Looking at the Egyptian uprising

It all began in a rural Tunisian town. Mohamed Bouazizi, who sold fruits and vegetables on the streets to make a living for himself and his impoverished family, was publicly humiliated on December 17 by a policewoman Fedya Hamdi. Hamdi slapped Bouazizi in the face, spat at him and forcefully confiscated his goods and weighing scale. An angry and distressed Bouazi­zi, who often suffered harass­ment and abuse at the hands of the local police, went to complain his grievances to the local municipal officials but failed to get any recourse as the officials just refused to meet him. As an act of desperation, Bouazizi doused himself with inflammable fluid and set his body on fire outside the municipal office. The plight of young Bouazizi became the catalyst that sparked off massive anger against the regime of president Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who ruled Tunisia since 1987 with an iron fist. Thousands of furious Tunisians came out on the streets to protest against police brutality, the corrupt power structure, soaring unemployment and unending poverty. Weeks of violent demonstrations followed as protesters clashed with the state security forces. Members of the police force clubbed the unarmed anti-regime protesters and open fired on them killing dozens. Sensing the enraging public mood, Ben Ali visited the bedside of Bouazizi in an attempt to draw public support. He also dissolved the government, promised legislative elections within six months and assured to take meaningful steps toward political reform. But his entire attempt was all but too late. On January 4, Bouazizi succumbed to his injuries escalating unrest and further violence. On January 14, president Ben Ali fled the capital Tunis with his wife Leila in a private jet to Saudi Arabia shortly after the army general Rachid Ammar refused to back his orders to keep shooting on the protesters. According to French agencies, the 74-year-old dethroned president suffered a stroke and is now lying in coma at a Saudi hospital.

Barack Obama and the future of our World

Millions world over has gone buoyant over the first black president in the White House – Mr. Barack Hussein Obama. His swearing-in as the forty-fourth American President on January 20, 2009 has skyrocketed enormous expectations and hope to move ahead from an awful economic condition, to necessitate the end of an unwinnable and unpopular war and to get rid of the policies of a vindictive, ignorant and stupid regime. These are customary expectations. By superbly oscillating the politics of high frequency emotion, Barack Obama has won the minds of a sizable section of his country folks and the world’s populace. Armed with a powerful and effective rhetoric of masterfully employed words, Obama’s orations were capable to create “a belief that there are better days ahead” and have instigated his country to “reclaim the American dream” and raise the demand for ‘a change’. Though critics like the journalist and literary critic Christopher Hitchens has derided this rhetoric as a stockpile of ten cliché keywords “Dream, Fear, Hope, New, People, We, Change, America, Future and Together” (See Slate Magazine, March 03, 2008) it is hard to be impassive about the fervor Obama has generated. But still the vital question remains unanswered: how much can this ‘prophet of hope’ ultimately deliver?

There is no doubt that Barack Obama’s presidency made a significant impact on the collective consciousness of African-American community. It will be a grave mistake to ignore this overt optimism, uncontrollable passion and pride among the black people concerning Obama. Though American society has walked a long way from the dreadful days of racial discrimination, the evils of institutional racism, discrimination in education, housing, employment, policing and criminal justice continue to exist in today’s America. Poverty and social abuse is still a poignant issue. A major section of the deprived African-Americans therefore cannot get rid of their lifelong perception that a black person has to work harder than a white person to reach the same success, that black people are incessantly used and valued in the American society for their muscles, not for their brains. The media still depicts an awesomely negative image of the black men as “…a bunch of hapless layabouts who spend their days ticking off reparations demands and shaking their fist at the white man.” (See Obama and the Myth of the Black Messiah) The ascending of an African-American to warm the highest chair of the country is therefore perceived as a dream come true, a historic event. Obama is being elevated in the minds of African-Americans as a messiah who can convincingly speak about juxtaposing freedom-hope-change and motivates them to shout ‘Yes, We Can!’

