David Cameron's Gift of War and Racism, to Them and Us
Thursday 7 April 2011
by:
John Pilger, Truthout
UK Prime Minister David Cameron speaks during the Special Address at
the Annual Meeting 2011 of the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, on January 28, 2011. (Photo: Moritz Hager / World Economic Forum )
Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.
The Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting
anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the
West's response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions
of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new
imperial rival, China.
President Barack Obama's historical distinction is now guaranteed.
He is America's first black president to invade Africa. His assault on
Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to
secure the continent's lucrative natural resources from Africa's
impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of
China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China's principal source
of oil. As American, British and French planes currently incinerate
both "bad" and "good" Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers
is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by Western officials and
media that a "deranged and criminal Colonel Qaddafi" is planning
"genocide" against his own people still await evidence. This is
reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required "humanitarian
intervention" in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the
establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.
The detail is also familiar. The Libyan "pro-democracy rebels" are
reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study
by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988
"with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]." For
the past 20 years, Colonel Haftar has been living not far from Langley,
Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp.
The Mujihadeen, which produced al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi National
Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored
in the same time-honored way, in leafy Langley.
Libya's other "rebel" leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Qaddafi's
justice minister until February, and Gen. Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran
Qaddafi's interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for
savagely putting down dissent. There is a civil and tribal war in Libya,
which includes popular outrage against Qaddafi's human rights record.
However, it is Libya's independence, not the nature of its regime, that
is intolerable to the West in a region of vassals; and this hostility
has barely changed in the 42 years since Qaddafi overthrew the feudal
King Idris, one the more odious tyrants backed by the West. With his
Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Qaddafi has long made an ideal "mad
dog" (Daily Mirror), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots
to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a
cardiac center. The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted
daughter.
What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a
people's liberation. In undermining efforts by Libya's genuine
democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator
and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from
Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of
January's days of hope in Tunis and Cairo, and distracting many who had
taken heart from the task of ensuring that their gains were not stolen
quietly. On 23 March, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree
barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the West.
With Qaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can
continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions. Facebook has come
under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full scale
Palestinian uprising - a "Third Intifada" - on 15 May.
None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the
kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United
Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never
ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were
told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi
Arabia. A US "coalition" would "take out" the recalcitrant Qaddafi if
the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been
accomplished, and the bloodied king of Bahrain will be a guest at the
royal wedding in London.
The embodiment of this reaction is David Cameron, whose only real
job has been as PR man to the television industry's asset stripper,
Michael Green. Cameron was in the Gulf selling arms to the
British-invented tyrannies when people rose up against Yemen's Abdullah
Saleh; on 18 March, Saleh's regime murdered 52 demonstrators. Cameron
said nothing of value. Yemen is "one of ours," as the British Foreign
Office likes to say. In February, Cameron revealed himself in an attack
on what he called "state multi-culturalism" - the code for Muslims. He
said, "We need a lot less of the past tolerance of recent years." He was
applauded by Marine Le Pen, leader of France's fascist National Front.
"It is exactly this kind of statement that has barred us from public
life for 30 years," she told the Financial Times. "I can only
congratulate him."
At its most rapacious, the British Empire produced David Camerons in
job lots. Unlike many of the Victorian "civilizers," today's sedentary
Westminster warriors - throw in William Hague, Liam Fox and the
treacherous Nick Clegg - have never been touched by the suffering and
bloodshed which, removed in culture and distance, are the consequences
of their utterances and actions. With their faintly trivial, always
contemptuous air, they are cowards abroad, as they are at home. War and
racism and the destruction of Britain's hard-won social democracy are
their gift. Remember that when you next take to the streets in your
hundreds of thousands, as you must.
David Cameron's Gift of War and Racism, to Them and Us
By alexa
Created 2011-04-07 06:36
| INCREASE
| RESET |
DECREASE
David Cameron's Gift of War and Racism, to Them and Us
Thursday 7 April 2011
by:
John Pilger, Truthout
UK Prime Minister David Cameron speaks during the Special Address at
the Annual Meeting 2011 of the World Economic Forum in Davos,
Switzerland, on January 28, 2011. (Photo: Moritz Hager / World Economic Forum )
Do you like this? Click here to signup for free email updates from Truthout.
The Euro-American attack on Libya has nothing to do with protecting
anyone; only the terminally naive believe such nonsense. It is the
West's response to popular uprisings in strategic, resource-rich regions
of the world and the beginning of a war of attrition against the new
imperial rival, China.
President Barack Obama's historical distinction is now guaranteed.
