Showing posts with label anti-war movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-war movement. Show all posts

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Bombing of Islamic University in Gaza

Neve Gord and Jeff Halper have written an excellent article focusing on the lack of response among the academic community to the recent bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza. While many American University Presidents, led by Lee Bollinger of Columbia University, were active in denouncing the British boycott of Israeli universities, none have had any thing to say about the Israeli Air forces collective punishment of the people of Gaza and the bold assault on Gaza's only major institution of higher learning. Counterpunch has many interesting contributors and is worth keeping an eye on.


Targeting Islamic University

Where's the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza?

By NEVE GORDON and JEFF HALPER

Not one of the nearly 450 presidents of American colleges and universities who prominently denounced an effort by British academics to boycott Israeli universities in September 2007 have raised their voice in opposition to Israel’s bombardment of the Islamic University of Gaza earlier this week. Lee C. Bollinger, president of Columbia University, who organized the petition, has been silent, as have his co-signatories from Princeton, Northwestern, and Cornell Universities, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Most others who signed similar petitions, like the 11,000 professors from nearly 1,000 universities around the world, have also refrained from expressing their outrage at Israel’s attack on the leading university in Gaza. The artfully named Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, which organized the latter appeal, has said nothing about the assault.

While the extent of the damage to the Islamic University, which was hit in six separate airstrikes, is still unknown, recent reports indicate that at least two major buildings were targeted, a science laboratory and the Ladies’ Building, where female students attended classes. There were no casualties, as the university was evacuated when the Israeli assault began on Saturday.

Virtually all the commentators agree that the Islamic University wasattacked, in part, because it is a cultural symbol of Hamas, the ruling party in the elected Palestinian government, which Israel has targeted in its continuing attacks in Gaza. Mysteriously, hardly any of the news coverage has emphasized the educational significance of the university, which far exceeds its cultural or political symbolism.

Established in 1978 by the founder of Hamas — with the approval of Israeli authorities — the Islamic University is the first and most important institution of higher education in Gaza, serving more than 20,000 students, 60 percent of whom are women. It comprises 10 faculties — education, religion, art, commerce, Shariah law, science, engineering, information technology, medicine, and nursing — andawards a variety of bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Taking into account that Palestinian universities have been regionalized because Palestinian students from Gaza are barred by Israel from studying either in the West Bank or abroad, the educational significance of the Islamic University becomes even more apparent.

Those restrictions became international news last summer when Israel refused to grant exit permits to seven carefully vetted students from Gaza who had been awarded Fulbright fellowships by the State Department to study in the United States. After top State Department officials intervened, the students’ scholarships were restored — though Israel allowed only four of the seven to leave, even after appeals by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “It is a welcome victory — for the students,” opined The New York Times, and “for Israel, which should want to see more of Gaza’s young people follow a path of hope and education rather than hopelessness and martyrdom; and for the United States, whose image in the Middle East badly needs burnishing.”

Notwithstanding the importance of the Islamic University, Israel has tried to justify the bombing. An army spokeswoman told The Chronicle that the targeted buildings were used as “a research and development center for Hamas weapons, including Qassam rockets. … One of the structures struck housed explosives laboratories that were an inseparable part of Hamas’s research-and-development program, as well as places that served as storage facilities for the organization. The development of these weapons took place under the auspices of senior lecturers who are activists in Hamas.”

Islamic University officials deny the Israeli allegations. Yet even if there is some merit in them, it is common knowledge that practically all major American and Israeli universities are engaged in research and development of military applications and receive money from the Pentagon and defense corporations. Weapon development and even manufacturing have, unfortunately, become major projects at universities worldwide — a fact that does not justify bombing them.

By launching an attack on Gaza, the Israeli government has once again chosen to adopt strategies of violence that are tragically akin to the ones deployed by Hamas — only the Israeli tactics are much more lethal. How should academics respond to this assault on an institution of higher education? Regardless of one’s stand on the proposed boycott of Israeli universities, anyone so concerned about academic freedom as to put one’s name on a petition should be no less outraged when Israel bombs a Palestinian university. The question, then, is whether the university presidents and professors who signed the various petitions denouncing efforts to boycott Israel will speak out against the destruction of the Islamic University.

Neve Gordon is chair of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and author of Israel’s Occupation(University of California Press, 2008).

Jeff Halper Jeff Halper is the Director of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and author of An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel (Pluto Press, 2008).
 He can be reached at jeff@icahd.org

Read more!

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

2008 Year in Review

What a year: 2008 will certainly be remembered as a significant moment in American history, but the exact meaning and significance of this last year's events is far from clear.

