
It's significance has been reinforced by the incident of Al Isra'a and Al Mi'raj — the night journey from Makkah to Al-Quds and the ascent to the Heavens by Prophet Muhammad (Peace and Blessings be Upon Him).The Supreme Muslim Council of Al-Quds earlier issued a call on Muslims around the world urging them to stand firm in the face of Israel's criminal conspiracies against Aqsa Mosque.
Israeli religious leaders, including Knesset members, are making no secret of their schemes regarding Al-Aqsa.The Temple Mount Faithful, an extremist fanatical group, is dedicated to the demolition of Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock.
The Temple Mount Institute, another extremist Jewish society, had prepared detailed plans for the rebuilding of the so-called Solomon Temple on the rubble of Al-Aqsa.It has a large prototype of the temple, special clothes for its rabbis, special places for sacrificial offerings, incense chalice, copper vessels for meal offerings, silver vessel for wine libation and other offering implements.
===
Israeli police interrogate Al-Aqsa preacher
Wednesday 30/09/2009
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=228576
Sheikh Ekrima SabriJerusalem – Ma'an – Israeli police interrogated Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, chief of the Islamic Supreme Committee, and preacher of the Al-Aqsa Mosque on Tuesday afternoon over possible charges of incitement and disturbing public order.
The interrogation came after Israeli police clashed with Palestinian protesters at the Al-Aqsa Compound on Sunday after Israeli settlers were reported entering the sensitive holy site.
Sheikh Sabri said that he was interrogated at the Russian Compound prison in Jerusalem from 4pm to 7pm on Tuesday. "They falsely accused me of inciting Palestinian youths to hurl stone at Israeli police officers. They also questioned why I called Palestinian citizens to head to the Al-Aqsa Mosque."
He added that his interrogators played recordings of news reports in which he had been interviewed commenting on the events at Al-Aqsa.
Sheikh Sabri accused Israeli police of allowing extremist settlers to access the Al-Aqsa compound, and then protecting them while inside. He said the intrusion was a violation of the mosque's sanctity. He said that to protect the settlers, Israeli police fired rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at worshippers.
===
Al-Aqsa, the ultimate red line Tuesday, 29 September 2009 23:10 Khalid Amayreh
http://www.therebel.org/opinion/middle_east/al-aqsa,_the_ultimate_red_line_2009092960760/
The unprovoked intrusion by Jewish fanatics into the Noble Sanctuary of Jerusalem on Sunday 27 September, should alarm every Muslim under the sun.
That was not, as the Israeli machine of lies would make you believe, a mere innocent visit by Jewish tourists to Islam's third holiest sanctuary. It was rather a planned and calculated act of provocation against Muslims all over the world.
Jewish fanatics, we all know, don't come to the Aqsa esplanade to visit; they come for the purpose of arrogating a foot-hold or perhaps hatching a conspiracy against Islamic edifices. In short, their ultimate goal is to carry out acts of terror and vandalism against Islamic holy places.
In the past, distant and near, Jewish terrorists, who often disguise themselves as tourists, carried out acts of murder against Muslim worshipers.
When Israel occupied the Old City of Jerusalem, the Israeli army Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren tried meticulously to convince one commander of the conquering army to blow up the Aqsa Mosque "once and for all."
The story was mentioned elaborately in Avi Shlaim's book "The Iron Wall-Israel and the Arab world."
"There was an atmosphere of spiritual elation. Paratroopers were milling around in a daze. Narkis was standing for a moment on his own, deep in thought, when Goren went up to him and said `Uzi, this is the time to put a hundred kilograms of explosives in the Mosque of Omar-and that's it, we'll get rid of it once and for all.' Narkis said `Rabbi, stop it.' Goren then said to him, `Uzi, you'll enter the history books by virtue of this deed.' Narkis replied, `I have already recorded my name in the pages of the history of Jerusalem.' Goren walked away without saying another word."
On 21 August, 1969, an Australian Christian Zionist, bearing the name Denis Michael Rohan, set the Minbar of Sallahuddin on fire, using a flamable substance.
On April 11, 1982, a Jewish terrorist by the name of Allan Goodman entered the Dome of the Rock Mosque and started firing discriminately at Muslim worshipers, killing and injuring dozens of people. Goodman, a member of the terrorist Jewish group, the Jewish Defense League, was eventually pardoned by the Israeli government after spending a few years in jail.
In fact, Jewish terrorist acts and designs against one of Islam's holiest places never ceased. Indeed, Jewish terrorist groups declare openly that their ultimate aim is to demolish the Aqsa Mosque in order to build a Jewish temple in the area.
The terroirsts, who also include government officials and Knesset members, are never arrested for incitement to violence and terror. Far from that, they enjoy the support and backing of the political-military estabilshment in the Zionist regime.
Hence, it is imperative that the Muslim world must view the latest events with utmost gravity because what these fanatics are after is nothing less than the destruction of these holy places.
As in the past, Muslim officials and governmetns have voiced their indignation at the latest provocation. However, verbal denunciations and condemnations will not deter Israel and make her show respect to the Haram al Sharif of Jerusalem.
Respect for religion is not and has never been a Zionist character. Hence, it would be more than naive to expect Israel to preserve the safety and sanctity of the holy place.
Instead of rehtorical condemnations, which we got accustomed to hearing since time immemorial, Muslim organizations, peoples and governments must seek pro-active means to protect their holy places.
First, we must strengthen and enforce security measures throughout the Aqsa esplanade by increasing the number of guards. It was after all due to the dedication and hard workd of these unknown soldiers that numerous Zionist attempts at vandalizing Islamic holy places were aborted and thwarted.
Second, Muslim states, especially those having diplomatic ties with the Zionist regime such as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, must make the issue of the Haram al Sharif a top priority. It is not enough just to voice "concern" about a given event, such as Sunday's provocation. Muslim governments must commnnicate an unequivocal message to the Zionist regime that the Aqsa Mosque is a red line that no one would be allowed to cross.
As to the Palestinians, they are the first line of defense against Zionist aggression in Jerusalem as well as throughout occupied Palestine.
This is why, Palestinians must always maintain a permanent and uninterrupted presence at the Haram al Sharif of Jerusalem.
This peaceful presence is very important; it sends an unmistakable message to the Zionists that Muslims, especially in Palestine, would go to any extent, if need be, to protect and safeguard their holy places in al-Quds al Sharif.
Obama's Deception: Afghanistan, 9-11 & Dresden
By Christopher Bollyn
St. Michael the Archangel slaying the devil, the father of all lies and deception.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
- Thomas Jefferson
President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo on June 4 was a carefully prepared speech meant to explain the administration's policies in the Middle East to the people of the region. I listened to see how he would explain his controversial decision to increase the number of U.S. troops and military activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a decision I strongly oppose. What I heard in Obama's speech about Afghanistan was very discouraging in that it revealed the appalling continuation of the blatant 9-11 deception by the new administration. The war and occupation of Afghanistan was the first subject Obama addressed. The following extract is the essence of what Obama said about 9-11 and the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan:
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject, the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued Al Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice. We went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the offense of 9/11. But let us be clear. Al Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day.
The victims were innocent men, women, and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach.
These are not opinions to be debated. These are facts to be dealt with. Make no mistake, we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict.
We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken…
This is how Obama explained the U.S. war effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan: As a necessary confrontation with 45 nations against the violent extremists behind the attacks of 9-11. We would bring our troops home, he said, if there were no "violent extremists" in those countries "determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can."
What is the real reason behind Obama's war in Afghanistan?
AFGHANS DO NOT TRUST OBAMA OR U.S.
The people of Afghanistan do not like President Obama or trust the United States. Stan Grant, a CNN correspondent in Kabul, visited an Afghan university (madrassa) to see how the middle and upper-class students reacted to Obama and his speech in Cairo. Not a single student liked Obama or supported his policies in their occupied nation.
If Obama had a good policy why has our society not developed in the past five years, one student asked. Another wanted to know why the U.S. and NATO had killed 1,000 Afghan civilians. "What was the matter with them? he asked.
"Zoya," a member of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), received international acclaim with the 2003 publication her dramatic life story: "Zoya's Story: An Afghan Woman's Battle for Freedom," with John Follain and Rita Cristofari. In 2008, Zoya was interviewed in Berlin by Elsa Rassbach. Zoya explained how she viewed the U.S. and NATO occupation of Afghanistan:
RAWA supports the call for the withdrawal of the U.S. and NATO troops because occupation is not a solution. They are constantly killing civilians, even at a wedding party. Do you think we are not human beings and don't have hearts? What would Americans do if an occupier were killing so many civilians in the U.S.? …
In 2001, the U.S. and its allies occupied Afghanistan under the beautiful slogans of "war on terror," "women's rights," "liberation" and "democracy." But when they installed the brutal and criminal warlords after the fall of the Taliban, everyone knew that Afghanistan had once again become a chessboard for world powers. The plight of our people, and especially of women, has been misused to legitimize the foreign military presence in our country.
