POWER TO THE (PALESTINIAN) PEOPLE!

Professor Jeff Halper

23 January 2008

The people of Palestine have done it again, taking their own fate in their hands after being let down by their own "moderate" political leadership and, indeed, the entire international community in their struggle for freedom. Early this morning they simply blew up the wall separating Gaza from Egypt, breaking a siege imposed on them by an Arab government in collaboration with Israel.

We, the peoples of the world, should take great pride and encouragement in this quintessentially civil society refusal to accept subjugation, to abandon their fate to governments, including their own, for whom the lives of ordinary people are simply grist for their political charades – Annapolis and its subsequent "peace process" being but the last cynical expression. For the Palestinians represent far more than just themselves. Their refusal to submit to the dictates of governments, or to governments' lack of interest in the well-being of people in general, reflects the desire of billions of oppressed people for identity, freedom, a decent life and actualization of their collective and individual rights and potentials. Most of the oppressed, the "wretched of the earth" as Franz Fanon called them a half-century ago, are too preoccupied with the daunting daily struggle for survival to organize and resist. Others do resist in a myriad of ways, but are most often repressed by their own political and economic "leaders," disappearing anonymously from view. In a few cases they have managed to mount effective resistance to oppression, even to prevail – though the billions spent on "counterinsurgency" warfare by the US, Europe, Russia, Israel and many "developing" nations augur ill for peoples attempting to overthrow oppressive regimes.

In this the Palestinians stand at the forefront, in the front lines of peoples' insistence everywhere that their rights, well-being and fundamental values as human beings be respected by governments. And they do so (and I write this as an Israeli with great sorrow and shame) against one of the world's strongest and most ruthless military powers – a power that has dispossessed them from 85% of their land, which is trying to transform its occupation into a permanent regime of apartheid, which has spent decades impoverishing and disenfranchising them; the fourth largest nuclear power which nevertheless casts itself as the victim. Not only have the Palestinians experienced the dehumanization all oppressed and colonized peoples experience, not only have they been made into the embodiment of the rich and powerful's greatest fear, evil "terrorists" who may tear down their privileged "civilization," but they have been turned into guinea pigs. Israel is able to gain an edge in the counterinsurgency industry and win entree into the heart of the American military/hi tech complex by turning the Occupied Territories into a laboratory for the development of fiendish weaponry and tactics intended for use against people.

And yet the Palestinian people – and in particular those who remain sumud, steadfast, in Palestine – continue not only to resist but to surprise and confound its would-be Israeli master at every turn. Despite unlimited control, a complete monopoly over the use of force, utter callousness and a vaunted Shin Beit, Israel's military intelligence, Palestinians vote as they want, resist, carry on their daily lives with dignity – and blow huge holes in the walls and policies constructed in order to imprison and defeat them.

All this is not on the minds of those desperate people who surged into Egypt today. They may not have the "Big Picture." Yet they deserve the respect and gratefulness of every person who cherishes a better world based on human rights and dignity, a world that is inclusive. As an Israeli Jew, I have been saddened and mortified that my own people, after all they have experienced, cannot see what they are doing to others. But on a larger scale, not as an Israeli Jew but as a human being, I take heart in the Palestinians' active refusal to be ground under a global system that is producing unimaginable wealth and power for a few at the expense of the growing ranks of the wretched.

I am not a Palestinian; I am not one of the oppressed. I only hope I can use my privilege in an effective way in order to redeem the gift the people of Gaza have given all of us: the realization that the people do have power and can prevail even in the face of overwhelming power. We may each express our responsibility towards the people of Gaza in whatever way most suits us, but as the privileged we must do something. We owe the Palestinians and the Palestinians writ large at least that.


(Jeff Halper is the Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) .
Israel Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD)PO Box 2030 Jerusalem, Israel 21090

www.icahd.org

email: info@icahd.org

Your support is always appreciated.