On January 2, the price of a barrell of petroleum hit $100. Oil remained a key political issue. Republicans notoriously chanted "Drill, Baby, Drill" along with "USA" at rallies, and the high price of gas created more public interest in renewable and green energy sources. With the deepening of the recession, gas prices have collapsed dramatically, despite attempts by OPEC to stabilize prices. Whether the era of three dollar gas created any sustained interest in promoting a more energy-efficient and less fossil fuel dependent economy remains to be seen. The Obama Administration has promised to make "green collar jobs" a major part of its jobs program; what political and substantial viability these proposals hold will be seen in the coming year.

On January 23 Palestinian militants blew a hole in the wall separating the Gaza Strip from Egypt. This event marked a shift in focus of the Palestine-Israel conflict to Gaza from the West Bank, and also a debilitating division amongst Palestinians, with Mahmoud Abbas leading the greatly weakened PLO and the Palestinian National Authority in the West Bank and a resurgent Hamas in power in the Gaza. After Hamas won elections in 2006, the United States and the European Union instituted an embargo against the Palestinian Authority, with no more effect than to prove that the United States only accepts democracy when its results are favorable the the foreign policy goals of the State Department, and to further undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and the Arab client states that have gone along with the United States or remained silent. The internal civil war between Hamas and the PLO has emboldened Israel to unilaterally push for a "two state" solution that would amount to apartheid like oppression for the Palestinian people. We also learned this year that Israel's conservative Likudd would not support forcing its Arab citizens to leave after the creation of an Palestinian state. As the year closes, we witness a sickening sequel to the barbaric Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006. Beginning on December 27th, Israel launched an all out offensive against Hamas in the Gaza strip in a war that only forces Israel evermore into the status of an international pariah. Where are the Israelis who can defeat these bellicose regimes? What happened to the principles of the Israeli center and left? As the death toll mounts, we can only conclude that the Bush administration has left the Middle East peace process in utter shambles, with any possible progress completely obliterated.

After Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses, and John Edwards took second, the inevitability of Hillary Clinton's nomination began to look less certain. On Febraury 5th, the so called "Super Tuesday," left John McCain as the clear front-runner for the Republican ticket, while the Democratic race was left a virtual tie between Clinton and Obama. Obama was able to survive a divisive primary battle with Clinton that turned particularly nasty with the attacks on Obama's association with Reverend Wright. Although Obama's handling of the situation probably showed more shrewd political calculation than principled defense of his past, he was able to survive a remarkable challenge, and in some ways, the early focus on Wright made it a non-issue in the general election cycle, with McCain forced to resort to Obama's alleged connection to William Ayers, and even for a moment, to Columbia's own Rashid Khalidi.

After long illness, in February Fidel Castro resigned from the Presidency of Cuba. Whatever one's position on the Cuban revolution, Castro's death marks an impending struggle over Cuba's destiny. Neo-liberal free marketeers will be eager for a crushing session of "shock therapy" to awaken the Cuban people to the great gifts of the free market. If the future of the Cuban revolution is left to the Cuban people themselves, it will be in good hands and the gains of the socialist revolution can be preserved. If the traitors in Miami succeed in dictating Cuba's future, we may soon witness the punishing end of an attempt by a desperately poor and and threatened people to provide a humane and equitable existence for all its members. If Cuba was never a socialist paradise, it at least was an important reminder that human beings have real choices about the type of society they live in. Despite his many shortcomings, and the many failures of his regime, Castro will ultimately be remembered as a great champion of human liberation and equality.


August saw war between Russia and Georgia over the break-away Georgian republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia that Russia had unilaterally recognized. Both Russia and Georgia recognized that in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, force was back on the table in pursuing foreign policy goals. Seen in Russia and Georgia, and even more so in Israel, the Bush doctrine of unilateral invasion has destabilized and fundamentally weakened the basic assumptions of international law and diplomacy. Around the world, the disastrous effects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq continued. A world in which force and violence are seen as acceptable means of achieving goals for powerful states is one of the longest lasting gifts of the Bush Administration and a Democratic Party that had to be dragged into an even modestly oppositional stance.