Afghan people have been badly betrayed by the U.S. and NATO in the past few years. Despite billions in aid, Afghan people are living under awful conditions that are worse than they were under the Taliban medieval rule. Afghanistan still faces a women's rights tragedy, and the everyday hardships of our masses are beyond imagination.
Everyone knows that the U.S., a superpower, together with the biggest military pact in the world, NATO, could in a matter of days, if not hours, defeat the Taliban and arrest Mullah Omer and Osama. But today they need such enemies to justify keeping their military machine in Afghanistan.
We don't want their so-called liberation and democracy. If these troops do not withdraw, we are sure that the Afghan people will have no other option but to rise up against them. Our people are already deeply fed up with the situation. The jokes being made in Afghanistan are that the Taliban is getting the most from this situation.
Al Qaida was behind the mass murder of thousands of people on 9-11, Obama said. This is not an opinion to be debated, he added. "These are facts to be dealt with."
If the Obama administration were truly concerned about facts, he might take note of the disturbing fact that not a single 9-11 victim's case has gone to trial after nearly 8 years. If the case against Osama Bin Laden and his agents were solid and based on facts, why has the evidence not been presented in an open trial in a U.S. court? The military is supposedly holding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the "confessed" mastermind of 9-11, in Guantanamo. Why is this mastermind of terror not put on trial in an open court? Why have the surviving airplane parts not been identified? Why has the evidence of thermite in the collapsed towers not been addressed?
One of the 9-11 facts the Obama administration will have to deal with is the evidence of super-thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center. This thin layer of super-thermite was evidently used to pulverize the concrete in the twin towers on 9-11. The people who applied tens of tons of thermite to the interiors of the twin towers are, in fact, directly responsible for the murder of 3,000 people on 9-11. If Al Qaida had teams of men spraying super-thermite and placing explosive charges in the buildings leased and owned by Larry Silverstein and the Israeli commando Frank Lowy, let's see the evidence. Otherwise, let's find out who really put the super-thermite in the twin towers.
The United States went to war in Afghanistan out of "necessity," Obama said, yet the American public has not been given any solid evidence to prove that the Taliban of Afghanistan had anything to do with 9-11. Why then is the Zionist-run Obama administration sending more troops to Afghanistan? And why have they expanded the war into Pakistan?
I have discussed in several articles the powerful Zionists behind the Obama White House. Obama was sponsored and molded since 1992 to be the first black president of the United States by the daughter of Philip Morris Klutznick, the former president of the B'nai B'rith and mega Zionist from Chicago. The chief of staff of the White House is Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli national whose father was a member of a Zionist terrorist organization in Palestine that was allied with Nazi Germany. These are a few real facts, not opinions, that need to be dealt with.
Understanding the Zionist nature of the Obama administration, the question that must be asked is why is the administration expanding the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan? The American people certainly have no real interest in Afghanistan or Pakistan and the Afghans and Pakistanis have no real interest in America. There must be a Zionist strategic goal in controlling these two Central Asian nations, but what is it?
As I pointed out in my article from 2001, "The Great Game: The War for Caspian Oil and Gas," the Israelis are deeply engaged in the region:
Turkmenistan and Azerbijan are also both closely allied with Israeli commercial interests and Israeli military intelligence. In Turkmenistan, a former Israeli intelligence agent, Yosef A. Maiman, president of Merhav Group of Israel, is the official negotiator and policy maker responsible for developing the energy resources of Turkmenistan.
"This is the Great Game all over," Maiman told the Wall Street Journal about his role in furthering the "geopolitical goals of both the U.S. and Israel in Central Asia. "We are doing what U.S. and Israeli policy could not achieve," he said, "Controlling the transport route is controlling the product."
"Those that control the oil routes out of Central Asia will impact all future direction and quantities of flow and the distribution of revenues from new production," said energy expert James Dorian recently in Oil & Gas Journal on September 10, 2001.
Foreign business in Turkmenistan is dominated by Maiman's Merhav Group, according to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA). Maiman, who was made a citizen of Turkmenistan by presidential decree, serves as Turkmenistan's official negotiator for its gas pipeline, special ambassador, and right-hand man for the authoritarian President Saparmurad Atayevich Niyazov, a former Politburo member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
The Merhav Group of Israel officially represents the Turkmen government and has brokered all of the energy projects in Turkmenistan, contracts worth many billions of dollars.
The main Zionist goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan is to "pacify" these nations to allow the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline to be built. This line, once completed, could be extended to China. This project is the pipe dream of Joseph A. Maiman (a.k.a. Josef, Yosef, Yossi), one of the most powerful men in Israel.
Yosef A. Maiman
The Jerusalem Post of 23 July 2004, described Maiman as one of the leading miners of the gas of Central Asia, specifically Turkmenistan:
Though his sprawling multi-billion-dollar empire stretches from Channel 10 TV, where he is a partner, to Central Asian gas fields, where he is a leading miner, Maiman was born humbly, in a displaced persons camp in Germany, and grew up in Peru.
Maiman's Merhav Group started off in 1976 with Third World debt-financing, but later diversified into agriculture, energy solutions and telecoms. Today, it is the Republic of Turkmenistan's single largest foreign partner.
Just two weeks ago, the Israeli foreign ministry announced it would open a new embassy in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, "saying it was a natural step in burgeoning bilateral ties, and reflected a new momentum in Israel's overall ties with the Central Asian countries," according to the Jerusalem Post of 21 May 2009.
Turkmenistan is reported to be "the second largest holder of gas reserves in the world, with some 28 trillion cubic meters of proven gas reserves," second only to Russia. The "former" Israeli Mossad agent Joseph A. Maiman is reportedly the owner or co-owner of much of that gas and has been the key person managing the development of Turkmenistan's gas fields. If the TAPI pipeline were to be completed, the Israelis connected with Maiman and Merhav would collect tens of billions of dollars by selling the gas of Turkmenistan to Pakistan, India, and China. This is certainly one of the key Israeli strategic goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The pipeline is meant to pass through Kandahar, the area where Canadians are serving and which Canada is obliged to defend until 2012.
The planned route of the TAPI pipeline
Mr. Maiman is also a business partner of Rupert Murdoch and Ronald Lauder. In November 2002, Yossi Maiman and the former head of the Mossad, Shabtai Shavit, launched a new political party with the former head of the Shin Bet, Ya'acov Perry. These people are all closely tied to the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11. Their roles are described in my chapter entitled, "The Architecture of Terror."
To really understand why the Obama administration is sending more troops to Afghanistan and waging war in Pakistan it is essential to understand what is at stake and who will benefit from the TAPI pipeline. Obama's speech in Cairo today was a blatant deception about the real purposes of the war in Central Asia.
I spent a month in Dresden and visited Buchenwald. I discovered that the death rate for German prisoners held in Buchenwald during the Soviet occupation was much higher than the death rate in the camp during the war. Here are a few extracts from my Letter from Buchenwald:
According to a U.S. Army report dated May 25, 1945, a total of 238,980 prisoners had been held at Buchenwald in the period from July 1937 to April 1945. Of this number 34,375 died. This report, which shows a mortality rate of some 14 percent, was based on camp records confiscated by the U.S. Army.
Shortly after the U.S. Army "liberated" Buchenwald, it was turned over to the Soviet Union and became the so-called Special Camp No. 2 from 1945 to 1950. As the guide book, written by Sabine and Harry Stein says, "Prisoners moved into the barracks again hardly four weeks after the last survivors had left the National Socialist concentration camp in Buchenwald. Buchenwald became a place of isolation and death for another four and a half years....
"Hunger and isolation seriously affected everyday life. Hunger was almost omnipresent. Mass deaths ensued when the restricted rations were cut temporarily.
"More than one third of the total number of 122,671 prisoners died in the course of being there," the guide says about the post-war Soviet prison camp. "The victims of Buchenwald Special Camp were buried in mass graves. Their relatives did not receive any official notification.
"The history of Special Camp No. 2 and the existence of mass graves was subject to taboo in the German Democratic Republic," the guide says.
The official mortality rate in the Soviet camps during the post-war period was more than twice that of Buchenwald during the war. According to camp records kept by the Soviet Union, the Soviet prison camp system in Germany held 122,671 prisoners between 1945 and 1950 of which 42,889 died. This is a death rate of nearly 35 percent. In addition, 756 persons were executed.
To understand what really happened in both of these places, I recommend reading my articles from Buchenwald and Dresden.
