Antony Loewenstein

As more asylum seekers are crying for help on Australia’s Christmas Island – locked up for months on a remote island – all the federal government talks about is fining Serco:

The federal government will take action against detention centre service provider Serco if it has breached any part of its contract following two breakouts at Christmas Island.

A small group of detainees escaped the Christmas Island Detention Centre last night, just hours after about 200 asylum-seekers returned having previously broken out of the complex.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship and Serco were today trying to encourage the group of less than 100 asylum-seekers to return to the centre.

Tensions at the centre flared on Friday night when about 200 asylum-seekers broke out of the main immigration detention facility and made their way to the airport on the other side of the island.

Hasan Chalawi, an asylum seeker in detention in Darwin, said he had been told the men destroyed doors fitted with electronic locks in the Aqua and Lilac sections of the centre.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

“Then (at) eight o’clock on Friday night, smashing (sic) fences surrounding the detainees and a large number of them (left) towards the airport,” Mr Chalawi said.

He said several others went to the coast to try to be photographed by residents to highlight the “tragic situation of refugees in detention centres”.

“After that, a large portion of them felt fatigued and hunger, returned to the detention centre in the hope that they would return again to the airport to sit after the weekend.”

Julia Gillard today told reporters in Canberra the situation was well in hand and there was no risk of losing track of any of the asylum-seekers.

“Christmas Island is just that: it’s an island so there’s nowhere to go other than other parts of the island,” the Prime Minister said.

The government would investigate the incident to see if there had been any contractual breach by Serco and, if there had been, it would take appropriate action, she said.

Any thoughts about removing mandatory detention and not allowing an unaccountable British multinational to control the lives of refugees? Of course not.

Who are really the most strident backers of Israel these days? Christian fundamentalists and far-right bigots.

More than 60 years after the Holocaust, Nazis take comfort in the Zionist state. Tragic and yet utterly logical. Newsweek reports:

But these were no ordinary travelers with Zionist sympathies. Rather, on this trip to Israel were a Belgian politician known for his contacts with SS veterans, an Austrian with neo-Nazi ties, and a Swede whose political party has deep roots in Swedish fascism—unlikely visitors to pay their respects at Yad Vashem, perhaps, unless one considers the political currents in Israel and Europe, and the adage that one’s enemy’s enemy is one’s friend.

Only a few years ago, many of Europe’s far-right politicians were openly anti-Semitic. Now some of the same populist parties are embracing Israel to unite against what they perceive to be a common threat.

Over the past few years, Europe’s right-wing political leaders have tapped into rising worries over immigration from Islamic countries to predominantly secular and Christian Europe, where the number of Muslims has grown from 29.6 million in 1990 to 44.1 million in 2010, or up to 10 percent of the population in countries such as France. Geert Wilders, an anti-Islam firebrand whose Party for Freedom last July gained a record 24 seats in the Netherlands’ Parliament, likens the Quran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and has called Muhammad a “devil” spreading a “fascist ideology,” and has vowed to stop Muslim immigration. In Switzerland, 57 percent of voters banned the construction of minarets in a popular referendum in late 2009. In poll after poll, large majorities of Europeans say they worry about the spread of Islam and that Muslims have not properly integrated.

Invited by a right-wing Israeli businessman named Chaim Muehlstein, the December visitors did not compose an official delegation. “Jesus Christ,” fumed a government spokesman anonymously when asked about the visit; Yad Vashem spokeswoman Estee Yaari cringed when NEWSWEEK asked her about the group. “Millions come here every year, and I definitely didn’t meet these people,” she said.

But members of the Knesset did meet with the group, which signed a “Jerusalem Declaration” guaranteeing Israel’s right to defend itself against terror. “We stand at the vanguard in the fight for the Western, democratic community” against the “totalitarian threat” of “fundamentalist Islam,” says the document, which was signed by members of the group that included Heinz-Christian Strache, head of the Austrian Freedom Party; Filip Dewinter, head of Belgium’s ultranationalist Vlaams Belang; René Stadtkewitz, founder of the German Freedom Party; and Kent Ekeroth, the international secretary for the Sweden Democrats, a populist anti-immigration party.