He is America's first black president to invade Africa. His assault on
Libya is run by the US Africa Command, which was set up in 2007 to
secure the continent's lucrative natural resources from Africa's
impoverished people and the rapidly spreading commercial influence of
China. Libya, along with Angola and Nigeria, is China's principal source
of oil. As American, British and French planes currently incinerate
both "bad" and "good" Libyans, the evacuation of 30,000 Chinese workers
is under way, perhaps permanently. Statements by Western officials and
media that a "deranged and criminal Colonel Qaddafi" is planning
"genocide" against his own people still await evidence. This is
reminiscent of fraudulent claims that required "humanitarian
intervention" in Kosovo, the final dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the
establishment of the biggest US military base in Europe.
The detail is also familiar. The Libyan "pro-democracy rebels" are
reportedly commanded by Colonel Khalifa Haftar who, according to a study
by the US Jamestown Foundation, set up the Libyan National Army in 1988
"with strong backing from the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA]." For
the past 20 years, Colonel Haftar has been living not far from Langley,
Virginia, home of the CIA, which also provides him with a training camp.
The Mujihadeen, which produced al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi National
Congress, which scripted the Bush/Blair lies about Iraq, were sponsored
in the same time-honored way, in leafy Langley.
Libya's other "rebel" leaders include Mustafa Abdul Jalil, Qaddafi's
justice minister until February, and Gen. Abdel-Fattah Younes, who ran
Qaddafi's interior ministry: both with formidable reputations for
savagely putting down dissent. There is a civil and tribal war in Libya,
which includes popular outrage against Qaddafi's human rights record.
However, it is Libya's independence, not the nature of its regime, that
is intolerable to the West in a region of vassals; and this hostility
has barely changed in the 42 years since Qaddafi overthrew the feudal
King Idris, one the more odious tyrants backed by the West. With his
Bedouin hyperbole and bizarre ways, Qaddafi has long made an ideal "mad
dog" (Daily Mirror), now requiring heroic US, French and British pilots
to bomb urban areas in Tripoli, including a maternity hospital and a
cardiac center. The last US bombing in 1986 managed to kill his adopted
daughter.
What the US, British and French hope to achieve is the opposite of a
people's liberation. In undermining efforts by Libya's genuine
democrats and nationalists to free their country from both a dictator
and those corrupted by foreign demands, the sound and fury from
Washington, London and Paris has succeeded in dimming the memory of
January's days of hope in Tunis and Cairo, and distracting many who had
taken heart from the task of ensuring that their gains were not stolen
quietly. On 23 March, the US-backed Egyptian military issued a decree
barring all strikes and protests. This was barely reported in the West.
With Qaddafi now the accredited demon, Israel, the real canker, can
continue its wholesale land theft and expulsions. Facebook has come
under Zionist pressure to remove a page calling for a full scale
Palestinian uprising - a "Third Intifada" - on 15 May.
None of this should surprise. History suggests nothing less than the
kind of machination revealed by two senior diplomats at the United
Nations, who spoke to the Asia Times. Demanding to know why the UN never
ordered a fact-finding mission to Libya instead of an attack, they were
told that a deal had been done between the White House and Saudi
Arabia. A US "coalition" would "take out" the recalcitrant Qaddafi if
the Saudis put down the popular uprising in Bahrain. The latter has been
accomplished, and the bloodied king of Bahrain will be a guest at the
royal wedding in London.
The embodiment of this reaction is David Cameron, whose only real
job has been as PR man to the television industry's asset stripper,
Michael Green. Cameron was in the Gulf selling arms to the
British-invented tyrannies when people rose up against Yemen's Abdullah
Saleh; on 18 March, Saleh's regime murdered 52 demonstrators. Cameron
said nothing of value. Yemen is "one of ours," as the British Foreign
Office likes to say. In February, Cameron revealed himself in an attack
on what he called "state multi-culturalism" - the code for Muslims. He
said, "We need a lot less of the past tolerance of recent years." He was
applauded by Marine Le Pen, leader of France's fascist National Front.
"It is exactly this kind of statement that has barred us from public
life for 30 years," she told the Financial Times. "I can only
congratulate him."
At its most rapacious, the British Empire produced David Camerons in
job lots. Unlike many of the Victorian "civilizers," today's sedentary
Westminster warriors - throw in William Hague, Liam Fox and the
treacherous Nick Clegg - have never been touched by the suffering and
bloodshed which, removed in culture and distance, are the consequences
of their utterances and actions. With their faintly trivial, always
contemptuous air, they are cowards abroad, as they are at home. War and
racism and the destruction of Britain's hard-won social democracy are
their gift. Remember that when you next take to the streets in your
hundreds of thousands, as you must. War on Palestinian Memory: Israel Resolves Its Democracy Dilemma
by Ramzy Baroud
Palestinian citizens of Israel must have been proud of the fact that their collective tenacity always proved stronger than any Israeli attempt at dislocating them from their rightful historical narrative. Now, they are being told to cease and desist from commemorating al-Nakba, the Catastrophe of 1948, which saw the brutal seizure and depopulation of most of Palestine in order to construct the Israeli ‘miracle’.