In September, the world began to see the full scope of a major economic crisis. Lehman Brothers was allowed to collapse, after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were given federal support. Merrill Lynch was absorbed by Bank of America, and AIG received a massive support loan from the Treasury. Washington Mutual was taken over by JP Morgan Chase, and Goldman Sachs and and Morgan Stanley ended their status as investment banks and became bank holding companies, subject to more strict regulation but with greater access to federal support. This has marked a major restructuring of Wall Street, and perhaps a major development in the structure of advanced capitalism. The state was forced to step in and administer capitalism for the very survival of the capitalist system itself in a way not seen since the great depression. Although the American people now essentially own the banks and the financial industry, all have stressed the temporary and emergency nature of these interventions, and how much of a break with free market ideology will emerge from the crisis remains unclear. While the financial crisis has created great challenges for the incoming Obama administration, these challenges at the same time mark opportunities to make major shifts in the economic and system and the political climate in the United States. Even some of the most trenchant free marketeers have confessed their sins, but the die-hard defenders of the Chicago school remain unchastened, if slightly uncomfortable with their new situation in which their ideas are debated and criticized, and no longer accepted as gospel truth. If the cracks in the neo-liberal mythology are signs of hope, it is certainly disappointing to see how few within American political discourse have raised big questions about the fairness, viability, justice, and premises of the American economic system. Barely a whisper of real anti-capitalist rebellion has been heard, and proposals for moving forward have remained securely center-left. This seems like a moment when Americans would be open to radical challenges to corporate authority. The initial rejection of the financial bailout was a wonderfully healthy democratic impulse. Commonsense anger at the Banker's Bailout and the CEO's and fatcats of Wall Street was impressive in its power, but the technocratic administrators eventually pushed through the bail out despite the healthy democratic rebellion. These broader impulses rejecting the current political economy have remained largely subterranean, undirected, and sporadic.

Finally, the election of Barack Hussein Obama as president of the United States was a remarkable event. The election of a black president has restored many Americans' and much the the world's faith in the American political system. How much will substantially change remains to be seen. Obama's cabinet appointee's reflect a tendency towards a so called "pragmatism" that is moderately center left and purports to be "non-ideological." The business community has already made its peace with much of Obama's program, with the striking exception of the "Employee Free Choice Act," which would allow card check union authorization and thus eliminate the ability of employers to intimidate workers while the delay NLRB elections. Whether Obama fights for and wins a card check unionization bill will be a major test, and the revitalization of the American labor movement could be a major step of transformation with lasting consequences. Also critical will be the substance of any health care reform; "universal healthcare" could mean nothing more than a universal subsidy to the insurance companies. These companies are universally unpopular, and the institution of real, single-payer health care is a remote, if real possibility in the coming years. Fighting for workers rights to join a union and for real health care for all will be major battles. Also critical will be making sure Obama follows through on his pledge to end the war in Iraq. Directing troops into Afghanistan is not a solution either. We must end ALL occupations, not get bogged down in Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan, where the political situation will only be worsened by further American involvement. Fighting for a real end to the war and ending all occupations in the middle east will be critical. Liberals who benefited from anti-war outrage will be less likely to listen to less popular (at least at this point) critiques of further involvement in Afghanistan.

There is little doubt that in ways 2008 was a pivotal year. What will come can only be speculated at, but activists can have an important role in shaping the future. Those on the left will face inner divisions, as moderate play defense for the centrist policies of the government, others engage in constructive criticism in an attempt to move the administration to the left, while others are left with the difficult task of mobilizing for more radical visions of justice, equality, peace and freedom. Having the center left in power is always difficult, fraught with both possibilities for meaningful transformation but more frequently, giving us little but empty rhetoric and betrayals to the corporate interests that will continue to dominate politics. An election will not bring change. Change.gov will not bring us democracy. The Democratic party remains at the very best an ambiguous vehicle for meaning social transformation. The coming year will offer challenges rooted in the past eight years, but at the same time we face a radically changed terrain of political strategy and conflict. Bush was an easy target to unify disparate elements, as was the Iraq war by 2006. The left now faces the challenges of defining itself in positive terms, rather than "Anybody but Bush." It can only be taken as heartening that a black man, who expressed his desire to "spread the wealth around," whose middle name is Hussein and last name is Obama, and who was ruthlessly blasted for being a Socialist, a Muslim and an associate of terrorists was elected President of the United States. The symbolism is striking; the substance is now the terrain of political battle against the arrayed corporate interests. Let the lines be drawn and the struggle continue.


-Rudi Batzell, December 31, 2008

Read more!

Saturday, December 27, 2008

Israel Massacres Palestinians in Gaza

More than 200 Palestinians are dead after brutal Israeli air strikes, supposedly targeting Hamas militants.  Many had expected an escalation after the end of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, but few were prepared for the chaos that the Israeli Air Force brought to Gaza. 





The BBC provides an interesting collection of world reaction to the Israeli offensive. 