Sources and Recommended Reading
About Buchenwald and Dresden:
Bollyn, Christopher, "Letter from Buchenwald," November 12, 2005
Bollyn, "Letter from Slaughterhouse Five," February 19, 2004
Bollyn, "The Passing of Kurt Vonnegut - An Eyewitness to the Holocaust of Dresden, April 12, 2007
About Afghanistan and the Deception of 9-11:
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," Steven E. Jones et al, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, March 2009
Bollyn, Christopher, "The Great Game: The War for Caspian Oil And Gas," September 25, 2001
Bollyn, "Israeli Control of the Mass Media & the 9-11 Cover Up," September 2007
Bollyn, "The Architecture of Terror: Mapping the Israeli Network Behind 9-11," July 25, 2008
Bollyn, "Obama and the Jews," April 2008
Bollyn, "The Israeli Who Will Run the Obama White House," November 6, 2008
"'Democracy' in Afghanistan - Code for Occupation," New America Media, Elsa Rassbach's 2008 interview with Afghan woman "Zoya" of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) New America Media New America Media, May 29, 2009
Grant, Stan, "Afghan youths wary about Obama," CNN, June 4, 2009
Keinon, Herb, "Israel opens 3 new diplomatic missions," Jerusalem Post, May 21, 2009
President Obama's Speech on a New Beginning, Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009
Schechter, Erik, "I spy," Jerusalem Post, July 23, 2004
"Turkmenistan: World's Second Largest Holder of Gas Reserves," NewsCentralAsia.net, October 24, 2008
Iran, Palestine and Israel, What a contrast
We live in a crazy world; war-mongering nations lecturing about peace, nations that have trampled on UN Charter by invading Iraq using fabricated evidences are swearing allegiance to the UN Charter, and the massacre of civilians in Gaza is now certified by the UN as a war crime, but it does not make a blip in the UN Security Council radar. Then we witness nations armed with nuclear weapons making noise about nuclear proliferation, scorning Iran for seeking the same nuclear deterrence, concurrently ignoring the nuclear arsenal of Israel. This sort of blatant hypocrisy pithily describes the history of Middle East, from the betrayal of Sykes-Picot to the recent events, and this is the real source of anger in the streets.
Just compare the response from the western leaders to the publication of the recent UN report produced by Richard Goldstone on the Gaza Conflict, and revelations made by Iran of its nuclear site near the holy city of Qom. The former is a definite murder case testified by the countless victims lying in their pool of blood, whereas the latter is an administrative dispute between nations.
The UN report gives 'pseudo legitimacy' to the view that Israel had committed war crimes at the very least in its offensive against the civilians in Gaza. It was largely civilians, as no sane person will equate the lightly armed Hamas with their home made 'rockets' (which does not explode) to a conventional armed force. The report merely confirmed the obvious, the world witnessed the carnage and suffering inflicted on the trapped civilians in Gaza by the 'brave' Israeli soldiers. Israel has violated international law, and therefore, some kind of action is warranted but nobody dares to raise a finger against the sacred Zionist-Jews.
However, earlier I stated the report gives 'pseudo legitimacy', because legitimacy through the UN is dependent on the will of the leading western powers. In short, the UN is only effective when they want it to be. The west barely raised an eyebrow to the UN report, no calls for sanctions, or any form of action. Without any kind of enforcement, the UN report is a thesis of an academic student and it will remain academic, like the numerous UN resolutions issued against Israel.
In contrast, there was an instant, and a coordinated response by the western leaders to Iran announcing of a nuclear facility near the city of Qom, as if only now nuclear proliferation has become a serious problem. The sheer hypocrisy makes you seethe with anger, as one by one, the western leaders followed Obama, and issued warnings to Iran for developing nuclear energy, forgetting the nuclear arsenal in their backyard. It reminded me of a pack of dogs, when one starts to bark the others follow.
Iran is still some distance from acquiring nuclear weapons, and the US already knew about the facility, no surprises there because it can be easily detected by advanced satellite technology. In that case, why did the US and its allies react sharply to Iran's declaration? The coordinated response makes sense as it is part of a broader US policy to make Iran to conform to its desires, in particular the aspirations of the Zionist state. This partially explains the recent decision to abandon the missile defence plan that had infuriated Russia, clearing the way for closer cooperation on placing sanction on Iran. This was followed by the speech at the United Nations by Obama, appealing to strengthen the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Then Obama met Dimtry Medvedev, and Russia subsequently announced for the first time that it would consider applying sanctions on Iran, obviously reciprocating to the US move to abandon the missile defense plan. That leaves the only other nuclear member of the Security Council, China. Obama no doubt also discussed this issue in the recent meetings with the Chinese President Hu Jintao. Historically, China has always been the last passenger to board the US ship. It seems, Obama has been active in preparing to confront Iran, and the influence of the Israeli lobby embedded inside Obama's administration is very clear.
Here is the commonsense view of a layperson. Israel is a certified war criminal, a serial killer that is pointing its nukes at its neighbors, in particular Iran; it is constantly ignoring and violating UN resolutions, and casually invades and bombs its neighbors when it wants to 'feel' secure. Despite all this, Iran is accused of being the guilty party here, just for acquiring nuclear energy. How can an administrative dispute take precedence over a murder case? From the Iranian perspective, the country is surrounded by US-led military bases, and constant Israeli threat of launching bombing raids; thus, Iran has ample justification to develop nuclear weapons to protect its borders from the unruly Spartans.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicalviews.org)
London, UK
http://yaminzakaria.blogspot.com
| The Roman Polanski Case: Once Again, It's Hollywood vs. America (by Kevin Macdonald, published Saturday, 03 October 2009 18:33) Over 30 years ago, director Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. The details aren't pretty. According to the girl's Grand Jury Testimony , Polanski plied her with enough alcohol and Quaaludes to make her dizzy and disoriented. He then had oral copulation with her, followed by sexual intercourse, and ending with sodomy because he did not want to get her pregnant. In her testimony, the girl made it clear that she went along with Polanski's advances because of fear. |
| Why Are We Unable to Resist? (by Christopher Bollyn, published Saturday, 03 October 2009 18:43) I often wonder why young Americans do nothing to protest the outrageous criminal regime that has taken control of the United States. Where is the resistance? Two illegal wars, a growing police state, and several trillion dollars stolen by criminal bankers from the American people in the past year alone -- why aren't they protesting, resisting - burning tires in the streets? Having grown up during the Vietnam War, I was immersed in the protest movement and vibrant anti-war music and culture... Read more... |
| Why Afghanistan? (by Christopher Bollyn, published Saturday, 03 October 2009 17:49) Every war results from the struggle for markets and spheres of influence, and every war is sold to the public by professional liars and totally sincere religious maniacs, as a Holy Crusade to save God and Goodness from Satan and Evil. - Robert Anton Wilson (1932-2007) The Obama administration is currently considering sending another 40,000 American soldiers to Afghanistan in addition to the tens of thousands it has already sent. What is the U.S. military really fighting for in Afghanistan and...Read more... |
| The Anglo-US Drive into Eurasia and the Demonization of Russia (by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, published Saturday, 03 October 2009 04:11)
Read more... |
| Scientists pull an about face on global warming (by Lorne Gunter, published Saturday, 03 October 2009 04:08) Imagine if Pope Benedict gave a speech saying the Catholic Church has had it wrong all these centuries; there is no reason priests shouldn't marry. That might generate the odd headline, no? Or if Don Cherry claimed suddenly to like European hockey players who wear visors and float around the ice, never bodychecking opponents. Or Jack Layton insisted that unions are ruining the economy by distorting wages and protecting unproductive workers. |
| Ahmadinejad: West media 'weapon of subterfuge' (by PressTV, published Saturday, 03 October 2009 07:39) Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says corporate media has turned into a weapon of subterfuge, with the sole aim of advancing the West's political agenda. Read more... |
WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
FOR BOLSHEVISM
INSIDE THE COMMUNIST AND WORKERS' MOVEMENT
No 10 (79) October 2009 AUCPB – ВКПБ
INSIDE THE COUNTRIES OF SOCIALISM
THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK)
In September, in the DPRK, the main day of celebration is the Day since the founding of the DPRK – on 9 September 1948. On this day, at the First session of the Supreme People's Assembly, the formation of the Socialist state was proclaimed. Comrade Kim Il Sung was elected head of the DPRK and Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers.
The country lives according to the Constitution adopted in 1972 with additions adopted at the III Session of the Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK of the 9th meeting of 9th April 1992. According to the Constitution, every citizen of the DPRK has the right to free higher education, compulsory secondary school education, free qualified health care, the right to work and housing. The youngest generation is being educated in free kindergartens, where the children receive the most correct primary skills in culture, patriotism and also the chance to show their own natural gifts and abilities, at the same time correctly orientating themselves in the future in defining their own type of occupation and work activity. Children are cared for in a special way by the state. They are provided with free childrens camps for holidays, Pioneer Palaces, sports equipment where dignified Korean masters of sport grow from and are winners and prize-winners in many international competitions. The Constitution of the DPRK is a constitution of a socialist state, where the many concern of the state is the raising up of the standard of living of the population, and concern for its well-being.