Currently estimated at a fifth of the population of today’s Israel, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship have endured appalling treatment for decades. As Muslims and Christians, they have been regarded as an anomaly in what was meant to be a perfect Jewish utopia governed by the laws of democracy.
This is the quandary that Israel has never mastered, as the non-Jewish citizens of Israel have represented a major obstacle to that vision.
The question of what to do with Palestinian citizens of Israel has long haunted Israeli politicians. Discriminatory laws, unlawful seizure of land and even violence have all failed to deter Palestinians from demanding equality and exposing the moral inconsistency of Israel’s selective democracy and dubious history. More, all attempts at fragmenting Palestinian national identity – through different sets of laws for Palestinians in Israel, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and millions in Diaspora – were hardly enough to disfigure the innate sense of solidarity and belonging that Palestinian communities felt towards one another. When Palestinian activists gather in Jerusalem, Algiers or London, one fails to trace borderlines, the details of identity cards, or any other desperate forms of classification used by Israel. When Palestinians meet, Israel’s divisive laws prove frivolous.
Israeli politicians have “lost sight of a basic concept in democracy,” claimed the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) in a recent statement, as cited by the BBC. The statement was a response to the Israeli parliament’s approval of a bill that “allows courts to revoke the citizenship of anyone convicted of spying, treason or aiding its enemies.” Like scores of other bills introduced to the Knesset, many of which have been approved, the most recent amendment of the Citizenship Law of 1952 targets the Palestinian population of Israel.
The bill, passed on March 28, was sponsored by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu party, the proud sponsor of nearly two dozen other discriminatory bills. Liberman’s 2009 campaign was largely based on the slogan: “no loyalty, no citizenship.” The latest bill is another manifestation of this idea.
But it was hardly the only bill targeting Palestinian citizens of Israel. Another had been passed only a few days earlier. The “Nakba Bill” passed its final reading on March 22 and was sponsored by Alex Miller (Yisrael Beiteinu). This bill can be understood as a war on the collective memory of Palestinians, as it targets those who mark and commemorate the Catastrophe of 1948.
“We are ready to go to jail,” was the response of MK Jamal Zahalka, of Balad party, who warned of “civil rebellion” against recent bills. “Nakba law won’t stop Arabs – we’ll just increase our protests.”
Haneen Zoabi, also of the Balad party, told The Electronic Intifada: “This is a kind of law to control our memory, to control our collective memory. It's a very stupid law which punishes our feelings. It seems that the history of the victim is threatening the Zionist state.”
A stupid law maybe, but one rooted in Israel’s historical fear of Palestinian memory. Indeed, the war on memory has its own convincing, albeit cruel logic. From Vladimir Jabotinsky's ‘Iron Wall’ of 1923 - aimed largely at sidelining the 'native population' from the ‘Zionist colonization’ of Palestine - to Uri Lubrani's desire to “reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters”, attempts at forcefully removing or reducing the Palestinian population is the cornerstone of Zionist reasoning. The reasoning, which was essentially predicated on presenting Palestine as a “land without people”, is often challenged by the fact that the Palestinian people are too stubborn to terminate their historical, intellectual and very personal relationship to their land. Their persistence has made a mockery of Israel’s first Prime Minister Ben Gurion’s faulty prediction in 1948 that “the old will die and the young will forget.”
Palestinian steadfastness cannot bend natural phenomena. Yes, the old will continue to die. But the young are far from forgetting. So how do you now exact forgetfulness from Palestinians? Israel has always enjoyed a broad definition of ‘democracy’, which purported to reconcile ethnic and religious exclusivity on the one hand, and the inclusive parameters of true democracy on the other. Outside Israel, those who dared question this wisdom were labeled anti-Semites. Palestinians in Israel, who fought against the iniquitous and dehumanizing definitions, were often labeled a ‘fifth column’ and were designated ‘enemies’ of the state. It is they who now risk losing their citizenship or being fined for the supposedly sinful act of remembering the tragedies that have befallen their people.
Although racist and discriminatory laws have defined the Israeli parliament for years, the unmistakably bigoted nature of these laws and the frequency at which they are being passed reflect the level of fear in the Zionist project. The major obstacle to this project remains a people who refuse to be defeated or to be relegated as “woodcutters or waiters.” Israel seems to be resolving its quandary of being a Jewish and democratic state, and it has decidedly chosen to be the former. There is nothing democratic about the most recent bills that have passed in the parliament. Israel is now officially an Apartheid state, and all the Hasbra in the world cannot resolve the moral crisis that is now at the core of Israeli politics.
Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on March 2 that veteran diplomat Ilan Baruch had quit his post as he was no longer able to defend Israeli policy. It seems Mr Baruch made his decision in the nick of time, as it would be a truly arduous task now to try and justify Israel’s war on Palestinian memory.
- Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press, London), available on Amazon.com.
|