Please go to our website

to make a secure online donation. http://icahd.org/eng/18000homesdonate.asp

Why Britain's Afghan venture has failed

Six years after the invasion, the overthrow of the Taleban regime, the installation of a client regime that is now steeped in corruption, the deaths of thousands of people and an aid programme that is failing dismally, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has set out Britain’s 'plan B' for Afghanistan. Given the appalling record of destruction, matched only by the chaos that is Iraq, it is no surprise that people are sceptical about the likelihood of these new plans to bring peace and stability to the region, and cynical about the motives behind the on-going intervention. Corruption, poverty and insecurity have all worsened in Afghanistan under occupation. This "free, democratic" Afghanistan has levels of poverty comparable to sub-Saharan Africa, as well as 120,000 women and 60,000 children who are amongst Afghanistan's new drug users, giving a new meaning to the term "liberation" that is entirely in keeping with intervention by capitalist liberal states.

One has to ask if this is what western politicians mean when they boast that they have brought democracy to Afghanistan . People want more than a rigged vote labelled as democracy. They want stability, security and a decent standard of living. Not death, destruction and poverty. They want Islamic values, and not to be liberated to enjoy cannabis and heroin.

Given the deepening crisis in Afghanistan it is no wonder that Brown is suggesting this new plan. He has to win hearts and minds in Britain, and justify the billions spent from taxpayer’s money, as well as justify the many troop casualties. However, the hearts and minds in the Muslim world are already lost. The worsening security and worsening poverty prove this military venture has not been about ensuring a more peaceful world, or about humanitarian intervention, but has been about Britain fighting its corner in a new colonial Great Game. Sadly, the people of Afghanistan are the victims of this competition between Russia, Britain and the US , in this most strategically and materially important region.

On Security, Brown has proposed that it be under the auspices of ISAF and the Afghan national army. Yet under their watch the UN estimates that violent incidents are up at least 20 percent since the previous year. In November 2007 they criticised international troops for killing civilians at 'alarming levels'. It is NATO troop presence that fuels the insecurity. Moreover the UN high commissioner also raised concerns about whether ISAF was turning detainees over to torture in Afghan custody. Amnesty International said that NATO forces in Afghanistan have handed detainees to Afghan security services (the NDS) despite reports that they torture their prisoners.

On economic development the current record is shameful. Almost half of the US ' aid budget goes directly to fatten the profits of five US contractors. Much has been squandered on profits for companies or subcontractors, or spent on high salaries and living expenses for expatriate staff (each full-time expatriate consultant costs up to $500000 a year.) Only $270 million of the $15 billion of aid has been spent on the agricultural sector when this is the major source of income for 80 percent of Afghans. Heroin production is up since the occupation, providing 93 percent of the world's opium supply. Tragically the rates of addiction within Afghanistan have increased sharply since 2003 to nearly 4 percent of the population.

On political development, even Karzai himself cannot hide the levels of corruption. The democratic parliament is packed with former warlords, who voted themselves an amnesty from war crimes earlier this year. Large profits from Afghanistan's $3-billion opium crop, funds skimmed from aid and reconstruction contracts and bribes for services all fuel official corruption. One elderly parliamentarian addressed Karzai saying "The government and cabinet members are sucking the blood of innocent people; we can't tolerate the corruption in every government office.”

The on-going western occupation and interference only fuels the desire for an independent Islamic Caliphate where authority lies with people; where elected representatives cannot vote themselves an amnesty from prosecution; where the laws and values are those based on the beliefs, heritage and values of the population; where the executive is wholly accountable and has to stand up for the interests of its citizens and not for those of foreign governments.

Western governments will never admit that their repeated interventions trying to ‘fix’ what they themselves have broken will only create more problems. They show no signs of wanting to leave the Muslim world so that it may shape its own future and political destiny. Stability can only come when a system of government enjoys the trust and confidence of the people and that will only come when Islam lies at the heart of the system. Any People wanting to have the rulers they chose, and are not not be forced to accept stooges who represent foreign interests.