One can read the text of the constitution of the DPRK on the website of the CC AUCPB in the section "Inside the countries of socialism – the DPRK" (in Russian).
During the period of the almost 60 years of development along a socialist model, the DPRK has made big strides forward, having created a highly developed industry, a mining industry, a modern system of agriculture, the development of hydro-electric energy, a powerful defence state form any encroachment on its independence, having become a powerful nuclear power under Kim Jong Il, the predecessor to the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung.
The successes of socialist construction are annoying the imperialist community, especially the USA, which aims to destroy the DPRK at whatever the cost, holding the socialist state during its entire existence under a state of a brutal embargo. This embargo has not weakened even under the new black president of the USA. therefore, the DPRK preserves vigilance and is firmly standing on guard of its borders. At the same time, it displays humanism towards its enemies. Thus, recently, the two US journalists-spies who were caught crossing the border into the DPRK illegally and were sent to obtain information for western mass-media (naturally slanderous information) were detained and expected sentencing. The ex- US president Clinton personally came to Pyongyang and asked Kim Jong Il to pardon the spies. Kim Jong Il humanly released them. Such humanism is not characteristic of the USA which for already several years has been holding in jail 5 Cuban patriots who had unmasked the preparation for acts of sabotage to take place on the territory of Cuba.
On 3 September 2003, Comrade Kim Jong Il was re-elected to the highest post – Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK (at the I session of the Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK of the 11 meeting). Comrade Kim Jong Il is a great statesman and political activist of modern times, wisely and with determination leading the Korean people along the path of constructing a prosperous socialist state of a unified nation. And this is in extremely complex conditions of pressure from the imperialist West on the DPRK, unifying themselves against the socialist state. The Workers' Party of Korea, the National Defence Commission of the DPRK, the glorious Armed Forces of the country are successfully solving tasks set forth by Comrade Kim Jong Il. Therefore, everything is possible for the people of the DPRK under the leadership of their wise helmsman and military-political headquarters led by him.
The 22 September marks 60 years since Comrade Kim Jong Suk – the mother of Kim Jong Il died. She was a heroine of the anti-Japanese struggle, a friend, comrade and wife of the Great Leader. She instilled into the young, Kim Jong Il great feelings of love towards his Motherland, brought him up to be kind and considerate, sensitively understand the beauty of his own excellent country of morning calm.
On the occasion of these two famous dates – the 61 anniversary since the founding of the DPRK and the 6th year since the re-electing of Kim Jong Il to the highest state post, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (CC AUCPB) Comrade Andreeva has sent congratulatory telegrams in the name of the Leader of the country Comrade Kim Jong Il. A memorial letter on the occasion of 60 years since the Kim Jong Suk died has been sent to Kim Jong Il.
CC AUCPB
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIDEL CASTRO DIAZ-BALART HOLDS PRESS CONFERENCE IN MOSCOW
Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart, son of the legendary Fidel Castro Ruz on 5 June 2009 in the Cuban embassy in Moscow, gave a press conference for Russian and foreign correspondents.
Replying to questions put to him by journalists, Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart noted that science in Cuba during the years following the triumph of the Revolution has made a gigantic leap forward in its development. At the start of the Revolution, 30% of the population was illiterate and there was no tradition of science. Today in existence, there are 75
universities, 6.5% of the active population of the country have a university education, and there are more than 200 scientific centres. In the various international publications, one can read material about the achievements made by Cuban scientists. The brightest direction of development of science in Cuba is the bio-technological sector. 800 Cuban patents have been licensed in 60 countries of the world. 50 different types of Cuban vaccinations, medicine are sold in various countries. In September 1992, construction had to be halted on a nuclear power station, despite the fact that a large part of the work had already been carried out. The reason for this was – the demise of the Soviet Union. The notorious Helms-Burton law was working on this side. But indeed this was a purely peaceful program. Nowadays in Cuba there are about 200 establishments that are using nuclear energy – hospitals and various production facilities.
What new things has the arrival to power of the new US president Barak Obama brought? There were promises of changes in relations between the US-Cuba. But so far there have been practically no changes. Intensive debates have been underway in the USA on this subject, in particular in Congress. American society is demanding an ending of the blockade against Cuba on part of the US. Concerning the negative effect of the US blockade on science in Cuba, it is broad. For example, medicine for children suffering from cancer cannot be exported to Cuba out of the USA. The same can be said for high-tech medical equipment. Many outstanding Cuban scientists are invited to scientific conferences in the US, but the US authorities do not grant them visas to enter the USA. Cuban has an entire complex of scientific establishments dedicated to social sciences. A large number of international scientific meetings are held on this them, where we never aim to narrow the spectra of presented opinions. On the initiative of Comrade Fidel Castro Ruz, ten meeting have already been held for discussing the problems of globalization with wide international participation. One of the aims of my present visit to Moscow was to obtain a degree of doctor of sciences in the Moscow engineering-physics institute. My meetings with representatives of science and education have become traditional in the Kurchatovsky Institute and in the Moscow State University. On one coincidental occasion at one of the Russian universities, a decision was taken to award a degree of honored doctor to the leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz. I had the privilege of receiving in his name, this honored degree. Concerning Medvedev's visit to Cuba at the end of 2008 and the visit to Moscow in February this year by Cuba leader Raul Castro, then we are now in the process of strengthening ties, opening up new possibilities in our relations. The question of presenting Cubans 100 grants for studying in the Russian Federation. This is a very good sign, the revival of a remarkable tradition of studying by thousands of Cubans during Soviet times.
Concerning the US base at Guantanamo. From the moment of victory of the Cuban revolution, the Revolutionary government has been demanding the return of the base to Cuba. The base originated in 1898, when the Spanish left Cuba. The initial "argument" by the USA was that it was to build a base for supplying coal for US ships. A lease treaty was signed, but only valid for 99 years. The time has passed, but the Americans have still not left the base. The base occupies 22 thousand square miles of Cuban territory. Now the Americans have transformed Guantanamo into an appalling prison, where lawlessness reigns. Obama promised to close the prison by the end of this year. The fulfillment of this pledge will be proof of the reality of the intentions of the US authorities in relation to Cuba. Meanwhile, real advancements have yet to take place. Concerning the Cuban population, it is very much politicized. It has endured much in fifty years. This, along with economic losses amounting to 95 billion dollars along with the 3500 lives of Cubans killed as a result of acts of terrorism.
About the Organisation of American States. The heads of all the Latin American states have agreed that the policy of the USA regarding the exclusion of Cuba from the OAS is a complete fiasco. All the presidents agreed that regardless of whether or not Cuba will be reinstated in the OAS, the situation with Cuba is a shameful appearance of the Monro doctrine which began at the start of the 19 th century. All these changes in positions are the true indicators of the understanding of what the Cuban revolution really is in the world and in Latin America, and indeed the changes of positions have occurred without any conditions or demands on part of the Cubans.
About oil and gas in Cuba. I want to remind everyone here about Baibakov - a person who is remembered and loved in Cuba and who played a huge role in the establishment of friendship between our countries. In the 1980-s, the USSR and the socialist camp provide us with huge amounts of assistance in the exploration of the shelf and territory of Cuba for oil. A whole number of deposits were discovered. Earlier, Cuba managed to pump 200 thousand tons of oil, but nowadays, pumps 4 million tons of oil and gas. There are prospects of finding oil in the shelf at a deeper level.
About my personal interests. When I was younger, I occupied myself with sport very intensively: baseball, basketball, swimming and water polo. I loved chess, when I arrived in the Soviet Union to study, I took the name Jose Raul in honor of Fernandez. Sport it very important. People of all ages should do sport as much as they can in order to maintain themselves in good form.
Is it is difficult being the son of such a famous father? There are bright and dark sides to this. Of course this is a huge responsibility and a hue honor.
About Cuban medicine. Nowadays, Cuban doctors work in 60 countries. There are 35 thousand of them. They are working in Venezuela and on small islands. We help fight the consequences of natural disasters in various corners of the world. We have an Institute "Latin American school of medicine" where students from many countries including the USA study. One day, Fidel said: "To be an internationalist – one has to give oneself to humanity!" According to the "Children of Chernobyl" program, 25 thousand children and young people have been to Cuba for treatment over the past 23 years. In the framework of 36 agreements signed at high-level talks in Moscow, special attention is paid to the agreement "On strategic cooperation". Our relations are broadening and the doors of Cuba are open for cooperation.
Undoubtedly, everyone present at the press conference formed an opinion: Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart is a knowledgeable, authoritative specialist, a mature politician, with a large range of his further growth as a politician and organizer.
