themcglynn.com/theliberal.net

Archive for September, 2011

24 Sep

Palestine, Bahrain and US Hyprocrisy

Posted on 09/24/2011 by Juan

Brazen hypocrisy most often deeply damages the reputation, whether of a person or of a country.President Barack Obama appears to have thought that he could go to the UN with a liberation of Libya and a further postponement of Palestinian rights to boast of, and that these stances would make him popular in the global south.  But in fact he just looked inconsistent and hypocritical and self-interested.The United States was not at the forefront of the changes sweeping the Middle East in the past year, and its instinct as a Great Power is to support the status quo.  Thus, the Obama administration had almost nothing to say about Tunisia until after the populace had forced their president out.  President Barack Obama appears to have been on the fence about what to do about Egypt after January 25, but his instinct certainly wasn’t to support the revolutionaries against their own government.  Only about a week before it was all over did Obama join the chorus of those saying that Hosni Mubarak had to go.It was Saudi Arabia, France and Britain who decided that Muammar Qaddafi would have to go.  Obama reluctantly went along.

In the meantime, the US has done little but say tsk, tsk over the crushing of the street movement for reform in Bahrain.  Geopolitics there trumped human rights concerns.  The Sunni monarchy in Bahrain leases to the US the naval base that serves as HQ of the Fifth Fleet.

Now it turns out that the Obama administration even wants to more or less reward the Bahrain government for its repression by resuming arms sales to it.  It is like a week-old widow deciding to go dancing.

But the biggest hypocrisy in Washington was reserved for the Palestinians, who labor under a repressive military occupation in the West Bank and are besieged and blockaded in Gaza.  If anything they are far more deprived of basic political rights than the people in Egypt or Tunisia last year this time.

But the Obama administration’s response to the bid of the Palestinians for membership in the United Nations has been to seek to forestall it, to strong-arm Mahmoud “Abu Mazen” Abbas, and to twist the arms of countries like Nigeria and Gabon to get them to vote against it.

Obama’s argument, which simply echoes that of the Likud government in Israel is that the Palestine Authority is sidestepping the peace process by going to the UN.  But that is a ridiculous proposition.  There is no peace process.  Obama failed to provide one.  Thus, the Palestinians are wise to make an end run around the US in the region, since American policy toward the Palestinians has been since the time of Harry Truman to sacrifice them at the altar of US domestic politics (Truman pointed out that he had Jewish constituents, but no Palestinian ones to speak of).  The Israel lobbies in the US are so powerful and successful that 81 congressmen spent some of their August recess in Israel! 

The Palestinians are stateless.  They have no citizenship in anything.  That is why the Oslo process could be short-circuited by Binyamin Netanyahu and why Israel could renege at will from all the commitments it had made to the Palestinians.  It is why Palestinian land can be usurped at will by Israeli squatters on the West Bank.

Obama made fine speeches about the Arab Spring, about the will of the people and the idealism and activism of the youth.  He even did so with regard to countries such as Egypt, where the Mubarak dictatorship had faithfully served US purposes.

But apparently he feels that the Palestinians of Gaza, who are not even allowed by the Israelis to export their made goods, deserve only further occupation via blockade until such time as the far right Israeli government deigns unilaterally to revoke its punitive policies toward the stateless Palestinians, who were made stateless by the Zionist ethnic cleansing campaign of 1947-1948 (40% of the people of Gaza, their families expelled from their homes by Israelis, still live in refugee camps).

Obama gives a good speech and can invoke high ideals, but when, in Bahrain and Palestine, Washington pursues massive hypocrisy, it completely undermines the good will it might have otherwise gained by at least not standing in the way of change in Tunisia and Egypt, and by intervening to prevent a Qaddafi massacre in Libya.

Foreign policy victories are rare.  Obama has squandered the positives by pandering to the right wing forces in Manama and Tel Aviv.  This is change that Arab youth won’t be able to believe in.

Share
24 Sep

Palestine – full membership in the United Nations

Speech

President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, presented a bid for the
state of Palestine for full membership in the United Nations.

 Dear The McGlynn,Today, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, presented a bid for the
state of Palestine, based on the 1967 borders, to be considered by the Security
Council for full membership in the United Nations.Shortly afterward, he addressed the General Assembly, where he reviewed, from the 1948
Nakba until today, the multitude of ways in which Israel has suppressed
Palestinians’ rights. While the question remains if the UN statehood bid
adequately addresses the larger issue of Palestinian rights, Abbas’ address
importantly gave voice to the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. While
there is no uniform support for this UN bid, today was undoubtedly a historic
and moving day. After over 63 years struggling for global recognition, it was
moving to see the countries of the world represented in the UN general assembly
give President Abbas a rousing standing ovation.Not so for Prime Minister Netanyahu, who spoke shortly after Abbas. Netanyahu responded to
the Palestinian leader with diversion and doublespeak instead of honest
engagement, and peace slogans couched in hostility, aggression, and denial of
Palestinian claims—a continuation of the standard Israeli tactic. We know from
history that this empty rhetoric has been used by Israeli government for decades
and will only mean further pain and oppression for Palestinians in Gaza, the
West Bank, East Jerusalem, and all over the world.

As a Jewish-American organization, we believe it is important to remain focused on
our primary responsibility:  having an impact on U.S. policy. As such, we will
continue to speak out strongly against the U.S. using its veto power in the
Security Council to reject this bid for statehood.

