By Phyllis Bennis

(source: Alternet)

At its core, the controversy surrounding the proposed Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan is not about religion. It’s about war.

For some years now the fear factor that followed the attacks of September 11, 2001 and fueled public support for the “global war on terror” (or the onomatopoetic “GWOT”) has been diminishing. Along with the long and intense work of the antiwar movement and the rising levels of casualties, fear reduction has played a key role in building opposition to the wars. Part of that process has been the growing normalization of the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York. “Ground zero,” the site of the destroyed World Trade Center, is now a busy construction venue in the midst of a hectic commercial district that includes all the usual hodgepodge of convenient and useless, businesslike and tawdry aspects of Manhattan street life: Office buildings and food vendor carts, coffee shops and strip joints. There’s nothing hallowed about it.

That normalization hasn’t yet made possible the kind of serious national debate this country so desperately needs. That debate is not about September 11, but about September 12 – the day George Bush launched a war our country was now going to wage anywhere he chose against whomever he designated for as long as he wanted without any restrictions. The whole world – though most especially the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as those of Yemen, Somalia, Palestine and Kenya, and so many more places – as well as those of us here in the U.S. continue to pay the price.

By Chris Marsden

(source: World Socialist WebSite)

Today’s talks in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas are a means through which the United States is seeking to further its predatory interests in the Middle East.

The Obama administration placed maximum pressure on Abbas to take part and abandon, in practice if not in words, the PA’s insistence that there would be discussion without an end to settlement construction by Israel.

A 10-month freeze on settlement construction on the West Bank is due to expire on September 26 and Netanyahu has made clear to his party and coalition government allies that it will not be renewed. The Palestinians threatened that there would be no negotiations if this happened and appealed for support from Washington.

The Mid-East Quartet—the US, European Union, United Nations and Russia—are formally opposed to settlement construction. But the US placed no demands on Israel and stressed instead that talks must proceed “without precondition,” as insisted on by Tel Aviv.

(source: Ma'an News Agency)

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa expressed concern Saturday over the conviction of a Palestinian anti-wall campaign leader by an Israeli military court for his involvement in non-violent protests.

"I am deeply concerned about the conviction earlier this week of Abdallah Abu Rahmah by an Israeli military court. When I met him with my fellow Elders last year, we were very impressed by his commitment to non-violence and the wise leadership he showed," Tutu said in a statement.

"He and his fellow activists have had some success in challenging the wall that divides the people of Bil’in from their land. Israel’s attempt to crack down on this effective resistance movement by criminalizing peaceful protest is unacceptable and unjust," he added.

Tutu called on Israeli authorities to release Abu Rahmah "immediately and unconditionally."

Abu Rahmah, well regarded for organizing the weekly rallies against the wall in his native village Bil'in, near Ramallah, was convicted by an Israeli military court on 24 August. According to his supporters, Abu Rahmah's conviction was based solely on the testimony of minors who were arrested in the middle of the night and denied legal counsel despite significant ills in their questioning.

The General Delegation of the PLO to the US condemned the conviction "in the strongest possible terms."

"We call on the Israeli government to release Abdallah Abu Rahmah and all other Palestinian political prisoners from its jails immediately in accordance with international law and as a gesture of goodwill towards the peace talks that are about to begin in Washington," the PLO office said in a statement.

On Tuesday, EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton expressed her concern over the conviction.

By Iqbal Jassat – Pretoria

(source: Palestine Chronicle)

I wonder whether pro-Israeli apologists ever sense the sheer hopelessness of their desperate attempts to shield the apartheid regime from legitimate and necessary criticism.

Having had the misfortune of reading the misguided views of Benjamin Pogrund [Sunday Independent, August 29], I am convinced that his angry attempt to admonish South Africans vis-à-vis their negative stance against Israel, reflects poor judgment.

By calling into question the actions of striking people within the public sector, he then demands that due to the unacceptable behavior accompanying the strikes, South Africa has no right to stand in judgment of poor little Israel.
Apart from the total lack of logic in his futile attempt to exploit the legitimate grievances of strikers, Pogrund displayed his unashamed loyalty to a pariah state that has been stripped of all morality due to its aggressive policies of oppression, occupation, racism and unending wars of destruction.

What I find even more amazing is his dismissal of critical views by “columnists” and “former government leaders” as ranging from plain ignorance to vicious distortions. The inherent arrogance in Pogrund’s righteous contempt of these faceless critics is embedded in his “basic fact” that Israel is under “constant threat”.

People-to-people dialogue is the best way out of the Kashmir logjam

By Shivam Vij

(source: countercurrents.org)

On 28 May this year, the Economic Times, India’s leading business daily, carried a story titled, ‘Kashmir survey finds no majority for independence’. That is a curious headline. What is ‘no majority’? Either there is majority or there is not. Robert Bradnock conducted this survey for Chatham House, a leading British think-tank, Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control. The survey was conducted in the autumn of 2009, and the copy mentioned that 44 percent in Azad Kashmir and 43 percent in Jammu & Kashmir favoured an independent Kashmiri nation state.

Similar was the reporting of the survey in other Indian papers. They omitted some details, though. They did not mention that the survey was conducted not just in Kashmir but also the Jammu and Ladakh regions. They did not mention that even after factoring in Jammu and Ladakh, the total support for India was 21 percent and for Pakistan 15 percent. So if there was a three-way poll, the whole region’s average figure of those supporting independence (43 percent) would win hands down. Most of the rest (14 percent) favoured making the LoC a permanent border, which means sealing the status quo, something India and Pakistan came very close to doing in 2007. This 14 percent comes only from Poonch (94 percent), Rajouri (100 percent) and Jammu (39 percent).

Further, they did not mention that in the district-wise results the greatest support for independence was in the Indian side of the Valley – an astounding 95 percent in Baramulla, 75 percent in Srinagar, 82 percent in Badgam, and 74 percent in Anantnag. Pulwama and Kupwara were not surveyed. The highest support for India was 80 percent in Kargil and 67 percent in Leh, 73 percent in Udhampur and 63 percent in Kathua. In Jammu district, it was 47 percent – ‘no majority’. In Azad Kashmir, 50 percent wanted to be with Pakistan.