Obama’s mixed-ethnic identity (he is the son of a Kansas-born white mother and a Kenyan-born black father) has also played a vital role. Throughout American history, lighter-skinned blacks have been viewed as less intimidating and have generally received better treatment from white society than darker-skinned blacks. This good black-bad black dynamic based on the darkness of skin tone was definitely an advantage for Obama – the advantage of not being ‘black enough’. He has meticulously built up a multicultural image that crosses ethnic boundaries and has spoken about issues concerning all Americans irrespective of race, culture and religion. Hence the implication of his victory goes beyond any racial symbolism. Whether Obama can particularly address key African-American issues therefore remains doubtful. The popular singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte has warned American people to be ‘careful’ about Barack Obama because “We don’t know what he’s truly about.” According to the Calypso King, Obama is “Obviously very bright, speaks very well, cuts a handsome figure. But all of that is just the king’s clothes. Who’s the king?” Obama has appeared with the alluring cloths contrived with profound care by the American enterprise of manipulative media barons, corporate oligarchs, special-interest groups, Wall Street firms and the American political establishment – those who firmly believe in acting as the masters of the world, propels the American hegemony, proudly carries the criminal legacy of Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush and continue to support Israel and its atrocious act of brutality. Barack Obama, according to John Pilger, “…will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy.”

Barack Obama’s devious face was uncovered in March 2008 when the ‘patriotic’ American media maliciously exposed a December 2007 speech of his longtime pastor and spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The speech titled ‘The day of Jerusalem's fall’ created a huge disconcert to the Obama campaign. In this now infamous speech, Rev. Wright spoke about an extremely repulsive truth. Admitting that 9/11 attacks was a crime of America’s own making, Rev. Wright said that, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism.” The media and the musclemen of American establishment immediately sparked off an outcry and insisted Obama to denounce the ‘inflammatory rhetoric’. Obama dutifully obliged them by resigning his membership in the church and said that he was ‘outraged’ and ‘saddened’ by the behavior of his former pastor.

Obama had also left no ambiguity about his stand on the Israel-Palestine issue. In July 2008 he expressed himself to the media by saying that “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” What did Obama mean by ‘everything’? Slaughtering Palestinian children in retaliation? Clearly enough, the prospective President of United States was approving Israel’s act of ‘self defense’ and never felt a similar concern to utter a word of disapproval about the thousands of Palestinian children killed by the Israeli attacks. Sajy Elmaghinni of the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) has described the traumatic condition of Palestinian children during the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza that, “Many kids have stopped eating. They are inactive, they barely talk, they cling to their parents all the time.” Palestinian children were ‘unworthy’ victims of Barack Obama’s worthy ‘expectation’!

Figures made available by B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights group has shown that from September 2000 until November 2008, Israeli security forces have killed 2,990 Palestinians in Gaza. During this same seven years, Hamas rockets from Gaza have killed a total of 22 Israeli civilians. (See Question and Answer on Gaza by Stephen Shalom) Does Mr. Obama agree with the official US definition that depicts terrorism as a “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets”? If the homemade Quassam rockets fired by Hamas is a felonious act and therefore condemnable then why the official Israeli butchery cannot be condemned by the same yardstick? While the recent 22-days of Israeli genocidal assault on defenseless Palestinian populations of Gaza were going on, Obama ‘strategically’ preferred to remain silent by saying that “there is only one president at a time”. This unquestioning support for the habitually racist and neurotically extremist Israel is a very common posture for all American presidents. In other word, it is almost impossible to occupy the highest chair of the country which houses the headquarters of international Zionism and where the Zionist lobby has a ubiquitous influence on the political system and media.

Whatever the inexorable propaganda of the international media might pound on our heads, Barack Obama’s reflection on the Palestinian crisis is one apparent indication of the type of ‘change’ the world is actually going to witness in the coming days. Let all the optimists be assured that the vicious legacy of America’s ‘divine right’ to control everything and playing God everywhere in the pretext of spreading democracy all over the world will continue. Moreover, to impale the existing and newer preys, new midnight agents might get recruited. The possibility of Iran to become the next possible prey is not distant. Israel will then play the prominent role of a strategic military partner because the weakening of Iran will significantly serve Israel’s regional interests.

Apparently, Obama looks more intelligent and smarter than his predecessor George Bush who has finished his term as a shoe-ducking president. Knowing very well that the international community has long became spineless and insignificant, the bigot Bush tried to win support for a superfluous ‘war on terror’ in selective Islamic countries by exploiting the general anger of the American people over terrorism. Accordingly, Afghanistan was bombed into heaps of rubble, Iraq was surgically destroyed. Responding to the question on why there is hatred for America in some Islamic countries, Bush famously delivered a stupid answer, “I'm amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate us. I am, I am – like most Americans, I just can't believe it. Because I know how good we are…” Similarly stupid was his charge against the Indian and Chinese middle class for eating out all the available food and creating the world food crisis. Barack Obama is no George Bush. Under his costume he is armed with a much stylish and sophisticated rhetoric. But there are his critics who have gone so far to predict that in the coming days Obama might turn into a master of delusion.

