Naomi Klein on "Rejecting Normalization" with Israel

Author Naomi Klein has been spending time in the Middle East on a "non-conventional" book tour for her book The Shock Doctrine which has recently been translated into Arabic and Hebrew. Here is video of her speaking in Bil'in:



Klein is on this trip to the Middle East continuing her call to boycott Israel in a manner similar to the movement that led to the end of apartheid in South Africa. From an AFP story:

"Boycott is a tactic . . . we're trying to create a dynamic which was the dynamic that ultimately ended apartheid in South Africa," said Klein, the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism."

"It's an extraordinarily important part of Israel's identity to be able to have the illusion of Western normalcy," the Canadian writer and activist said.

"When that is threatened, when the rock concerts don't come, when the symphonies don't come, when a film you really want to see doesn't play at the Jerusalem film festival . . . then it starts to threaten the very idea of what the Israeli state is."

Israeli Government Concealed Knowledge of Illegal Settlements in the West Bank

It is being reported that the Israeli government is complicit in illegal construction of settlements on land that belongs to Palestinians, a violation of international law.

The human rights group Yesh Din has obtained classified documents from the Israeli Defense Ministry which indicate that the Israeli Government has known that as many as three out of every four settlements in the West Bank, have been built without proper permits and have occurred on private property. The data in the report demonstrates:

• Over 30 settlements – including longstanding settlements such as Ariel, Kochav
Yaakov, Beit El, Elon Moreh and Ofra – that were to some extent built on private Palestinian land.
• Construction activity within settlements being conducted without necessary building permits or in direct violation of the building plans.
• The extent and locations of unauthorized building in outposts across the West Bank.

The organization Peace Now, also recently released a study which documents the rapid expansion of settlements in 2008. The study indicates that 1,518 new structures were built in Jewish West Bank settlements, an increase of 60% from 2007. Further interpretation of the study indicates:

Of the news structures, which include homes and caravans, 927, or 61 percent, were built west of the security fence and 591, or 39 percent, were built east of the security fence. One-quarter of the structures east of the fence were built in outposts. The 261 structures built in the outposts represent a more than doubling of the 98 built in 2007, and include five new structures in the Migron outpost, which the Israeli government announced it would relocate to a nearby settlement.

There was also a very good report on this topic on 60 Minutes recently. You can view the report below:

Temporary Permanent Bases Part II

There are a few key points that relate to my previous entry regarding the attempts of the United States to negotiate permanent bases in Iraq.

Patrick Cockburn appeared on Democracy Now! last week and also was responsible for breaking the story of Iraq's attempted resistance to the United States demands. You can read his article here.

As Cockburn has stated, the United States originally wanted 58 bases to be constructed in Iraq, but when the Iraqi government objected they lowered the number to the "low dozens". Another key issue is the issue of immunity for foreign contractors. As some of you may know, private contractors from firms such as Blackwater, have come under fire for reported indiscriminate killing of civilians with little movement by the United States to hold them accountable under any set of laws. The realization that the United States continues to push for future immunity for foreign contractors, when they are already aware of numerous incident reports regarding said contractors, is quite alarming.

Cockburn also stated on Democracy Now! that Iraq's money (which is held in the Federal Reserve Bank in New York) is being leveraged to push the Iraqis into accepting U.S. demands. In other words, once the presidential immunity on this money runs out, the U.S. is threatening that the Iraqi government and people would not see any of the approx. 50 billion dollars, unless Iraq accepted some of the U.S. demands.

This is the so called "freedom" that is being exported by the United States. Not a freedom for Iraqis to live in peace or receive basic humanitarian needs, but a freedom for the United States to establish a stronghold in the Middle East and benefit off of Iraq's resources for years to come.

Temporary Permanent Bases

The issue of the United States constructing permanent bases in Iraq has been of discussion since the beginning of the invasion in independent media outlets and has now captured limited headlines in the corporate media. Certainly construction of such bases re-enforces the fact that the United States is an occupying force and aims to continue this occupation with no end in sight.

Currently the United States and Iraq are negotiating terms about the presence of such bases. Bush Administration officials have continually claimed that they are not seeking a permanent presence within Iraq and that bases which are constructed will not serve the purpose of providing a "launching pad" for attacks against Syria and/or Iran. Gareth Porter's recent article published by the "Inter Press Service", outlined how Administration officials have continuously spoken out to counter the idea the United States is working to occupy Iraq permanently. These public statements run completely counter to what is contained within the proposal the United States is attempting to submit to Iraq. The proposal outlines U.S. control of Iraqi airspace and provides wording that would justify "defensive" actions against other countries that could pose a so-called threat to the country.

Perhaps most alarming is the deliberate attempt to mislead the public through ambiguous language contained within the proposal. The phrase "permanent bases" are not used, but as Porter points out in the article, no timeline is given on the presence of the U.S. in "temporary bases". So the word "temporary" is used, but no language is used to distinguish the difference from a "temporary" base with no timeline and a "permanent" base.

The most telling quote in the piece, is from Assistant Defence Secretary Mary Beth Long where in testimony before the State Department she states:

“I have looked into this. As far as the department is concerned, we don’t have a worldwide or even a department-wide definition of permanent bases.”

She adds:

“most lawyers… would say that the word ‘permanent’ probably refers more to the state of mind contemplated by the use of the term”.

There you have it, there is not a department-wide definition of "permanent bases" and the word "permanent" probably refers more to a state of mind. This is not an example of stupidity on the part of the Department of Defense, but rather calculated Orwellian doublespeak to attempt to justify the continued illegal occupation of Iraq to establish a permanent presence in the Middle East.