woensdag 10 september 2014

A yes vote in Scotland would unleash the most dangerous thing of all - HOPE.....

The Guardian

Independence would carry the potential to galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the UK

Gordon Brown addresses media

"It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence." Photograph: Mike Finn-Kelcey/Reuters


Of all the bad arguments urging the Scots to vote no – and there are plenty – perhaps the worst is the demand that Scotland should remain in the Union to save England from itself. Responses to last week’s column suggest that this wretched, snivelling, apron-strings argument has some traction among people who claim to belong to the left.
Consider what it entails: it asks a nation of 5.3 million to forgo independence to exempt a nation of 53 million from having to fight its own battles. In return for this self-denial, the five million must remain yoked to the dismal politics of cowardice and triangulation which have caused the problems from which we ask them to save us.
“A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue”, the former Labour minister Brian Wilson claimed in the Guardian last week (1). We must combine against the “forces of privilege and reaction” (as he lines up with the Conservatives, UKIP, the LibDems, the banks, the corporations, almost all the rightwing columnists in Britain and every UK newspaper except the Sunday Herald) – in the cause of “solidarity”.
There’s another New Labour weasel word to add to its dreary lexicon (other examples include reform, which now means privatisation, and partnership, which means selling out to big business). Once solidarity meant making common cause with the exploited, the underpaid, the excluded. Now, to these cyborgs in suits, it means keeping faith with the banks, the corporate press, cuts, a tollbooth economy and market fundamentalism.
Here, to Wilson and his fellow flinchers, is what solidarity meant while they were in office. It meant voting for the Iraq war, for Trident, for identity cards, for 3,500 new criminal offences (2), including the criminalisation of most forms of peaceful protest (3). It meant being drafted in as political mercenaries to impose on the English policies to which the Scots were not subject, such as university top-up fees and foundation hospitals (4,5). It meant supporting every destructive and injust proposition advanced by their leaders: the brood parasites who hatched in the Labour nest then flicked its dearest principles over the edge. It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence.
So now Better Together has brought in Gordon Brown, scattering bribes in a desperate, last-ditch effort at containment. They must hope the Scots have forgotten that he boasted of setting “the lowest rate in the history of British corporation tax, the lowest rate of any major country in Europe and the lowest rate of any major industrialised country anywhere” (6). That he pledged to the City of London “in budget after budget I want us to do even more to encourage the risk takers” (7). That, after 13 years of Labour government, the UK had higher levels of inequality than after 18 years of Tory government (8). That his government colluded in kidnapping and torture (9). That he helped cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands through his support for the illegal war on Iraq.
He roams through Scotland, still badged with blood, promising what he never delivered when he had the chance, this man who helped unravel the social safety net his predecessors wove; who marketised and dismembered public services; who enriched the wealthy and shafted the poor; who pledged money for Trident but failed to reverse the loss of social housing (10); whose private finance initiative planted a series of timebombs now exploding throughout the NHS and other public services (11); who greased and wheedled and slavered his way into the company of bankers and oligarchs while trampling over the working people he was elected to represent. This is the progressive Prester John who will ride to the rescue of the No campaign?
Where, in Scotland’s Labour party, are the Keir Hardies and Jimmy Reids of our time? Where is the vision, the inspiration, the hope? The shuffling, spineless little men with whom these titans have been replaced offer nothing but fear. Through fear they seek to shove Scotland back into its box, as its people rebel against the dreary, closed future mapped out for them – and the rest of us – by the three main Westminster parties.
Sure, if Scotland becomes independent, all else being equal, Labour would lose 41 seats at Westminster and Tory majorities would become more likely (12). But all else need not be equal. Scottish independence can galvanise progressive movements across the rest of the United Kingdom. We’ll watch as the Scots engage in the transformative process of writing a constitution. We’ll see that a nation of these islands can live and – I hope – flourish with a fully elected legislature (no House of Lords), with a fair electoral system (proportional representation), and with a parliament in which only representatives of that nation can vote (no cross-border mercenaries).
Already, the myth of political apathy has been scotched by the tumultuous movement north of the border. As soon as something is worth voting for, people will queue into the night to add their names to the register (13). The low turn-outs in Westminster elections reflect not an absence of interest but an absence of hope.
If Scotland becomes independent, it will be despite the efforts of almost the entire UK establishment. It will be because social media has defeated the corporate media. It will be a victory for citizens over the Westminster machine, for shoes over helicopters. It will show that a sufficiently inspiring idea can cut through bribes and blackmail, through threats and fearmongering. That hope, marginalised at first, can spread across a nation, defying all attempts to suppress it. That you can be hated by the Daily Mail and still have a chance of winning.
If Labour has any political nous, any remaining flicker of courage, it will understand what this moment means. Instead of suppressing the forces of hope and inspiration, it would mobilise them. It would, for example, pledge, in its manifesto, a referendum on drafting a written constitution for the rest of the United Kingdom.
It would understand that hope is the most dangerous of all political reagents. That it can transform what appears to be a fixed polity, a fixed outcome, into something entirely different. That it can summon up passion and purpose we never knew we possessed. If Scotland becomes independent, England – if only the potential were recognised – could also be transformed.
References:

zondag 7 september 2014

For Israel, the beginning of wisdom is to admit its mistakes (by Avi Shlaim)

The Guardian


Israel should embrace Palestinian unity for its own security. A further land grab will only inflame tensions
Israeli soldiers at an observation post overlooking the Gaza Strip last month
Israeli soldiers at an observation post overlooking the Gaza Strip last month. 'Israel should transfer its confrontation with Hamas from the battlefield to the conference table.' Photograph: Baz Ratner/Reuters
Israel has a habit of justifying its actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, however illegal and indecent, in the name of security. But denying any security to the other side only perpetuates the conflict.
Five days after reaching a ceasefire with Hamas to end the latest round of fighting in Gaza, the Israeli cabinet decided to appropriate 988 acres of land on the West Bank, near the place where three Israeli teenagers were recently abducted and murdered, to make way for another illegal Jewish city. This is the biggest land grab in three decades. As the justice minister, Tzipi Livni, pointed out: “It was a decision that weakens Israel and damages its security.” What it proves, if further proof is needed, is that Israel’s leaders are determined to prevent a two-state solution to the conflict.
Operation Protective Edge, which came to an end after 50 days of fighting, was the third and deadliest war in six years between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement that rules Gaza. Israel lost 66 soldiers and six civilians. On the Palestinian side, the war left 2,104 dead, mostly civilians, and 12,656 injured; 17,000 houses were destroyed or damaged; 520,000 people, out of a population of 1.8 million, were displaced. The damage to buildings and to the civilian infrastructure, estimated at $6bn, will take many years to repair.
What did Israel gain by unleashing the deadly firepower of the IDF against the caged population of this tiny coastal enclave? Virtually nothing. Israel had in fact provoked this crisis by its violent crackdown against Hamas activists on the West Bank following the murder of the three teenagers. Hamas rocket attacks – the ostensible reason for the war – were a response to Israel’s aggressive security measures. The prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, defined the operation’s objective as “calm in return for calm”. But calm prevailed before Israel initiated the cycle of violence. Hamas was left with a quarter of its pre-war rocket arsenal and many of its tunnels, dubbed “terror tunnels” by Israeli spokesmen, were destroyed. But arsenals can be replenished and tunnels can be rebuilt.
Both sides claimed victory but Netanyahu’s sounded rather hollow. Announcing the ceasefire at a news conference, he claimed a major military as well as a diplomatic achievement for the state of Israel. Hardly anyone shared this assessment. The public, the media, the opposition, hawkish members of his Likud party, and some of his coalition partners, accused him of accepting a ceasefire that failed to meet any of Israel’s objectives. One newspaper gave the score as Hamas: 1; Israel: 0. Netanyahu’s popularity plummeted from 85% at the beginning of the operation to 38%.
Hamas had more solid reasons for rejoicing, despite the horrific suffering endured by the people of Gaza. By any objective criterion, the outcome of the conflict was a draw. But for a small and poorly armed militia to stand its ground against one of the mightiest armies in the world is a remarkable achievement. Not only did its fighters stand firm, they also succeeded in imposing on the enemy what it dreaded most – a war of attrition. Despite the intense military pressure, Hamas’s spirit did not break and its popularity skyrocketed. Above all, Hamas succeeded in sending a clear message that Israel would have no peace and no security as long as it continued to occupy Palestinian territory.
So what should Israel do? The beginning of wisdom is to admit mistakes and stop adding fuel to the fire. First of all, Israel should end its relentless campaign to demonise the people of Gaza. Demonisation is the enemy of dialogue and a major cause of diplomatic deadlock. The assertion of Major General Giora Eiland that there is no such thing as “innocent civilians” in Gaza is simply absurd. Gazans are normal people and, like normal people anywhere in the world, they long to live in freedom and dignity on their land.
Second, it is time to remove from Hamas the terrorist tag. This is a powerful weapon in the propaganda war but useless in the quest for peace. Hamas is indeed guilty of terrorism but it is also a legitimate political actor, having won a fair and free election in 2006. Netanyahu claims that Hamas is indistinguishable from the murderous fanatics who make up Isis. Hamas, however, is not a messianic jihadist movement but a local organisation with a pragmatic political leadership and limited aims.
Third, Israel should transfer its confrontation with Hamas from the battlefield to the conference table. On 2 June Hamas and Fatah reached an accord and formed a national unity government which consists of technocrats without a single Hamas-affiliated member. This government accepts the Quartet’s three conditions to qualify as a negotiating partner: it recognises Israel, it respects all previous Palestinian agreements with Israel and it renounces violence. One of Netanyahu’s undeclared war aims was to disrupt this unity government so Israel could continue to divide and rule, but the government survived the baptism of fire.
Hamas vehemently denies the legitimacy of Israel but its leaders have stated repeatedly that if Fatah negotiates with Israel a two-state peace deal based on the 1967 borders, and if this outcome is approved in a national referendum, it would respect it as the choice of the Palestinian people. Israel should therefore stop thinking of Palestinian unity as a threat and embrace it instead as a potential building block of its own security.
These existential issues may or may not be addressed at a later stage. For the time being in Cairo the two delegations are negotiating, through Egyptian mediators. Israel’s main demand is the demilitarisation of the Gaza Strip. This is unrealistic because Gaza is the last outpost of resistance to the 47-year-old occupation and Hamas is not about to lay down its arms. Hamas is calling for the lifting of the illegal seven-year Israeli blockade of Gaza and the reopening of the borders. Other Hamas demands include the rebuilding of Gaza international airport, which Israel destroyed in 2001, the release of prisoners and the reopening of the “safe passage” to the West Bank. These are not new but grounded in earlier agreements that Israel violated.
Israel’s policy towards Gaza since the unilateral disengagement in 2005 has consisted of the systematic violations of international humanitarian law, duplicitous diplomacy and large doses of brute military force. With chilling cynicism, Israeli generals speak of their periodic incursions into Gaza as “mowing the lawn”. This policy has manifestly failed to procure the security that Israel’s citizens deserve. The writing is on the wall. A new and more constructive policy is desperately needed. Israeli politicians, however, are unlikely to be able to make any of the proposed moves without strong external pressure. This is where the international community comes in. It must begin to hold Israel to account in a way that it has so far shamefully failed to.