During their trip, the Europeans drove through Palestinian villages in a bulletproof bus to meet Jewish settlers in the desolate West Bank outpost of Har Bracha, set on a windswept mountain bluff with views into Jordan. While there, they vowed that the settlements were necessary to defend Israel against its Arab enemies.

Today’s Guardian editorial is scathing, necessarily so, and reminds us that the Murdoch empire is always about power and access with ideology a distant second. Remind me why virtually no politicians or journalists dare challenge its power when its actions are clear for all to see? Bravery, please:

Patrick Cockburn on the Western love affair with picking compliant leaders in places we should simply step aside:

There is something frivolous and absurd about France’s sudden recognition of the Libyan rebel leadership in Benghazi as a sort of quasi-government. Presumably it’s intended to give the impression Nicolas Sarkozy has a grip on events, it is evidence he does not know what to do any more than other European leaders.

The recognition of unelected and self-appointed leaders in countries in which civil war is raging is a reminder, rather, of 19th century imperialism, when the British, for instance, would choose a leader in a country like Afghanistan who was most likely to be co-operative. There is usually a price to be paid for this.

Leaders backed by outside powers may obtain arms and money, but their local credibility is unlikely to be enhanced. In Libya, Gaddafi can more easily deride his opponents as foreign dupes. If recognition of the Benghazi junta is aimed at providing political cover for later military intervention it is again unlikely to convince anybody that Libyans are taking the decisions.

What makes France’s move all the more surprising is that US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq shows the devastating consequences of not having a credible local ally. The only thing known about the rebel leadership in Libya is that it is divided and ineffective. In Afghanistan the elevation of Hamid Karzai as leader in 2001, even when confirmed by election, left the US without a real partner. In Iraq in 2003 the US started its occupation by exercising power itself, but chose Iraqis as interlocutors who were without support. So far the Libyan crisis has exposed the low quality of European leadership in general, which is now confirmed by the French action. It is difficult to see what good it will do Libyans, except make them expect an intervention that may never come.

The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network has released the following statement (that I’ve happily signed) articulating an alternative and supportive Jewish perspective on boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel:

Because academic, cultural and commercial boycotts, divestments and sanctions of Israel:

• are being called for by Palestinian civil society in response to the occupation and colonization of their land,
• are a moral tool of non-violent, peaceful response to more than sixty years of Israeli colonialism, and,
• rightfully place accountability on Israeli institutions (and their allies and partners) that use business, cultural, and academic ties to white-wash Israel’s responsibility for continuing crimes against humanity,

The undersigned organizations and individuals stand firm in our support of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) initiatives against Israel until it meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law.

BDS is not antisemitic. We reject the notion that the 2005 BDS call from Palestine, and the BDS campaigns the world over which it has inspired, are rooted in anti-Jewish sentiment. On the contrary, BDS is an anti-racist movement against the daily, brutal occupation of Palestine and military threat to the region by the State of Israel. False claims of antisemitism distort the true nature of the Palestinian struggle and are an affront to, and betrayal of, the long history of Jewish survival and resistance to persecution.

BDS is not anti-democratic. We also reject the assertion that the cultural and academic boycotts of Israel defy the democratic principle of free speech. Research and development in academic institutions play a central role in designing and defending Israel’s military and intelligence machinery. Cultural institutions perpetuate the deception of Israeli democracy. To defend freedom of speech for those who disregard justice while demonizing those who struggle for justice is a great disservice to genuine democracy.

Through boycott, divestment and sanctions, civil society asserts our commitment to not contribute to the Israeli state, which is responsible for atrocious acts of disregard for human life and well being. Attacks against BDS campaigns will not prevent us from taking this stance against Israeli impunity. For the Jewish organizations signed onto this letter, self-determination for Jews includes the right to participate in the movement for justice in Palestine and to live in the world with our fellow citizens in peace, freedom, and equity. It does not include the domination and colonization of other people or living separate from our fellow human beings in a state that privileges Jews.

BDS was a key strategy in ending the white South African system of apartheid by applying international pressure. In pursuit of justice, peace and freedom for all, we speak out as Jews committed to BDS and Palestinian liberation.