In his Presidential Inaugural Address, Obama lectured American citizens to “Prepare the nation for a new age” and extended his cautioned words to “those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West” that the people will “judge you by what you build, not what you destroy.” It will be interesting to watch how much significant change Mr. Obama can bring to America’s imperialist and violent foreign policy. Initially, Barack Obama will be let free to do rightful things that will justify his choice and assure the world about his positiveness. By signing the executive order to close the Guantánamo Bay detention camp within a year and banning coercive interrogation methods are signals of these proposed acts. The avid Obama supporters will argue that this act itself is enough to put to rest all speculations of cynics who “fail to understand … that the ground has shifted beneath them”. Only time can tell whether he has actually inherited the legacy of blatant hypocrisy, immoral double-standards and shameful contradictions of former American presidents or not. The world will eagerly wait to watch how much he builds or destroys in the coming days.

Image courtesy: osi-speaks.blogspot.com, www.time.com

Brutality of Fact: the assault on Gaza

“There is no such thing as Palestinians; they never existed” was the haughty proclamation of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, the ‘Iron Lady’ of Israeli politics. From its founding days, the State of Israel has continued to display the same colonialist haughtiness towards the people of Palestine. For decades, this fundamental arrogant attitude of Israel has been duly approved and legitimized by the Western power houses. Israel has been bestowed with satiated military and diplomatic support by them, particularly by America, to secure political and economic objectives in the Middle East. Two vital aspects have blurred the true nature of the Palestine-Israel conflict. Firstly, the Zionist claim based on mythical and religious grounds for a Jewish State in Palestine land has received a longstanding moral support from the West. Secondly, the western world has sought to assuage its guilt over the Nazi genocide of Jews by supporting this ludicrous demand of the Zionists. The West always had great sympathies for Israel, for the ‘difficulties’ Israel is facing from the ‘violent and fanatic’ people of Palestine. If Israel gives up even an inch of the occupied territories, it is viewed as an enormous sacrifice by the Zionist lobbying groups in America and Western mainstream media. But the enormous sacrifices of the Palestinian people get far lesser attention and sympathy. The disparity between Israeli and Palestinian political, economic and military strength is also not considered in its proper context while evaluating the ongoing conflict between the two. By some trick of hypocritical logic, the international community has recognized Israel’s illegal confiscation of Palestinian land and the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Arabs. Since the creation of Israel, there has been no peace in the Middle East. Palestine stands out as the most persuasive symbol of human trauma today.

“Israel is the guard dog of America’s plans for Middle East.” This is how noted journalist and documentary maker John Pilger has described America-Israel relation. United States of America is the principal patron of Israel which continues to receive nearly 40 percent of all American foreign aid. Most of this aid has been granted since 1967 when Israel occupied the territories of Palestinians and other Arab nations. America is expected to provide Israel with $30 billion in military aid between 2008 and 2017. In fact this excessive level of absolute diplomatic, financial, military and moral support to Israeli occupation forces and their policies are not unconditional. American support comes from the recognition of how Israel supports their strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond. Therefore, when reputed human rights groups have observed that the majority of violent actions have come from Israeli occupation forces and settlers, America have always found only the Palestinians to blame. America does not really want peace in the region. Its absence of will is exposed by the dual role it is playing - as the chief mediator of the conflict as well as the chief supporter of Israel’s atrocious crimes in Palestine.

From the earliest days, the Israeli state had used its mighty war machine and shrewd calculations to dominate the region. To fulfill their insatiable appetite for Palestinian land and in order to dominate the Middle East, Israeli’s political establishment has tried to dump indigenous Palestinians from the course of history by either denying or suppressing their identities and has cunningly planned to drive the Arab states into frequent confrontation and wars. Decades of Israeli occupation has compelled the Palestinians to have total economic dependence on Israel. All aspects of Palestinian economy including its workforces are in complete control of Israel. This has enabled Israel to impose economic blockade at will whenever Israel considered squeezing Palestinians. Agriculture has also suffered enormously due to this blockade as the occupied territories largely depend on Israel to vend their products. In many areas farmers could not even work on the fields due to Israeli military seizure. As with everything else, Israel always describe the blockade as a ‘measure to defend itself’ from Palestinian violence.