S.V. Khristenko
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STALIN. THE ATOM BOMB. MODERN TIMES.
The year – 1949. The day – 29 August. Sixty years ago at the Semipalatinsk test site in Northern Kazakhstan the first Soviet atom bomb was detonated. The United States was deprived of its monopoly over nuclear weapons. The entire bourgeois world gasped in surprise and fear. Looking back nowadays over the last ten years, we have clearer than ever been understanding the greatness of this achievement by the Soviet people. The country ruined by the Hitlerite invasion, and enduring a sharp need in the most vital things, had thrown down a challenge to America and the entire capitalist world which had got fat on the backs of the war – we will defend the cause of socialism in the Soviet Union, pit the Soviet nuclear might against your human-hating plans for bombing our country with nuclear weapons! Only a socialist country could achieve this with a unified planned economy, with the ability to mobilise in a steel fist, all the economic and human resources, only a united Soviet people under the leadership of the Bolshevik AUCP(b) led by the wise strategist J.V. Stalin.
How was this case? Eyewitnesses recall. In autumn 1949, the "device" – the atom bomb, was ready for testing. L.P. Beria arrived on 26 August at the test site. Two explosive detonators were brought along (one for reserve). Having examined the preparation procedures, J.V. Kurchatov in accordance by personal order of Beria established a time for carrying out the test – 29 August 1949 at 8 am. On 28 August, the shot-firers carried out a final inspection of the tower, prepared the auto –detonator device and checked the cable. By 4 am on 29 August, K.I. Shelkin and S.N. Matveev arrived at the tower with a set of military electro-detonators. K.I. Shelkin gave the order for removal of the "device" from the workshop and setting it up on the tower. By 5 05 am, all site personnel were evacuated from the test field except the officer security personnel for the ministry of state security (MGB). By the moment of carrying out final operations, the weather worsened significantly. Dark clouds descended upon the test site, covering the whole sky. It began to rain. Everyone on the tower went below. A.P. Zavenyagin and K.I. Shelkin were responsible for locking the entrance to the tower and sealing it. In avoiding anything unpleasant connected with the weather, I.V. Kurchatov with Beria's permission, makes the decision to bring forward the test by 1 hour, from 8 am to 7 am. 25 minutes before detonation, the locks were removed from the operating command point and the auto-detonator device switched on, for 20 seconds – the knife-switch was turned on, which connected the "device" circuit to the remote control system. From this point onwards, everything was now in automatic mode. At 7 am exactly, on 29 August 1949 the entire desert of the Kazakh steppe was lit up by a blinding light… (to see video footage of this atomic test, go to the following link: http://www.sonicbomb.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=50
It had been done! The huge amount of labour of hundreds of thousands of people, the entire Soviet country had been successfully carried out. "Do not forget that we had a super important task: in the shortest amount of time possible to create a weapon which would defend our Motherland! When we were able to solve this task, we felt a certain relief, even happiness!" That's what the creators of the bomb thought.
The problem in creating the bomb originated before the war, when in 1939, two German physicists Hahn and Strassman discovered nuclear fission. And these results were not a secret anywhere. The news of this was published in our newspapers – in the newspaper "Izvestiya". Nuclear fission itself (in its chemical form) was discovered by Soviet scientist N.N. Semenov. Soviet scientists in open publications in 1939 and 1940 explained the state of a nuclear explosion, gained sensible evaluations of the critical of Uranian -235. There was another side to the secret of the atom bomb – in that who out of the warring powers was prepared to throw colossal economic and technical resources into creating new branches of industry for creating an atom bomb, powerful enough to give decisive advantage in a war. This was primarily, a wide-scale economic problem. The Soviet leadership and Stalin was well informed in 1940 – 1945 about the problem and the actions of the USA, Germany, and Britain. Thanks to Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria – under his leadership the Strategic reconnaissance worked gloriously! The USA began full-scale work on an atom bomb in 1940, a little later, Germany, this research was carried out by Hering. The Soviet Union, the Soviet Government in 1941 – 1943 was compelled to solve one task – the country was fighting with all its strength to destroy Hitler's plans for a "Blitzkrieg". The Stalingrad victory dispelled all hopes of the Germans of a "Blitzkrieg". Now, we had to drive the Fritzes back to their den. After Stalingrad it was possible to resume pre-war work on the Uranium project. On 11 February 1943, Stalin signed a government degree on organising work on using nuclear energy in military affairs. V.M. Molotov was supervising them in 1943-1945. Who at that time was it thought a future Soviet atom bomb would be used against? Naturally against our enemy in the Great Patriotic War – fascist Germany. Already after the end of the war, intelligence sources, scientific specialists with authority explained that Germany, despite its excellent scientific and raw material possibilities could not even come close to creating an atom bomb!
The Americans had built a bomb in 5 years. They tested it in the summer of 1945 and almost immediately bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They bombed a practically fallen Japan, but frightened the Soviet Union with an atom bomb. It is enough just to cite two phrases by Truman spoken by him in 1945: "the Russians will soon be put in their place", "whether or not we want to, we have to recognise that the victory achieved BY US has placed on the American people a time of responsibility for the further ruling of the world". And this was not just boastful rhetoric. The USA was the financing masters of the post-war capitalist world.
The second world war practically uninterruptedly turned into a "cold war" against socialism. Great danger hung over the Soviet Union! And Stalin responded immediately. On 20 August 1945, under the State Committee for Defence (GKO), a Special inter-departmental committee on questions of solving the nuclear question was formed. Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria was the head of this committee from the outset until 1953. And this was by far no coincidence. Beria was a very clever man, with a good technical understanding, with brilliant organisational abilities. For his service in the development of the Soviet defence industry, in 1945 he was awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labour. In December 1945, Beria left the post of People's Commissar for Internal Affairs and went from the Lyubyanka into the Kremlin, into the cabinet of vice Chairman of the Soviet of People's Commissars.
The Special interdepartmental committee was unique, an organisation having no analogues. The main principles were: complete secrecy, no red tape, and work carried out at the fastest tempo! From the order of the GKO: "No organisation, establishment or person is allowed to hinder the administrative-economic and operational activity of the First Main Headquarters (PGU, the executive body of the Special committee), its enterprise and institutions, or demand documents on its work being carried out by orders of the First Main Headquarters, without special permission from the GKO. All reports on the work being carried out is to be directed to the Special committee under the GKO only". Organisations of the PGU were in order, allowed to start any work, any construction, make any order for equipment without established projects and estimates .
The cadres decide everything! And this was taken into account from the very start. Institutes and establishments on the nuclear theme had the right to special choice of graduated from any higher learning institutions. The researchers that were needed were taken on here. One of the veterans of Arzamas-16 recalls: "…Truthfully speaking, I did not want to come here….. But afterwards, I did not regret coming here. Here, we saw the true level of work both scientific and in engineering. It was no worse than the West in any way at all…. A year had passed from a daydream, from completely fresh idea until it was embodied into life".
And, what was the attitude of those running the program towards their subordinates? When one of the leading scientists did not hide his own sympathies towards genetics, and antipathies towards Lisyenko, the security service decided to remove him from the project and the chief constructor had to ring Beria direct and say that this employee is doing much useful work. The conversation was limited to a single question, following a lengthy pause: "Do you really need him?" Having received a positive reply and having said: "Well ok then", Beria replaced the phone. The incident was settled. Another famous phrase Beria used in defence of another person working on the project was: "All the people who are working on this project have been chosen by me personally. I am prepared to answer for the actions of every one of them. These people are working and will work honestly on the project which they have been assigned."
Naturally, J.V. Stalin himself carefully followed the nuclear project. Kurchatov himself kept personal records made by him right after the hour long meeting with Stalin on the evening of 25 January 1946. Only Molotov and Beria took part in the conversation. In the flow of the conversation, Stalin did not advise working on small things or searching for cheap ways. He emphasized that it was necessary to act "widely, with a Russian scope", and that in relation to this, wide-ranging help will be provided. Stalin noted that our scientists were very modest people and "sometimes do not even notice that they live badly". From Kurchatov's notes: "in relation to the scientists, Stalin was concerned about how help could be rendered to them in the everyday-material plan and in bonuses for much work carried out, for example, in solving our problem….A proposal was put forth to write about measures that would be needed to be taken in order to speed up the work and everything connected with this". Everything needed was truly given by the country. There was a period, when in the USSR one could not buy a medical thermometer – an extremely important item. Why? The nuclear scientists needed a lot of mercury! They were given everything! The atom bomb was created in the USSR, ravaged by a war against the fascists, in just four years!