Abdul Wahid

Chairman UK Executive Committee

Hizb ut-Tahrir

13th December 2007

HRLA/Law Society Event

Here are details of the HRLA/Law Society event:

HRLA and Law Society Joint Event "Can Human Rights be Guaranteed within Conflict: Lessons from Basra, Belfast and the ending of the British Empire."

Speakers:

Brigadier Philip McEvoy OBE, Army Legal Service,

Guglielmo Verdirame, Cambridge University, 20 Essex St Chambers

Chair: Keir Starmer QC, Doughty Street Chambers and Human Rights Adviser to the Police Board of Northern Ireland

Venue: Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2

Date 24 January 2008 Time: 6.00pm

Free to members of the Law Society and HRLA

£5.00 for non members

CPD points: 1.5

What is the relationship between war, conflict and human rights? Can rights be assured in conflict? Is the guarantee of human rights a justification for going to war? Do human rights add anything to the laws of armed conflict, or do human rights cease to apply during war and conflict? These questions, and their resolution, are now uppermost in the minds of those planning, preparing and prosecuting war. At the same time, those caught up in conflict are increasingly resorting to human rights law as a means to attempt to regulate it. Aspects of the conflicts of the 21st Century can therefore expect to be resolved in the court room as well as the theatre of war.

This timely seminar will explore the role played by human rights within the British Government's military strategy. Additionally the seminar will explain how international human rights standards are being used to inform the interpretation and application of the laws of war, as well as regulating conduct during conflicts and their aftermath. Brigadier McEvoy plays a leading role in advising the army in relation to all aspects of its work, including operational decisions. This is an unrivalledopportunity to hear from him and to ask questions. Guglielmo Verdirame, academic and practitioner, will explore the links between human rights and the laws of armed conflict. The seminar's chair is Keir Starmer QC, the leading human rights barrister. If you would like to attend then please email: DDelgado@barcouncil.org.uk

"It's the War," Says Iowa to Hillary -- And a "Happy Blue Year" To All! ...from Michael Moore

Friends,

There was no doubt about it. The message from Iowa tonight was simple, but deafening: If you're a candidate for President, and you voted for the war, you lose. And if you voted and voted and voted for the war -- and never once showed any remorse -- you really lose. In short, if you had something to do with keeping us in this war for four-plus years, you are not allowed to be the next president of the United States.

Over 70% of Iowan Democrats voted for candidates who either never voted for the invasion of Iraq (Obama, Richardson, Kucinich) or who have since admitted their mistake (Edwards, Biden, Dodd). I can't tell you how bad I feel for Senator Clinton tonight. I don't believe she was ever really for this war. But she did -- and continued to do -- what she thought was the politically expedient thing to eventually get elected. And she was wrong. And tonight she must go to sleep wondering what would have happened if she had voted her conscience instead of her calculator.

John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving.

What an amazing night, not just for Barack Obama, but for America. I know that Senator Obama is so much more than simply the color of his skin, but all of us must acknowledge -- and celebrate -- the fact that one of the whitest states in the U.S. just voted for a black man to be our next president. Thank you, Iowa, for this historic moment. Thank you for at least letting us believe that we are better than what we often seem to be. And to have so many young people come out and vote -- and vote for Obama -- this is a proud moment. It all began with the record youth turnout in 2004 -- the ONLY age group that Kerry won -- and they came back out tonight en force. Good on every single one of you!

As the only top candidate who was anti-war before the war began, Barack Obama became the vessel through which the people of this Midwestern state were able to say loud and clear: "Bring 'Em Home!" Most pundits won't read the election this way because, well, most pundits merrily led us down the path to war. For them to call this vote tonight a repudiation of the war -- and of Senator Clinton's four years' worth of votes for it -- might require the pundit class to remind their viewers and readers that they share some culpability in starting this war. And, like Hillary, damn few of them have offered us an apology.