The birth of the conflict and the subsequent ongoing events are unique, multi-layered and highly complicated in nature. With the disintegration and collapse of the Ottoman Empire during the end of the First World War, the League of Nations in a slapdash manner shared the former Ottoman Arab territories between the constituent ‘great power’ nations as pieces of cake. The rights of the indigenous people of the region received no attention at all during this distribution process. While all the other territories became fully independent states in due course, the British rulers who were allocated with the Palestine territory had a different scheme in their mind. Instead of supporting a sovereign Palestine state of the Arabs, the British Government discretely assured their support to Zionist Organization leaders for ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people’ and to ‘use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object’. The Zionist leaders were fervently campaigning to ‘create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law’, an idea originally formulated by Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement. From the beginning, the ultimate intention of the Zionist’s was to create a Jewish State in Palestine. Palestine was the chosen territory due to its ‘historical connection’ with the biblical Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) – the holy land where their ancestors had once lived two thousand years ago before dispersing into the ‘Diaspora’.

During the end of the nineteenth century, Jews were immigrating to Palestine in small groups for purely religious reasons. But from 1922 soon after the First World War ended, large-scale Jewish immigrants, mainly from Eastern Europe started to enter and settle in Palestine territories. From 1930, the numbers ascended extensively and brought an exodus of Jews from Germany and other European countries when the Nazis started hounding of the Jews. Quite naturally, the influx of immigrant Jews caused grave discontentment to the Arabs whose ancestors had been settled in this land for almost 2000 years. They viewed the invasion as a violation of their natural and absolute rights and reacted violently. Demands for independence and resistance against the Jewish influx led to a Palestinian rebellion in 1936. Anti-Jewish riots broke out in the region followed by enduring clashes between Palestinians and Jews. The Jews retaliated against the Palestinian assaults through Haganah, a covert paramilitary force that will later develop into the modern Israeli army. The British Government initiated large scale military action against the Palestinian nationalist guerrillas. When violence ravaged Palestinian situation became too intricate to manage, the British coolly handed over the ‘Palestinian problem’ to the United Nations in 1947.

While the United Nations did acknowledge the natural rights of the Palestinian people but at the same time, strangely, proposed for a partition of Palestine into two independent States – one for Palestinian Arabs and the other for the Jewish immigrants. The UN initiative could attain nothing as in 1948, the Jews abruptly declared independence with the foundation of the State of Israel. The Arab countries refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and soon the Arab-Israeli war broke out. Israelis called this fierce conflict as War of Independence and the Palestinians call it the Nakba (catastrophe). In the rapacious urge to seize all of Palestine, Israeli army occupied 77 percent of the territory of Palestine including larger parts of Jerusalem and forced out more than half of the indigenous Palestinian population from their homeland by applying brutal force. Those who remained were deprived from their national identity, their rights of freedom and held as hostages by Israel’s systematic oppression and cruel occupation.

Since then, the Palestinian people are struggling to regain their lost rights. Most of the 5 million Palestinian ‘stateless’ refugees are now living in various neighboring Middle Eastern countries like Syria, Lebanon and Egypt; many are still living in refugee camps. Twenty-two percent of all Palestinian refugees are currently in Gaza Strip. Though the Resolution 194 of United Nation General Assembly had declared in December 1948 that the ‘refugees wishing to return to their homes…..should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date’, Israel has refused the return of displaced Palestinians to their homeland. Israel has an unmatched record of defying the maximum number of United Nations resolutions, even more than big brother America. The Palestine-Israel conflict cannot be fixed without resolving the Palestinian refugee question.

In 1967, following a comprehensive six-day war with three neighboring Arab countries; Israel conquered and occupied the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. Though later, the Sinai Peninsula was eventually returned to Egypt through a peace agreement between the two countries (Israel completed its withdrawal only in 1982), the rest of the two territories are still occupied by Israel. About three million Palestinians are living in these two areas, surrounded by Israeli settlements.

