Share This

A group of Democratic senators wants to make a massive arms sale to Saudi Arabia contingent on getting cheaper oil, reports AFP. “We are saying to the Saudis that, if you don’t help us, why should we be helping you?” says Chuck Schumer, a Democratic senator from New York. “We are saying that we need real relief, and we need it quickly. You need our arms, but we need you to cooperate and not strangle American consumers.”

The American establishment must be so proud:

When clerics, ministers and businessmen gathered at a forum in Riyadh in April to discuss women in the workplace, there were no women in sight.

Typically for Saudi Arabia, the women who took part were seated in a separate room so the men could only hear them.

Share This

With the help of U.S. defense contractors, China is building the prototype for a high-tech police state. It is ready for export.

Share This

He’s been in Australia this week and spoken at universities, lecture halls and in the media generating a great deal of interest (not least his article in the Sydney Morning Herald detailing his vision for a one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict, also the message of his book, One Country.) He’s explained his ideas elsewhere, too, such as ABC Radio National’s Media Report on the fundamentally flawed reporting of the conflict due to Western bias, ignorance and outright racism. After all, the Israelis are seen as more like “us.”

Last night, in front of an audience of 200 people, I was in conversation with Ali at Sydney’s leading independent bookshop, Gleebooks (photos here.) We covered everything from Zionist attitudes, the rise of Barack Obama and Ali’s belief that the only way to move the issue forward is international isolation of the Jewish state. No country will willingly give up its power, especially when it benefits solely one section of society. Like apartheid South Africa, whites were eventually made to realise that their position was untenable. Furthermore, Israel’s ongoing colonisation of the West Bank has forfeited the possibility of a two-state solution. One-state is now the only answer.

Tonight, at the New South Wales Parliament House, Ali along with a leading Labor and Liberal MP spoke at the 60th anniversary of the al-Nakba commemoration (photos here). It was a moving night of reflections and moderately hopeful thoughts (including tales of the typically ham-fisted attempts by the local Jewish lobby to block access at Parliament House for the event, of which more later.)

Ali said that Israel cannot remain a predominantly Jewish state because Jews themselves will soon be outnumbered by Arabs and Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories. The world will then have a clear choice: either support an apartheid state or encourage a single, democratic entity. Suffice to say, years of struggle lie ahead.

Ali is a kind, generous, warm, funny and highly articulate man. It was an honour to spend time with him.

Share This

Share This

Antony Loewenstein, author of My Israel Question, writes:

In late 2006, hardline Zionists in Israel and the United States raised the possibility of indicting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” against the Jewish state.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, “Iran is a danger to the entire world, because it envisions a 1,000-year Islamic Reich based on nuclear weapons.” A key problem for the case, casually slipped into the Jerusalem Post, was that, “the court is problematic for Israel — it has stipulated that settlements are tantamount to war crimes — and Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statue upon which it is based.”

Before last year’s Australian election, the then Labor opposition advocated chasing Ahmadinejad in a shameless ploy for the paranoid, Jewish vote. The fact that the case had zero chance of success and was being pursued by leading, discredited neo-conservatives – including former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, who again recently advocated “responsible” bombing of Iran — appeared not to bother Kevin Rudd.

Perhaps most concerning was his acceptance of the widely mistranslated Ahmadinejad comment about wanting to “wipe Israel off the map”. In fact, he said nothing of the sort. The Iranian leader is certainly prone to making outlandish comments about Israel and denying the Holocaust, but that’s no more offensive than a host of Israeli leaders advocating the elimination or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.

It appears that the Rudd government is still on the case. Yesterday’s front-page story in The Australian breathlessly reported that Attorney-General Robert McClelland is “currently taking advice” on the possibility of pursuing Ahmadinejad. McClelland told the paper that this course of action was preferable to “wholesale invasion of countries”. Well, yes, but what about direct engagement?

Iran’s regional challenge to the American and Israeli-imposed status-quo is the great untold story of the last eight years.

Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan backed the move and Rudd told Sky News that Ahmadinejad’s comments had a “roll-on effect across the Islamic world, particularly those who listen to Iran for their guidance”.

Crikey asked the Attorney-General’s office to clarify the latest developments and a spokesman from his office said that, “the Government strongly supports maintaining pressure on Iran to act as a responsible member of the international community.” Furthermore, “like many in the community, Labor has long expressed abhorrence at the remarks of Iranian President Ahmadinejad. We believe the international community should do all it reasonably can to pressure Iran to be a more responsible global citizen.”

Questions about the pressure from the local Zionist leadership on the government went unanswered.

A Sydney-based ALP source told Crikey that pursuing Ahmadinejad was a pet project for Rudd, not unlike his slavish motion in parliament in March celebrating Israel’s 60th anniversary. The source said that, despite the opposition of many in the ALP, the motion was written with the involvement of the country’s leading Zionist lobby, AIJAC, and was initially far more congratulatory before being tempered.

Regular, public displays of affection for the Jewish state are an article of faith across the political divide. Zionism has become a religion. As we’ve seen with Barack Obama, support for the Palestinian cause virtually guarantees political oblivion.

Share This

Share This

A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 19 nations conducted around the world finds that, in every nation polled, publics support the principles of democracy. At the same time, in nearly every nation, majorities are dissatisfied with how responsive their government is to the will of the people.

In all 19 nations polled majorities agree with the democratic principle that “the will of the people should be the basis for the authority of government”–a principle enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, whose 60th anniversary is being celebrated this year. On average 85 percent agree–52 percent strongly. Across the 19 nations, 74 percent say that the “will of the people” should have more influence than it currently does.

Share This

The Colombian government — which is dogged by controversy over its human rights record — is seeking help from British PR firms to help promote a “modern” image amongst journalists and politicians. Colombia’s deputy head of mission in the UK, Andelfo Garcia, told PR Week that “the stereotype of Colombia is not right. We are a growing country with a good story to tell. We need someone to help us reach out to the UK media, its politicians and its businesses.” The UK-based Colombia Solidarity Campaign and other groups have shone the spotlight on Colombia’s poor human rights record. In the U.S., Colombia has hired Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart and Andrew Samet from Sorini, Samet & Associates to help lobby the U.S. Congress to pass the U.S. - Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In early April, Colombia terminated its contract with the PR firm Burson-Marsteller, after taking exception to comments by its CEO, senior Hillary ClintonMark Penn. campaign adviser.

Share This

Nearly half of all internet users would support a voluntary code of conduct for bloggers and online commentators, according to research.

A survey by legal firm DLA Piper said 46% of web users think bloggers should sign up to a code that reflected the laws on defamation, intellectual property and incitement, with 15% ambivalent and 4% strongly opposed.

Around 34% of bloggers opposed the idea but 32% supported it.

This may sound like a noble idea but in reality it’s a pipe-dream that ignores the reality of the web. Defamation, untruths and stalking are all legitimate concerns online, as in real life, but trying to impose “rules” on comment is futile, to say the least.

Free speech is never absolute (though online these days it often appears to be), but perhaps some basic, online manners should be taught in kindergarten.

Share This