With all due respect to Senator Obama's victory, the most important news out of the caucus this evening was the whopping, room-busting turnout of Democrats. 239,000 people showed up to vote Democratic tonight (93% more than in '04, which was a record year), while only 115,000 showed up to vote Republican. And this is a red state! The Republican caucuses looked anemic. The looks on their faces were glum, tired. As the camera followed some of them into their caucus sites, they held their heads down or turned away, sorta like criminals on a perp walk. They know their days of power are over. They know their guy blew it. Their only hope was to vote for a man who has a direct line to heaven. Huckabee is their Hail Mary pass. But don't rule him out. He's got a sense of humor, he's downhome, and he said that if elected, he'd put me on a boat to Cuba. Hey, a free Caribbean vacation!

Bottom line: People have had it. Iowa will go blue (Happy Blue Year, Hawkeyes!). Whomever your candidate is on the Dem side, this was a good night. Get some sleep. The Republicans won't go down without a fight. Look what happened when Kerry tried to play nice. So Barack, you can talk all you want about "let's put the partisanship aside, let's all get along," but the other side has no intention of being anything but the bullies they are. Get your game face on now. And, if you can, tell me why you are now the second largest recipient of health industry payola after Hillary. You now take more money from the people committed to stopping universal health care than any of the Republican candidates.

Despite what your answer may be, I was proud to sit in my living room tonight and see you and your family up on that stage. We became a bit better tonight, and on that I will close by saying, sweet dreams -- and on to that other totally white state of New Hampshire!

Yours,

Michael Moore

MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Attacking Law and Lawyers

Judges and Lawyers: Defenders of Democratic Values

The Crisis in Pakistan is Our Crisis

Date: 22 November 2007

Time: 6.00pmVenue: Law Society

Speakers include:Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC

Other speakers tbc

The declaration of a state of emergency in Pakistan and the arrest anddetention of judges and lawyers is a violation of human rights and an assaulton the rule of law. What is currently taking place in Pakistan is of vitalconcern to lawyers all over the world. The consequence of this direct attackon judges and lawyers, as defenders against arbitrary government, is anattack on democracy and democratic values. With this violence against juristshas come the denial of basic guarantees of fair trial rights, protection fromunlawful detention and the absolute prohibition on torture. This attack onlaw and lawyers is the prelude to capricious government of doubtfullegitimacy, which undermines the security of us all.

This event organised by the Human Rights Lawyers Association and the LawSociety will analyse and explain the recent events in Pakistan from the perspective of human rights law. It will show how human rights are beingviolated and what must be done to remedy those violations. It will identifyhow events in Pakistan will not progress in the absence of a human rightsframework to restore the rule of law and democracy.There will be plenty of opportunity for questions, discussion and debate

The event is free. To register, please email DDelgado@barcouncil.org.uk

Please forward this email on to others who may be interested in attendingIf you wish to sign the Law Society petition, please go to: www.lawsociety.org.uk/pakistanpetition

Kind regards

Domonique Delgado
HRLA Administrator
The General Council of the Bar
289-293 High Holborn
London WC1V 2HZ
Tel: 020 7242 1289

Open Letter to David Cameron, MP

We have become accustomed to matters of security being cynically played for political point scoring. Your persistent call, with no evidence, for the criminalisation of Hizb ut-Tahrir and other Muslim groups and thinkers illustrates many things.

Firstly, you mislead the general public who expect their leaders to produce well informed arguments based on evidence. The complex issues that have created today's security environment have been reduced by you to the single issue of Islam's political ideas and its adherents - you, like Tony Blair and George W Bush before you, simply seek to divert any responsibility for creating today's security environment away from western government policies in the Muslim world.