West Bank and Gaza Strip are the only two territories that Palestinians are demanding today as their future Palestine State. One must keep in mind that the two territories represent only 22 percent of the original, pre-Israel Palestine. Subsequent to the Oslo Accords signed between the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel, a five years interim Palestinian National Authority (PNA) was formed in 1994. The organization was responsible to administer some rural areas and major cities in West Bank and Gaza Strip. Unfortunately the PNA rule was tainted by corruption charges. Its stalwart leader Yasser Arafat was losing his authority and control over the people of Palestine who started to sense him as ineffective. PNA was fast losing popularity to the Islamic hardliner group Hamas. Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections in Gaza Strip against Fatah – the largest faction of the former Palestine Liberation Organization has greatly undermined the significance of PNA. Though the PNA president and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas runs the Palestinian part of West Bank he has no influence or control on Gaza.

After the 1993 Oslo Accords, Israel started to withdraw its forces from the Palestine populated parts of West Bank (17 percent of total West Bank land) but soon started putting up a 703 kilometer long barrier encircling major Palestinian urban areas. On the pretext to ‘safeguard Jewish residents of the State of Israel’, the Israeli government developed a philosophy of forced separation between ‘us and them’. This multi-layered separation barrier comprises barbed fences, vehicle-barrier trenches, high concrete walls and 500 checkpoints. Palestinians residing in West Bank are restricted from free movement, access to water sources, medical aid, education and other essential services. Large areas of fertile agricultural land was seized from Palestinian peasants and eventually destroyed to build the barrier. A 2004 Amnesty International report describes the condition of the Palestinians in West Bank and the effects of the Israeli barrier:

The fence/wall is not being built between Israel and the Occupied Territories but mostly (close to 90%) inside the West Bank, turning Palestinian towns and villages into isolated enclaves, cutting off communities and families from each other, separating farmers from their land and Palestinians from their places of work, education and health care facilities and other essential services.

The condition of the Gaza Strip is even worse. Gaza is one of the most densely populated and poorest areas of the world with little water or natural resources. The territory was occupied and governed by Israel from 1967 to 2005. During this period six thousand Israeli settlers have occupied about one-third area (including the military bases and bypass roads) of Gaza and one million subjugated Palestinians are squeezed into the other two thirds. Like in West Bank, Israel also left Gaza for the Palestinian Authority following the Oslo Accords. On 2005, the Israeli cabinet formally declared to withdraw its military rule in Gaza but stationed military troops surrounding the territory. With electronic fences and military posts, Gaza is tightly sealed from the outside world and has been turned into a massive prison ghetto.

Gaza is currently ruled by Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) which came to power after winning a fair and democratic election in January 2006. After the victory Hamas opted for a confrontational policy by refusing to recognize Israel’s existence in the ‘historic homeland’ of Palestine. Explaining their standpoint on Israel, Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal has stated that:

Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us – our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people. (Emphasis added)

Hamas was the creation of Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to damage the popularity of the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat. At that point, Israeli hawks including the former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon sanctified the project but could not anticipate that this crafty strategy would eventually transform into a grave future threat for Israel. During 1990-2000, Hamas become infamous for its ferocious attacks on Israeli targets including large-scale suicide bombings that killed several Israeli civilians. The attacks were executed through Hamas’s military wing – the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. Soon Israel and the Western world labeled Hamas as a notorious Islamic terrorist group. Hamas has intensified its hard-line confrontations with Israel since their 2006 election victory.

The imposed restrictions and barriers have nearly destroyed every aspect of social cohesiveness in the occupied areas. This will give some idea why Hamas enjoys a considerable popularity among the Palestinians. With an aggressive anti-Israel posture, Hamas also carries out numerous social welfare activities in the occupied areas. This is a vital reason behind their immense popularity. Allegedly funded by Iran and private Arab donors, Hamas spends a major portion of its annual budget to run relief and education programs like schools, hospitals, orphanages, daycare clinics, blood banks, free or inexpensive medical treatments, financial aid and scholarships, community kitchens and sports leagues. The popularity of Hamas is the real threat to Israel and not the hundreds of homemade Qassam rockets that they regularly fires from Gaza into Israel. These rockets do trifling damage to the mighty Israeli establishment but instead provide ample excuse to clamor before the international community.

Israel still controls the Gaza airspace, territorial waters, offshore maritime access and the Gaza-Israel border. It also controls entry of foreigners, the collection and reimbursement of taxes and inflow and outflow of Gaza’s all essential resources. As it’s happening now, Israel has blocked the internal roads and divided the area into smaller penal complexes, each surrounded by Israeli tanks. Even during the June 2008 ceasefire was in place the people of Gaza were not exempted from their troubles. When Israeli airplanes are bombarding their home, school and hospitals, Gaza inhabitants miserably abide the terrible assault as they have nowhere to escape.