• International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network
• Not In Our Name (Argentina)
• Jewish Voice for a Just Peace in Middle East (EJJP, Germany)
• Not in Our Name: Jews Opposing Zionism (Canada)
• Jews for a Just Peace (Fredericton, Canada)
• Independent Jewish Voice (Canada)
• Middle East Children’s Alliance (USA)
• Critical Jewish Voice (Austria)
• Women in Black (Austria)
• French Jewish Union for Peace (UJFP)
• Bay Area Women in Black (USA)
• St. Louis Women in Black (USA)
• Philadelphia Jews for a Just Peace (USA)
• American Jews for a Just Peace (USA)
• Ronnie Kasrils, former South African government minister, writer, founder Not In My Name, South Africa
• Antony Loewenstein, Independent Australian Jewish Voices
• Peter Slezak, Independent Australian Jewish Voices
• Moshé Machover, Professor (emeritus) (UK), founder Matzpen
• Felicia Langer, Israeli lawyer, author, Right Livelihood Award 2006 (Alternative Nobel Prize) 1990, Bruno Kreisky Prize 1991
• Mieciu Langer, Nazi Holocaust survivor
• Hedy Epstein, Nazi Holocaust survivor
• Hajo G. Meyer PhD, Nazi Holocaust survivor
• Kamal Chenoy, IJAN India
• Paola Canarutto & Giorgio Forti, Rete ECO, Italy
• Liliane Cordova Kaczerginski, IJAN France
• Sonia Fayman, IJAN France & UJFP

Let’s not be surprised with this revelation:

The Australian government discussed the charge of treason – the most serious of federal offences and one that carries a mandatory life sentence – when it examined the WikiLeaks matter last year.

The advice, in a departmental briefing for the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, was among several documents published yesterday by the department in response to Senate estimates questions.

It was provided by a senior officer in the Attorney-General’s Department in September, after WikiLeaks published 90,000 US military reports filed during the war in Afghanistan.

Only the most trenchant critics of WikiLeaks have discussed treason. In November the Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee said whoever gave the material to WikiLeaks was guilty of treason and ”anything less than execution is too kind a penalty”.

Sarah Palin said the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, should be ”hunted down” and an adviser to Canada’s Prime Minister called for his assassination.

The release of the briefing shows that, even though no public comment was made about treason, it was at least canvassed early after the WikiLeaks releases.

Yesterday the department played down the mention of treason, saying it was ”standard information included for background purposes only”.

This is what Israel offers, according to Yoram Ettinger in Ynet:

Moreover, unlike Obama, most [American] constituents regard President Reagan as a role model of values and view the Jewish State as the “Ronald Reagan of the Middle East,” representing their basic values: Respect toward religion and tradition, patriotism, security-oriented, anti-UN, anti-terrorism and suspicion toward Arab and Muslim regimes.

That’s quite a way to attract supporters; we’re racist pricks so want to join us?

The New York Times clarifies what the Obama administration is really thinking about the Arab world. “Pragmatism” is the key word. In other words, backing autocrats who do the dirty work of Israel and America.

Anybody still in love with the supposedly grand visions of Barack Obama?

In the Middle East crisis, as on other issues, there are two Barack Obamas: the transformative historical figure and the pragmatic American president. Three months after a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself aflame and ignited a political firestorm across the Arab world, the president is trumping the trailblazer.

With the spread of antigovernment protests from North Africa to the strategic, oil-rich Persian Gulf, President Obama has adopted a policy of restraint. He has concluded that his administration must shape its response country by country, aides say, recognizing a stark reality that American national security interests weigh as heavily as idealistic impulses. That explains why Mr. Obama has dialed down the vocal support he gave demonstrators in Cairo to a more modulated call for peaceful protest and respect for universal rights elsewhere.

This emphasis on pragmatism over idealism has left Mr. Obama vulnerable to criticism that he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab street protesters. Some say he is failing to bind the United States to the historic change under way in the Middle East the way that Ronald Reagan forever cemented himself in history books to the end of the cold war with his famous call to tear down the Berlin Wall.

“It’s tempting, and it would be easy, to go out day after day with cathartic statements that make us feel good,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser, who wrote Mr. Obama’s soaring speech in Cairo to the Islamic world in 2009. “But ultimately, what’s most important is achieving outcomes that are consistent with our values, because if we don’t, those statements will be long forgotten.”