Is criticizing Israel worse than murder at the University of Illinois?


25 August 2014

240814_abed_00_1.jpg

Palestinians gather around a commercial center which was hit in an Israeli air strike in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, 24 August.
 (Abed Rahim Khatib / APA images)
There is a very good case to be made that Cary Nelson’s inability to place discussion of Israel — particularly discussion of any strong and committed criticism of Israel — within the bounds of rational thought is merely symptomatic of the double standard the most extreme defenders of Israel employ on a regular basis.
Though Nelson, a past president of the Association of American University Professors (AAUP), has been vocal in the campaign against Steven Salaita, it is also important to try to resist concentrating too much energy on someone who daily recedes into insignificance.
Yet it is impossible not to comment on the latest and perhaps most dramatic instance of Nelson’s weird ability to live comfortably in contradiction, especially as his “logic” has now been endorsed by the University of Illinois Board of Trustees.
This week the board was faced with the task of deciding on the fate of not one but two scholars at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), where Nelson is emeritus professor of English.
The Salaita case has been much commented on — in a piece I wrote for Salon I outline the parameters of the case and draw attention to the fact that Nelson had defended Ward Churchill’s academic freedom while he refuses to now do the same for Salaita.
Essentially, Salaita was offered a tenured appointment at UIUC, but it seems that after outside Zionist groups, students writing as part of an organized campaign and donorscomplained about the appointment, drawing attention to several tweets Salaita posted that were sharply critical of Israel, Chancellor Phyllis Wise informed Salaita that she was revoking his job.