The first Soviet atom bomb was called RDS-1. The people nicknamed it Stalin's Rocket Engine! In the two months after the detonation of the first atom bomb, a secret order was issued by the Soviet of Ministers of the USSR from 29 October 1949, and signed by Stalin. Several of the most outstanding participators in the work were awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labour and won a prize. The entire spectrum of Soviet science was brought into the work on the atomic problem: physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology, geology, metallurgy and others. In the direct sense of the word, this was a victory for the entire Soviet people! Everyone worked for their united Motherland – the USSR. These were people of many, many nationalities.
With the hydrogen bomb, Soviet scientists had not only caught up, but surpassed the Americans, having tested on 12 August 1953 a real hydrogen charge, ready for use in the form of a bomb. Soviet atomic industry and science was steadily developing. The nuclear charges themselves were modernized along with the means for their delivery and different versions of their use. Peaceful professions on the nuclear explosion were researched: taming of gas fountains, the creating of underground bunkers, the formation of water reserves and many others.
With the entire significance of the technical achievements of the Soviet Union in the sphere of mastering nuclear energy, it is important to understand that the creating of a nuclear missile shield was the most important component of the Soviet policy for the struggle for peace, opposing the human-hating plans of American imperialism and its allies, having unleashed the "cold war", and having divided Europe that had only just been liberated from the fascists along the principle of either belonging or not belonging to the NATO alliance created by them in 1949.
Back in June 1946, a Soviet delegation in the UN commission on atomic energy introduced a project of the International Convention "On banning the production and use of weapons based on the use of atomic energy with the aim of mass destruction", which of course was balloted to the obedient pro-American majority. The Americans needed something entirely different. In November 1948, US president Truman established a plan of the Chief of Staff of the US armed forces on carrying out a nuclear war against the USSR (the "Pincher" plan, envisaging a strike against 50 towns across the USSR including Moscow and Leningrad, using 70 atom bombs. In May 1955, the Appeal by the USSR to all nuclear states with a proposal to make a commitment to stop nuclear-testing, was left on the table with no positive reaction. It was only when obvious and generally acknowledged nuclear parity was achieved between the USA and USSR, when the American politicians recognized this objective reality, the impossibility of it changing in any form, did it become possible to make efforts on reducing the nuclear threat, and reducing the gigantic reserves of nuclear weapons that had been achieved.
Maybe, the count-down for this began on 26 May 1972, when the USSR and USA signed a complex of agreements known as the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-1 Treaty), in which entered: the Agreement on measures on reducing the threat of nuclear war, the Treaty on limiting anti-ballistic missile systems (ABM), Temporary Agreement on some measures in the sphere of limiting strategic offensive weapons and the Protocol to the Treaty on limiting the ABM systems. However, even here, not everything went smoothly. The USA violated the ABM Treaty, having transferred onto the territory of Norway the RLS "Globus-2" tested as an element of ABM. On 12 June 2002, the USA one-sidedly withdrew from the ABM Treaty. On 18 June 1979, a complex of agreements were signed between the USSR and the USA, known as SALT-2 Treaty, in which the following entered: A treaty on limitation of strategic offensive weapons, a Protocol to the Treaty on limitation of strategic offensive weapons, a Joint declaration on the principles and main direction of consequent talks on limiting strategic arms. The treaty was not ratified by the US Senate. Nevertheless, its points were observed by both sides. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1 ) was signed on 30 – 31 July 1991 in Moscow, and came into force on 5 December 1994 after several years following the demise of the USSR. The START-1 treaty runs out on 5 December 2009. According to the treaty, the USSR and USA should have in the flow of 7 years, reduced their own nuclear arsenals in such a way, that each side would have no more than 6 thousand nuclear warheads remaining. Throughout the treaty, about 10 serious violations made by the USA were recorded. In particular, the nuclear warheads and second-stage rockets were not used by them, but only locked away in warehouses, which then created a "return to service potential". The START-2 Treaty on further strategic arms reduction was signed on 3 January 1993. The treaty bans the use of ballistic missiles with separating warheads. In response to the withdrawal on 14 June 2002 of the USA from the ABM treaty of 1972, Russia withdrew from START-2. A treaty on reducing strategic offensive potentials (so-called Moscow Treaty) was signed in Moscow on 24 May 2002 between Russia and the USA. The conditions of the treaty limit the number of strategic nuclear warheads that are on standby, up to 1700-2200 on both sides. The Moscow Treaty came into force on 1 July 2003, and it runs out on 31 December 2012.
At present, in 2009, in front of Russia stands the most complex question – what policy is to be carried out in relation to the question of reducing nuclear weapons, and how to respond to the recent proposal put forth by US president Barak Obama on the further sharp (in times over) reduction of nuclear weapons. Time has long ago and clearly showed the foolishness of the thesis which has been propagated by the so-called "democrats": "Democratic Russia" has no enemies! America is our best friend! The modern world has turned out incomparably more brutal and complicated than these "democrats" ever imagined and tried convincing those around them.
For the United States, now the subject of nuclear disarmament is safe. The USA possesses colossal advantage in weapons over all potential opponents and, possibly even over all potential opponents taken together, without even talking concretely about Russia. This advantage gives America the chance to go along the path of reducing nuclear potentials whilst expanding its own military–strategic supremacy. In this situation, Russia falls into a certain trap. Refusal to disarm may deliver a blow to Russia's international reputation. But if Russia agrees, then the country's nuclear shield which is, in essence, the sole guarantee against an attack on Russia on part of the strong (?) military powers.
In today's merciless world, it is namely nuclear forces that are the stabilizing political factor. Talks on purely nuclear disarmament are now practically senseless and for Russia in any case, they would lose if they (obviously or less obviously) do not consider the actual complete collapse of the former Soviet Army, the terrible state of its conventional weapons, the necessity of counting the total balance of nuclear and conventional weapons (especially the highly accurate ones).
Ending this, one can say – the nuclear weapon was until 1991, and remains even now, the most reliable guarantee for sovereignty and independence of our country in the face of a powerful bloc of bourgeois states headed by the USA, in conditions of a continuous growth by them of military expenditure, the building and updating by them of new types of offensive weapons (conventional as well as nuclear weapons) and persistent aiming towards a global diktat in today's mono-polar world.
S.V. Khristenko
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER by the Buro of the CC AUCPB on Ukraine, Moldavia and Prednestroviya
Having listened to and discussed the report by secretary of the CC AUCPB Comrade Maevsky "About the participation of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (AUCPB) of Ukraine in the developing workers' and protest movement of working people in the conditions of a deepening crisis of the world imperialist system", the Buro of the CC AUCPB
ORDERS:
1. Allparty organisations and every Bolshevik to take an active part in the workers' and protest movement of working people, in the struggle of the work collectives for their rights. When necessary, proceeding from the situation in the localities, this work can be carried out jointly with organisations of the VSR, and also with local organisations of the CPU (Com.Party Ukraine, PSPU (Progressive Soc. Party of Ukraine) and other parties and movements of leftist orientation, which take part in our struggle.
2. Teach the workers to carry their struggle to the end, achieving victory in implementing their inherent economic demands, not giving up if not successful, supporting each other and demonstrating class solidarity.
3. In the period of the economic struggle of the working people for their rights, we need to instill class Bolshevik consciousness into the ranks of the fighters and aim to make this struggle political, explaining to the workers and all working people that solving the questions on jobs, timely and full payment of wages, the provision of all necessary to each person and his family for a dignified life in the form of the level in wage, student grants, pensions, various social benefits, lowering prices and tariffs on food stuffs and vital commodities, on house-communal services etc, can only be done after having destroyed the power of capital and restored the power of the working class, the working masses (dictatorship of the proletariat).
4. In the flow of this struggle, we need to set up close ties with the fighting collectives and from the most active, politically conscious, courageous and brave fighters, fill our party ranks.
5. Not just to teach the workers and working people, but also we need to learn from them in the flow of this struggle, hardening our own character and gaining the necessary practical experience.
6. Our most important task is not to take part in presidential-parliamentary elections, in the flow of which one can only bring about a change of face or party expressing the interests of one or another group of the major bourgeoisie, at the top of power, but prepare the working class and working masses of Ukraine for a socialist revolution.
11 July 2009, Kiev, Ukraine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WORKERS' MOVEMENT AND OUR TASKS
In the conditions of a deep economic crisis which has been gripping the country since Autumn of 2008, there has been a further gathering and development of a meanwhile still weak, localized and unorganized workers' movement.
The workers' movement, having endured a wave of its birth and growth in the 1990-s, when the heavy collapse in production as a result of the restoration of capitalism and the little settling in the period of Putin's rule in the conditions of an "economic growth" (if anything – just on paper), beginning in 2005 and especially in conditions of an economic crisis, is again going through an upturn.
In essence, the economic crisis in the country has not stopped, starting in the 1990-s and today it has broken out with new strength, finishing off our industry and taking on a threatening character. In the spring of this year, it may have reached a critical point.