Those “values” have always meant selling weapons to nations like Saudi Arabia and backing Israeli apartheid in the West Bank.

Naomi Klein on how her thesis is morphing into something even deadlier (via Democracy Now!):

AMY GOODMAN: We only have 30 seconds. You published Shock Doctrine in 2007. So much of what you’ve predicted has come to pass. Final words?

NAOMI KLEIN: Look, my fear is that climate change is the crisis, the biggest crisis of all, and that if we aren’t careful, if we don’t come up with a positive vision of how climate change can make our economies and our world more just, more livable, cleaner, fairer, then this crisis will be exploited to militarize our societies, to create fortress continents. And we’re really facing a choice. And, you know, I think what we really need now is for the people fighting for economic justice and environmental justice to come together.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Remember this the next time the US talks about spreading democracy around the world:

Bradley Manning, the US soldier being held in solitary confinement on suspicion of having released state secrets to WikiLeaks, has spoken out for the first time about what he claims is his punitive and unlawful treatment in military prison.

In an 11-page legal letter released by his lawyer, David Coombs, Manning sets out in his own words how he has been “left to languish under the unduly harsh conditions of max [security] custody” ever since he was brought from Kuwait to the military brig of Quantico marine base in Virginia in July last year. He describes how he was put on suicide watch in January, how he is currently being stripped naked every night, and how he is in general terms being subjected to what he calls “unlawful pre-trial punishment”.

It is the first time Manning has spoken publicly about his treatment, having previously only been heard through the intermediaries of his lawyer and a friend. Details that have emerged up to now have inspired the UN to launch an inquiry into whether the conditions amount to torture, and have led to protests to the US government from Amnesty International.

The most graphic passage of the letter is Manning’s description of how he was placed on suicide watch for three days from 18 January. “I was stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses were taken away from me and I was forced to sit in essential blindness.”

Manning writes that he believes the suicide watch was imposed not because he was a danger to himself but as retribution for a protest about his treatment held outside Quantico the day before. Immediately before the suicide watch started, he said guards verbally harassed him, taunting him with conflicting orders.

When he was told he was being put on suicide watch, he writes, “I became upset. Out of frustration, I clenched my hair with my fingers and yelled: ‘Why are you doing this to me? Why am I being punished? I have done nothing wrong.’”

He also describes the experience of being stripped naked at night and made to stand for parade in the nude, a condition that continues to this day. “The guard told me to stand at parade rest, with my hands behind my back and my legs spaced shoulder-width apart. I stood at parade rest for about three minutes … The [brig supervisor] and the other guards walked past my cell. He looked at me, paused for a moment, then continued to the next cell. I was incredibly embarrassed at having all these people stare at me naked.”

The West backed three decades of Egyptian-government depravity, all in the name of “stability”.

But what did this mean for the people?

Here’s Sarah Carr, a freelance journalist and a senior researcher with the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, writing about entering the Nasr City State Security Investigations (SSI) headquarters recently:

State Security Investigations combined fear and terror with the banality of Egyptian bureaucracy. I remember at protests the men with the little scraps of paper who wrote down chants and names and a myriad other details. Everywhere in the Nasr City building there was paper, both shredded and intact, thousands upon thousands of files, the diary of decades of suffering.

In one office a notice warned against smoking. Next to it was a picture of an unidentified man in police uniform. Another room had a poster of Mecca, and a prayer rug underneath a monitor. One desk had a handwritten index card underneath its glass surface detailing the arrangement for some sort of subscription payment.

The building was immaculately clean and luxurious, unlike the majority of other, underfunded, public institutions. The “Crisis Management” room in particular was particularly lavish, a huge circular desk next to a bank of computers. We went through the door next to this and suddenly found ourselves in a living room of Louis XV furniture and decorative trinkets.

State Security has kitsch tendencies, we discovered, as is clearly shown in a Youtube video showing former Minister of Interior Habib El-Adly’s Nasr City SSI headquarters suite which – in addition to containing his and hers bathrobes – was furnished with the same glitzy furniture and had on display a golden stallion statue. One can only wonder at what message Habib intended to send with the stallion and bathrobes combination.