Secondly, it confirms your party's credentials as an anti-Muslim party, who care little for community relations. You expose the promotion of a Muslim to the Shadow Cabinet as a veneer for your actual policies, by silencing her views on these matters (such that she utterly contradicts what she herself argued for over two years) and by having her stalked in her brief by one of the most hawkish of MPs.

Thirdly, the trail of your argument can be traced to various right wing neoconservative think tanks in Washington, via their sister organisations in the UK. It is well known that you have self declared neoconservatives in your front bench team and we are aware that some of your senior staff have been sent to Washington to consult with these people on these matters. These very same people who have advised you on the matter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, also call for the bombing of Iran (as they called for the war in Iraq), the withdrawal of Britain from the European Convention of Human Rights and the termination of your relationship with the Conservative Muslim Forum (recently described by one supporter of yours in the Heritage Foundation as a flirtation with Islamic extremism). Such views merely illustrate the fragility of the so-called principles of freedom and tolerance that you claim to believe in.

You prefer to ban ideas rather than debate them. You believe that voices that confront the policies of this country in the Muslim world should be silenced. Your views on non-violent groups like ours simply reinforces the belief in the Muslim world that this war on terror is not about preventing violence but preventing Muslims from living in their lands by their way of life - Islam - and imposing systems of your own. It is a recognised pattern that we have seen before under repressive regimes there.

We are willing to debate with you on any of these matters in a public forum. The cowardice of leaving your accusations to Parliament - where you enjoy the cover of legal protection - is telling. Your persistent call for a ban, censoring debate and discussion on important issues, suggests to me that you would not accept this offer, because you have no arguments and no proofs to bring to the table. However, our challenge stands regardless.

Abdul Wahid
Chairman UK-Executive committee
Hizb ut-Tahrir, Britain

Student funding

The UK Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills want to end funding for students who have an existing qualification at or below the level they wish to study (equivalent or lower qualifications = ELQs) in order to give the money saved - in excess of 100m to other priorities. They have not said what these are, but have stated that on the grounds of "fairness" first time students should come first in a tight spending round. A consultation is taking place, and the government is intending to phase in the cut over three years with various mechanisms of mitigation for institutions proposed. They are also intending to exempt some categories of student, and some strategic subject areas - predominantly languages and sciences. It is likely that students receiving employer support will also be exempted. The new policy, which was announced without any consultation with relevant players in the sector, will have a number of unintended consequences - not the least that one potential mechanism for delivering learning to hard to reach first time students - lifelong learning departments - will face closure, and institutions specializing in mature student and part-time study, such as the OU and Birkbeck severely damaged. Yet, John Denham (the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills) recently urged universities to increase the number of adult students and expand the number of evening classes and part-time degrees to play a greater role in enhancing the skills of the workforce and further widening participation. Of possible concern to members of this list is that it is likely that some subjects will be damaged more than others. Thus subjects which learners are more likely to study later in life, when they are already qualified in some other subject, and which are unlikely to attract support from employers, will be differentially affected. It is not yet proven but seems very likely that philosophy, which is not amongst the exempted subjects deemed to be "strategically important and vulnerable," will be among the subjects affected in this way. Though some departments may be only marginally affected, historically philosophy has been a popular choice for those returning to learning later in life, especially through part-time routes. The principle of the 'strategically important and vulnerable subject' is also one that should worry many academics. In this exercise, it is being imported as a criterion for denying funding to one group of ELQs, whilst giving it to another. Some may suspect that, if accepted now, this will later become a principle to be applied in rationing the core funding of Humanities, Arts and Social Science subjects. The Master of Birkbeck college had this to say: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/news/news-releases/birkbecks-response-to-proposed-funding-changes His statement neatly encapsulates what many see as the contradictions in the government policy. May I respectfully urge UK members of this list to watch this issue closely. The consultation with further background is at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2007/07_27/ Members of the list may also wish to know of the online petition, relevant to the lifelong implications of the issue, set up by students at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/HE-GRANT-CUTS/#detail