We know now that President Obama will not do the right thing. Speaking at the UN on
Wednesday, Obama lauded the Arab Spring—but rejected the Palestinian Autumn. The
president retreated from his earlier positions that demanded Israeli
accountability for its military occupation, and he did not acknowledge the
ongoing role of the U.S. in maintaining that imbalance through its extraordinary
economic, military, and diplomatic support for Israel, even when its actions
violate international law, human rights, and U.S. policy.  And he didn’t
acknowledge that twenty years of the “peace process” has brought only a more
entrenched occupation. Instead, Obama merely said that both sides should “sit
down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and
fears.” (1)

While this week has not been an easy one, we at JVP actually feel a redoubled assurance in
the promise of our strategy to change the dynamics on display at the United
Nations.  We know now, more than ever, that the President or Congress will not
change on their own.  The array of power and money is simply too strong—for
now.  We know, as with the examples of the civil rights movement and the
anti-apartheid movement, to name just two, that it is movements like ours that
force our governments to change their policies.  It was the steadfastness, the
creativity, the demonstrations, the local organizing, and the BDS tactics that
helped these movements and so many others for social justice eventually
succeed.  So we’ll let the politicians play their games, and meanwhile, our work
will continue.

Onward,

Jewish
Voice for Peace

(1) http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-s-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly-as-prepared-20110921

Share
24 Sep

The Republican Party is a Death Cult

By Chauncey DeVega, AlterNet

They cheer at the thought of an uninsured

person dying. They cheer at the thought of state-sponsored

murder. In all, the 2012 Tea Party Republican debates have revealed that

they are a death cult.

Some observers were shocked and surprised by the behavior of the Tea Party

Republicans and their supporters during the primary debates.

Others have complained that CNN’s surrender of

air-time to the Tea Party is a compromise of journalistic ethics. I would

suggest to the latter that CNN performed a public service by providing a

window into the Tea Party Republican soul. And to the former, there should be no

surprise here: in the age of Obama, contemporary conservatism has surrendered to

a virulent, dystopian and pathologically hyper-individualist state of nature,

“all against many,” type of populist right-wing ideology.

From the proclamations of Republican officials that the unemployed are

poor because they lack spirit and drive, an Orwellian political vocabulary of “job creators” and

“non-productive citizens,” opines that poor people in America have it relatively easy (thus austerity

politics ought not to be that painful), and a belief that the social safety net

(basic programs such as Social Security and unemployment insurance)

has destroyed the United States and made people “lazy,”contemporary conservatism has fully embraced a

politics that are utterly and totally bereft of human empathy.

My claim that the Republican Party is a death cult is a strong one that

demands explication and transparency. “Cult” is a signal to the narrow thinking

and state of epistemic closure that has come to dominate conservative,

right-wing political thought. As I have suggested elsewhere, populist conservatism is also colored by

an unflappable instinct that faith should be the guiding

principle in political decision making–what is a belief in the

unprovable–that fuels a theocratic vision of public policy under the umbrella

of Christian Nationalism and Dominionism. Because the Tea Party GOP’s foot

soldiers, as well as the Bachmanns, Palins, Perrys, and Cains believe a thing to

be true–often in the face of all available evidence and data on the subject–it

must in turn be as they imagine. Reality must always bend to their will: the

anti-intellectualism of populist conservatism demands that the facts are to be

damned; empirical reality is to be discounted as some type of plot by the

mainstream media, “liberals,” or “elites.”

The cultish behavior of the Republican Party is manifest by a rigid orthodoxy

of ideology. Those who do not pray at the mantle (and in the approved

position) are labeled heretics. Any conservative who challenges the

far-right agenda or believes in pragmatism and normal politics, i.e. working

with President Obama and the Democrats in the interest of the common good, is

labeled a traitor or a heretic.

Click to continue reading “The Republican Party is a Death Cult”

Share
23 Sep

Scalia Ruled That the Constitution Doesn’t Prohibit Executing an Innocent Man

 

Scalia Ruled That the Constitution Doesn’t
Prohibit Executing an Innocent Man in Troy Davis Case

Submitted by mark karlin on Thu, 09/22/2011 – 7:52pm.

Beyond the emotional punch in the gut of Troy Davis’
execution – and the echoing cheers of a GOP debate audience for Rick Perry
killing so many people – it is worth remembering the role of Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia in the Davis affair.

Because it was during an appeal to the Supreme Court in
2009 on behalf of Davis that Scalia – and BuzzFlash is not making this up -
actually wrote a dissenting opinion that there was nothing in the
Constitution that prevented a state from executing an innocent man (or woman).

How does BuzzFlash at Truthout know this?

Because we did a commentary back then on Scalia’s jaw-dropping constitutional assertion when
the decision was rendered. (The Supreme Court ordered a Georgia court to allow
Davis to present new evidence.)

In that 2009 commentary, we quoted from Scalia’s dissent*:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids
the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is
later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.
Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while
expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual
innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

If the Constitution doesn’t protect us from being
executed even if we are innocent, then, Houston, we have a fundamental problem
of human rights in America.

*The McGlynn:

Justice Antonin Scalia’s actual words (joined in by no other than Judge Clarence Thomas):

The Georgia Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s “actual-innocence” claim on the merits, denying his extraordinary motion for a new trial. Davis can obtain relief only if that determination was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” It most assuredly was not. This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

Share
23 Sep

Michael Moore on Countdown With Keith Olbermann

Share

© 2012 themcglynn.com/theliberal.net | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

Global Positioning System Gazettewordpress logo