According to information by Rosstat (Russian statistics), industrial production in Russia in the first quarter fell by 14.8%, compared to the same time last year. The volume of production in the refining sectors of industry fell by 21.3%. machine-building and metallurgy have fallen into sharp decline. The production of rolled ferrous metals fell by 27% and steel pipes – by 30.3%.
The production of metal-cutting machines fell by 62.4%, enrichment equipment – by 63.7% and electric motors – by 68.3%. Car production fell by 60%, lorry production – by 72.5% and buses – by 63.5%.
Even raw material branches of the economy which give tons to the Russian economy have been suffering under the crisis. Gas extraction fell by 20.8%, coal mining – by 15.1%, iron ore – by 20.8% and it is only oil extraction that has remained at its previous level.
The construction sector is in deep crisis with 80% of building project frozen.
Such is the depressing data by official statistics. Enterprises are closing down and workers are left without a job or are transferred over to part time work. And as a result – an uplift of the workers' movement.
However, the majority of hired workers are responding to the crisis weakly, as well as to complete violations of labour legislation which the capitalists make in order to preserve their profits. A mass workers' movement does not exist in the country even in the conditions of an ever deepening crisis.
The vast majority of actions by the workers are localized at separate enterprises and are carried out spontaneously, without the organizing role of trades unions and communists, with a demand for paying back wage arrears in the form of separate strikes – a collective refusal to work and the stopping of production.
The workers are mainly fighting for their immediate economic demands – firstly, ending of wage arrears, which in the conditions of a crisis are not being paid for several months or even more than half a year. Here, we are talking about survival, which pushed the workers to carry out protest actions.
However, the crisis has brought something new into the struggle of the working class, expanding its boundaries, methods and slogans of struggle, pushing the workers towards recognizing the need for a political struggle.
In the conditions of an ever increasing number of bankruptcies of industrial enterprises, the workers are now demanding not only getting paid what they are owed. One of the main slogans of the work collectives today – is saving the enterprise. In the conditions, when the capitalists are throwing their enterprises and work collectives at the mercy of fate, saving their own profits, the workers are demanding the restarting of work of the enterprise and preserving the work collective. The workers are also coming out against being transferred over to part-time work, as well as a reduction in staff and wages.
There are cases, although very rare, when the workers demand transparency of the financial activity of the enterprise and even form bodies of workers' control. Thus, as meeting of the work collective of the Barachinsky electro-mechanical factory, that was on the verge of bankruptcy, the workers in the presence of representatives of the "Elektroprofsoyuz" trade union discussed the situation at the factory which a town was built around, where wages have not been paid since last year. The workers at that factory formed a council for the work collective which would monitor the movement of money at the factory.
The workers also put forth the slogan for nationalization of the enterprise, the transfer of it over into the property of the state. This bears witness to the political flash, in the worker's consciousness, if only weakly.
The working class, now living in conditions of a crisis with the severe realities of monstrous capitalist exploitation and heartless to the needs of people on part of the owners, and also their indifference to the fate of the enterprise are starting to understand how worthless all talk of "effectiveness" really is that is glorifying private ownership.
Today, the demands being made by workers to nationalize the enterprise is not the only thing. Thus, on 6th August in Tolyatti, a mass meeting of workers of the VAZ auto factory took place, organized by the "Unity" trade union. With their resolution, they demanded the nationalization of the enterprise and workers' control over its financial-economic activity. Demanding the nationalization of the enterprise, although we are talking here about a modern-day bourgeois state, the working class is, by their intuition, moving towards the ideas of socialism, understanding the lack of prospect of the the capitalism that has been unleashed upon them.
The data gathered from a sociological survey bears witness to the popularity of the slogan of nationalization of enterprises. Thus, citizens have more often been pointing out the need for nationalization of private enterprises for overcoming the crisis: if in October 2008, only 58% of people asked actually supported such a position (28% of whom were fully supportive of the idea and 38% would agree), then today, 82% agree with the idea (44% and 38% respectively). At the same time, there are less people against nationalization of enterprises: in all 7%, compared to 20% in October last year.
Also the forms and methods of struggle have changed. Together with a strike, the workers are more often turning to street actions – meetings and pickets, addressing their demands to the bodies of power. This also bares witness to the workers' movement becoming more politicized. However, the meetings, just like the strikes are localized, either within the confines of the enterprise, or town, and as a rule carry economic demands like paying the workers their wages they are owed, keeping the enterprise open and also in some cases- demanding the nationalization of the enterprise.
The blocking of highways, or the threat of blocking them – has today in the conditions of a crisis, become for the desperate workers, the most effective tool for defending their rights at work. The example of the town of Pikalev, when after blocking a main road by the workers of enterprises which towns had been built around, Putin arrived at the scene, and straight away, money was found for paying back the wage arrears to the workers and also the work of the enterprise was restored, this was a lesson for the workers of other towns and cities. Workers at the OOO "ATZ-Zapchast" auto-parts factory, the Boganovichsky enterprise, ZAO "Magistral" and other enterprises made attempts to block main roads. And these actions have a strong affect on the authorities. The enterprises are partially restored, and the wages owing, paid to the workers in full, the authorities thereby taking responsibility.
However, despite the new forms and method of struggle by the workers, as a whole, the workers' movement here has preserved its backwardness. Thus, the most common form of struggle today is the hunger strike and is the least effective method of struggle, and it is dangerous and harmful for the health of the worker; if workers turn to strike action, then as a rule, it is in the form of an individual's refusal to work (implemented collectively) or in the form of a spontaneous strike.
Workplace conflicts without any order, spontaneously or locally flare up, but do not pour into a mass movement.
But the main thing is the fact that workers by far are not raising themselves up to the awareness of the need of a political struggle for establishing the power of the working class, but fighting mainly just for survival.
Today, we in a state of weakness and at the same time, a growth of the workers' movement and deepening economic crisis, have to adopt in the regions, the following steps on establishing ties with the worker's movement:
- follow the situation in the workers' movement in a given region (town, area, region,etc,) and across the country as a whole, noticing where workers' actions take place, and providing them with organizational, methodological, informational, moral and other forms of support, primarily in the organisation of a strike movement;
- set up ties with active workers, especially young trade union activists, and through them, study the situation at the enterprise, distribute our newspapers and recruit into the ranks of our supporters and sympathizers and into the ranks of the party;
- set up a network for distributing our central party newspapers, regional newspapers, mass leafleting at enterprises, among work collectives, at workers' acts of protest;
- work with trades unions, independent/alternative ones as well as Smakovite (official/sellout) unions – as lower cells, providing them with selfless support in their struggle for workers' rights;
- help workers to organize, or yourselves organize protest action or acts of solidarity with the struggling work collectives in the form of pickets and meetings.
These are the minimum tasks. Today, the main reason for weakness of the working class lies in the absence of a connection between the communist movement with the workers' of trades union movement.
Our party – the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, has a good experience of regional work with the working class, an experience we must learn from and carry over into other regions. Thus, in Novosibirsk, work with the alternative trades union "Siberian Regional Profcentre", with a number of lower trade union organisations of the Smakovite official trade unions, providing them with organizational and informational support. We had set up the publication and a network for distribution at large industrial enterprises of the town, jointly with the trades unions and leftist organisations and parties which make up the Novosibirsk Solidarity Action Committee, a regular trade union newspaper "For work rights!". With our support in Novosibirsk, a telephone hotline has been opened for providing free legal consultation to workers who have be subjected to breaches in employment law and not just that. We assist workers organize pickets and meetings in defence of their demands, for example, to the workers of OOO PO "YuniOnex", and others. We monitor the situation in all actions by the workers and trade unions, providing them with moral-political support and distributing our newspapers and leaflets among the participators of the action. We give workers regular information support, periodically publishing in the newspaper "For work rights!" and on the internet information about workers' actions, the situation in the workers' movement and at large enterprises of the city and region, etc.
The weakness of the workers' movement is conditioned by objective as well as subjective factors, much of which has been repeatedly spoken about in our party documents and printed material. The main factor is in the absence of the organizational role of the advanced guard of the working class – the communist party, which has to solidify the spontaneous acts of protest of the working class for their inherent interests into an organized struggle, starting from the struggle at enterprises and in the region, and up to the organisation of a general political strike, with this, raising the struggle up to the level of a political struggle for power – the overthrowing of the rule of the bourgeoisie and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Without this, a victory of a socialist revolution will be impossible.
Grigory Pavelyev
Member of the AUCPB
City of Novosibirsk,
Siberia, Russia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KOREAN FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION (KFA)
The Korean Friendship Association(KFA) was founded in November 2000 with the purpose of building international ties with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.It has several thousand members from 120 different countries.