GORDON JOHNDROE, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN

"Hamas' continued rocket attacks into Israel must cease if the violence is to stop. Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people.

"The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza."


SPOKESMAN FOR JAVIER SOLANA, EU FOREIGN POLICY CHIEF

"We are very concerned at the events in Gaza. We call for an immediate ceasefire and urge everybody to exert maximum restraint."


AMR MOUSSA, ARAB LEAGUE SECRETARY GENERAL

"We are facing a continuing spectacle which has been carefully planned. So we have to expect that there will be many casualties. We face a major humanitarian catastrophe."


HASAN QASHQAVI, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN

"Iran strongly condemns the Zionist regime's wide-ranging attacks against the civilians in Gaza.

"The raids against innocent people are unforgiveable and unacceptable."

REV FEDERICO LOMBARDI, VATICAN SPOKESMAN

"Hamas is a prisoner to a logic of hate, Israel to a logic of faith in force as the best response to hate.

"One must continue to search for a different way out, even if that may seem impossible."

Read more!

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Inept Imperialists: Official History of Reconstruction in Iraq

Though not yet released, the federal government's own history of reconstruction in Iraq over the last five years reveals the gross mismanagement, fraud and lies. The report also reveals how insiders and lobbyist manipulated funding for the war to meet political demands for Bush's re-election in 2004. While all of these revelations should surprise no one who has been paying attention, the level of detail that the inside report offers should be interesting when it is released, and it is fascinating to see how those within the military have become bitterly divided over a reconstruction effort many in the Pentagon opposed from the outset. The New York Times story can be read here.


Read more!

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Volume 1, Issue 4

The September Issue of el participante is now being distributed. This issue features several issues relating to the emerging controversy over the presence of the ROTC on Columbia's campus, as well as articles dealing with activism and politics in general. The alternative Core Curriculum for radicals goes back to the origins of American radicalism in the writings of Thomas Skidmore, a critic of inequality during the era of the Workingmen's parties in the 1830s.

Volume 1, Issue 4 features:

Yadira Alvarez
Summer Experience: National Mobilization Against Sweatshops

Paco Martin Del Campo
Black Panther, Brown Beret Speak at Panel

Iliana Feliz and Johanna Ocaña
Lucha: Committed to Struggle

Wyatt Ford
Th e Myth of the G.I. Bill

Olivia Rosane
9/11, Service and the War

Rudi Batzell
Responses to the ROTC

Malena Arnaud
Th e Poverty of Micro-credit

Thomas Skidmore
Core: The Rights of Man to Property

Read more!

Thursday, September 4, 2008

War in Georgia - War in Iraq

Salon has an excellent article by Juan Cole emphasizing how George W. Bush and the American invasion and occupation of Iraq set the stage for Putin to have a free hand intervening in Georgia. Indeed, the precedent of the United Nations sanctioning the American occupation as an established fact indicated to the world that those with power could use it, even in ways that violated international law, and if successful, the institutions of international relations would cloak this violations in a veil of legitimacy. The article is definitely worth a read.

Read more!

Saturday, March 8, 2008

el participante, volume 1 issue 3

CCAW Reorganized as a Coalition

BY DAVID JUDD

The Columbia Coalition Against the War, which ended the Fall 2007 semester in bad shape, has been re-launched and re-energized.

When it was first created, a year ago, CCAW operated as a coalition of campus groups, which came together to organize buses to a January 27 antiwar protest in DC and then to organize a February 15 student strike. Over the next several months, however, CCAW stopped functioning as this kind of coalition and most former member groups ceased sending representatives. CCAW focused last semester on a divestment campaign, which, in the face of a declining national antiwar movement, did not gather as much momentum as had been hoped, and whose proposal was quietly rejected by Columbia.



At the beginning of the present semester, CCAW was refounded in a meeting with representatives from a number of campus groups and unaligned individuals. Though CCAW’s shift away from a broad coalition was not the primary cause of the group’s trouble, its members thought returning to its original structure could give it renewed momentum. CCAW is now a coalition consisting, usually, of Lucha, Students for Justice in the Middle East, the Progressive Jewish Alliance, the International Socialist Organization, and Students for a Democratic Society. A number of other groups have been represented at meetings, and others have expressed interest in joining.

CCAW has also implemented new voting procedures, after a discussion of problems with past ones. Decisions are now made with one vote per group represented at a meeting. Any group wanting to contribute to the antiwar movement is encouraged to send a representative.
CCAW is planning an antiwar flyering campaign over the next few weeks, culminating in a week of film screenings after Spring Break that will commemorate the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.

Read more!