Protest

The controversy has by now resulted in more than three thousand scholars declaring that they will boycott UIUC and some sixteen thousand others protesting the firing.
The AAUP has criticized the university’s actions, as has the Center for Constitutional Rights.
A letter to Wise composed by distinguished legal scholars, drawing out the illegality of her actions, has been posted online.
Yet Nelson has remained a staunch defender of the university’s actions, saying that, yes indeed, those tweets, regardless of all legal reasoning, can and should be used to fire Salaita. In my Salon article I contrast this to the Churchill case, where Nelson was perfectly okay defending a scholar who had made equally if not more offensive comments:
As president of the AAUP Nelson actually defended (albeit belatedly) a professor who, after 9/11, wrote a manifesto declaring that the bombing of the World Trade Center was the proper retribution for America’s past deeds, and that those who perished there deserved to die because they were “little Eichmanns” working in the “techno-corps.” Yes, Cary Nelson argued for Ward Churchill’s reinstatement. So if he can do that for Ward Churchill, why can’t he for Steven Salaita? Easy — it’s simply because Salaita’s target is not US foreign policy or global capitalism, it is Israel. One might forgive Nelson his base hypocrisy, if it were not for the fact that it comes at the expense of another person’s career and livelihood.
Outrageously, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees has agreed that voicing opinions critical of Israel in an “uncivil” manner (whatever that is) are grounds for dismissal. Now it is crucial to see past their alibi for dispensing with First Amendment protections of free speech — the trustees claim it is not a matter of what he said, but how he said it. But so far not a single piece of evidence or statement of methodology as to how they determined he crossed the line has been offered.

Double-standards

Contrast this with how they, and Cary Nelson, have treated another case brought before the trustees at the very same time as Salaita’s.
The other case is that of James Kilgore. As Inside Higher Ed explains, in 2011, “two years out of prison for his involvement with a 1975 bank robbery in which a woman was killed,” Kilgore applied for a position at UIUC (“Professor With a Past,” 8 May 2014).
Kilgore fully disclosed his conviction for second-degree murder, possession of an explosive device and passport fraud. He had served his time and was a fully rehabilitated member of society. The university employed him, and things would probably have remained the same had it not been for the fact that in February the News-Gazette, the same newspaper that publicized Salaita’s tweets, published a series of articles exposing Kilgore’s past.
Once that controversy started, the Nelson machine kicked into high gear. As Inside Higher Ed then reported:
Cary Nelson, a professor of English, member of the Senate and past president of the American Association of University Professors, said via email: “This whole effort was triggered by the university administration’s violations of academic freedom and shared governance when it decided to tell James Kilgore his services as a part-time teacher would never be needed again.”
Nelson continued: “Such global commitments to lifetime non-reappointment are only issued with cause: incompetence, fraud, or moral turpitude. Only a week earlier the administration gave him a ringing endorsement. In the meantime, aNews-Gazette slander piece was published. It told the university nothing that James hadn’t already disclosed when he was hired. The university acted out of political cowardice, ignoring the wishes of Kilgore’s department and doing so [without] faculty review.”
Of the three “causes” which Nelson feels are grounds for dismissal, only one could possibly be of use here — moral turpitude. And yet how could vehemently moralistic tweets, decrying the killing of innocents, possibly be construed as evidence of “moral turpitude”? Only in Cary Nelson’s upside-down world.
Note how quickly Nelson forgets his principles when the issue is not someone convicted of second-degree murder, but someone who has exercised his First Amendment rights and tweeted sharp criticism of Israel’s rampage in Gaza, in which it had by that point in time murdered close to two thousand people, the vast majority of them civilians and of those civilians, some four hundred children.
Salaita’s tweets vociferously voiced his moral outrage at these killings, but his anger and outrage certainly came nowhere close to actually abetting in the murder of another human being.
Now I absolutely agree with the Cary Nelson who defended Kilgore, in precisely the terms he did. But how in the world does Nelson square that passionate and righteous defense with his disproportionate and utterly contradictory condemnation of Salaita?
Nelson represents simply the most extreme expression of a basic double standard that is not his alone. It is now manifest in the Board of Trustees’ disgraceful decision on Steven Salaita, and in the fact that Chancellor Wise is still considering Kilgore’s case.
David Palumbo-Liu is Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor and Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford University.