The KFA has full recognition from the government of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and is the world-wide leading organisation of its supporters.
The KFA recieves official information from Pyongyang and is in contact with the Korean Committee For Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries and the Korean Commitee For Solidarity with the World People.
The Main Objectives of the KFA are:
Show the reality of the DPR Korea to the world
Defend the independence and socialist construction in the DPR of Korea
Learn from the culture and history of the Korean People
Work for the peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula
Comrade Kim Jong Il leader of the Korean people said
"our Republic has been established and developed as a genuine country of the people, as a Juche-oriented socialist country, the first of its kind in history, and our people, who were oppressed and maltreated for centuries, have become able to enjoy, in the embrace of the Republic, the pride and happiness of a genuine life in which they exercise full rights as masters of the State and society.....
Our Republic, which incorporates the great Juche idea in its State building and State activities, is a people-centered socialist country in which the people are regarded as God, an independent socialist State with a strong Juche character and national identity, and an invincible socialist power that prevails over any enemy, however formidable"
JOIN THE KOREAN FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION
EMAIL KOREA@KOREA-DPR.COM OR UK@KOREA-DPR.COM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
т.етское общество добилось того, что оно уже осуществило в основном социализм, создала социалисический строй_________Supporters of the AUCPB (All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks) can join online supporters group / discussion forum For BolshevismAUCPB by e-mail at http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ForBolshevismAUCPB
or email: zabolsh@yahoo.co.uk
English language AUCPB website address in UK: http://uk.geocities.com/bolsheviklondon/index.html
Russian AUCPB website address: vkpb.ru
FIGHTING FUND – Comrades and Supporters of the AUCPB and Subscribers to "FOR BOLSHEVISM INSIDE THE COMMUNIST AND WORKERS' MOVEMENT" and other material of the AUCPB, please make a donation towards the further publication of AUCPB material translated into English from Russian by sending donations to our fighting fund account "FOR SOLIDARITY WITH WORKERS OF THE EX-USSR" sort code 30-93-60, Account Number: 02312361 (Lloyds TSB).
Many thanks to all our comrades and supporters for their material support!
Palestine Update (PU) is a newsletter of Alternatives/Badayl. Which features analysis on the 'Question of Palestine' not usually found in the mainstream media. Our intent is to generate a discourse towards creating a new basis in the struggle for freedom and justice for the Palestinians. Alternatives/Badayl works with Civil Society groups that seek authentic societal transformation. http://www.badayl.org
PA drops pressure on UN to act on Gaza opt report
By Barak Ravid
(The Palestinian Authority seems to be backtracking on its original intent to have Israel put under the scanner and be held accountable for it's conduct during the offensive last winter in Gaza last winter. Pressure from the Obama administration is the ostensible reason for this pull back. Israel has once more seemingly managed to push their colonial intent and practices in Palestine. The divide-and-rule tactics against the Palestinian population are being absorbed by a politically weak and gullible President Abbas. The international community may lose its best opportunity to bring Israel to book.)
The Palestinian Authority yesterday decided to drop its draft resolution condemning Israel's conduct during the Gaza offensive last winter, in effect deferring its adoption of the Goldstone Commission report accusing Israel and Hamas of war crimes.
The PA had originally planned to present the draft to the Human Rights Council in Geneva for a vote planned for today. The decision not to pursue the resolution means that any similar effort will have to wait until at least March.
An Israeli official said the decision appears to be the result of pressure by U.S. officials on their Palestinian counterparts.
The Obama administration has told the Palestinians that a renewal of the peace process must take precedence over any diplomatic initiative based on the Goldstone report, or any other initiatives that could stifle efforts to renew Israel-PA negotiations. This position was coordinated with Israel, according to an Israeli official.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said in recent days that efforts to use the Goldstone report to advance anti-Israel measures in the Human Rights Council or in international legal proceedings in The Hague would deal a deathblow to the peace process.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, meanwhile, has held talks with foreign ministers from the EU, Russia, Brazil and elsewhere about the report, which Lieberman described as a "dangerous precedent that would compromise democratic nations' ability to defend themselves."
Lieberman says follow-up steps to the Goldstone report would focus on NATO forces in Afghanistan and Russian forces in Chechnya. Israel's envoys to Geneva, headed by Ambassador Roni Leshno Yaar, are expected to continue to drive this message home in the coming weeks to try to block any attempt by another party - possibly an Arab state - to submit a resolution calling for the adoption of the Goldstone report.
The Palestinian decision not to push the report was "proof that Israel was right not to cooperate with the investigation and that it was a political tool that can be blocked through diplomatic activity," a source said.
--
For a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent. What is required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social rights. (B R Ambedkar)
October 1, 2009
In the long tradition of Jewish working class involvement in andsupport for liberation struggles, IJAN-Labor stands in solidarity with the High Follow-up Committeefor the Arab Citizens of Israel, the National Committee of Local Authorities, and all parties,movements and institutions of Palestinian civil society in Israel, who have called a general strikefor today, October 1, 2009.
This strike marks the ninth anniversary of the Jerusalem and Al AqsaDay in October 2000 when Israeli authorities massacred 13 Palestinian protesters. The killers havenever been brought to justice.
IJAN-Labor also welcomes the Trades Union Congress (U.K.)resolution of 17 September, which endorses the growing movement for Boycott, Divestment andSanctions (BDS) against Israeli apartheid, and calls for reconsideration of the TUC's relationshipwith the Histadrut, the Zionist labor federation whose latest crime was to support Israel's attackson Gaza.
The BDS campaign has been endorsed by a growing number of labor bodies, including theCongress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Solidaires Industrie (France), UNISON (UK),Transport and General Workers' Union (UK), Western Australia Branch of the Maritime Union ofAustralia, Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Canadian Union of Public Employees-Ontario, sixNorwegian trade unions, Irish Congress of Trade Unions, Scottish Trades Union Congress, andIntersindical Alternativa de Catalunya.
In the United States, despite growing support from labororganizations and populations across the globe, the AFL-CIO and Change to Win fail to recognize whattheir British counterpart has now acknowledged: that Israel is a state built on defeating theaspirations and solidarity of working families not only in Israel but internationally.
Oftenwithout the knowledge or consent of union members, US Labor officialdom remains a leading accompliceof Israeli apartheid and the Zionist colonialism of which it is part. For more than sixty years, ithas closely collaborated with the Histadrut, which has spearheaded — and whitewashed —apartheid, dispossession, ethnic cleansing and exploitation of the Palestinians since the 1920s.
Indeed, the Histadrut (as both employer and union) provided lethal weapons which the South Africanapartheid government used against Black workers, while at home it either excluded or segregated Arabworkers.
Today, in solidarity with the general strike of Palestinian workers in Israel andgrowing international labor support for BDS, we call on US labor organizations to divest theirestimated $5 billion investment in State of Israel Bonds, and to end all relations with theHistadrut.
For more information IJAN Labor, please see our website: http://www.ijsn.net/C91
Ifyou are interested in participating in IJAN Labor, please email us at: Labor-IJAN@ijsn.net
| PA drops pressure on UN to act on Gaza opt report | |||
| By Barak Ravid | |||
The Palestinian Authority yesterday decided to drop its draft resolution condemning Israel's conduct during the Gaza offensive last winter, in effect deferring its adoption of the Goldstone Commission report accusing Israel and Hamas of war crimes. The PA had originally planned to present the draft to the Human Rights Council in Geneva for a vote planned for today. The decision not to pursue the resolution means that any similar effort will have to wait until at least March. An Israeli official said the decision appears to be the result of pressure by U.S. officials on their Palestinian counterparts. The Obama administration has told the Palestinians that a renewal of the peace process must take precedence over any diplomatic initiative based on the Goldstone report, or any other initiatives that could stifle efforts to renew Israel-PA negotiations. This position was coordinated with Israel, according to an Israeli official. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said in recent days that efforts to use the Goldstone report to advance anti-Israel measures in the Human Rights Council or in international legal proceedings in The Hague would deal a deathblow to the peace process. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, meanwhile, has held talks with foreign ministers from the EU, Russia, Brazil and elsewhere about the report, which Lieberman described as a "dangerous precedent that would compromise democratic nations' ability to defend themselves." Lieberman says follow-up steps to the Goldstone report would focus on NATO forces in Afghanistan and Russian forces in Chechnya. Israel's envoys to Geneva, headed by Ambassador Roni Leshno Yaar, are expected to continue to drive this message home in the coming weeks to try to block any attempt by another party - possibly an Arab state - to submit a resolution calling for the adoption of the Goldstone report. The Palestinian decision not to push the report was "proof that Israel was right not to cooperate with the investigation and that it was a political tool that can be blocked through diplomatic activity," a source said. | |||
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1118386.html
No comments:
Post a Comment