The events leading to the present catastrophe began on 18 June 2008 when a bilateral ceasefire was announced between Israel and Hamas through Egyptian mediators. It should be kept in mind that Egypt is a ‘key regional ally’ of America in the Middle East. By November the ceasefire began to break down when Israeli Defense Forces discovered Hamas tunnels in the outskirts of Gaza, intended to infiltrate Israeli territory and sneaking in weapons caches. After Israeli forces fired on the tunnels, Hamas retaliated by firing rockets into Israel. On 27 December, Israel unleashed Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. Israeli fighter planes started bombing the civilian localities of Gaza including police stations, government buildings, educational institutions, residential homes and apartment buildings, hospitals, mosques, busy market places, shops and bakeries, Though Israel has claimed that their systemic attacks are only targeting Hamas leaders and institutions and they are trying their best to avoid civilian causalities, the ground facts are just the opposite. Most of the 700 dead and 3000 injured in Gaza are innocent civilians including numerous women and children. Israeli military has blocked food and medicine supplies; electricity and fuel are cut off. Even humanitarian aid are not been allowed to enter Gaza.

The western mainstream media has deliberately picked up the Israeli version of the account. By undertaking a rigid pro-Israeli stand, the mainstream media has started their wordy propaganda for weakening and eventually eliminating Hamas at any cost. According to the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, weakening of Hamas is important because, “…nothing has damaged Palestinians more than the Hamas death-cult strategy of turning Palestinian youths into suicide bombers…..Hamas’s attacks on towns in southern Israel is destroying a two-state solution, even more than Israel’s disastrous West Bank settlements.” Mr. Friedman has made his apologist standpoint crystal clear when he writes, “Israel has proved that it can and will uproot settlements, as it did in Gaza. Hamas’s rocket attacks pose an irreversible threat.” Surprisingly, Mr. Friedman did not find it important to mention about the crippling Israeli blockade of Gaza that has left the inhabitants completely distressed with no food, fuel and medical supplies for days. Not a single word of condemnation came from him about the atrocious killing of more than 700 innocent civilians. Instead he has asserted that “…death and destruction in Gaza is painful to watch. But it’s all too familiar.”

India and Israel

In these circumstances where does India stand? During the freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress were against the creation for a Jewish home in Palestine. After independence, India pompously voted in 1947 against the UN partition plan of Palestine. In 1949 India had also opposed the admission of Israel to the UN. India later recognized Israel but did not establish diplomatic relations with the country for a long time. It was much later in 1977-79 when the External Affairs Minister of Morarji Desai government, Atal Behari Vajpayee laid the foundation of a close relationship between the two countries. Subsequently, the Indian standpoint on Israel started to change.

India-Israel political and military relationship was elevated to heights by the centre-right Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after it came to power. From January 1992 India became one of the closest allies of Israel after the two countries established full diplomatic relations. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was invited by Atal Behari Vajpayee, now the Prime Minister of India, for a two day state visit amid stern protests from the Indian Left parties. BJP had also strongly advocated for a US-Israel-India alliance to “… take on international terrorism in a holistic and focused manner... to ensure that the global campaign against terrorism is pursued to its logical conclusion.” BJP leaders have a special place in their hearts for Israel. BJP’s mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) also has an acute and age-old Israel obsession. RSS had hailed India-Israel bond and strongly criticized the Left because, “Both India and Israel are facing Muslim terrorism. Israel has faced the threat from Muslim terrorists boldly and effectively and we should appreciate it.”

In many respects, BJP’s Hindutva and Israel’s Zionism are blood brothers. Ideologically both are hyper-nationalists. Both claim to represent themselves as the sole and authentic spokespersons for the religion they represent. And, most importantly, both are anti Muslim to the core and share a common Islamophobia and hatred against Arabism. Also the RSS, BJP and its affiliates are fascinated with the gutsy nature of Israeli establishment and the adamant way it carries out systemic assaults against the Palestinian Muslims. These Hindutva hardliners passionately desire for a ‘strategic alliance’ between Hindus and Jews to avenge the Muslims. Narendra Modi, BJP’s poster boy and chief minister of the Indian state Gujarat has already tried his hand into an Israel like ethnic cleansing of Muslims in 2002.

Since then, India has continued with its close ties with Israel. Today, Israel is the second biggest supplier (after Russia) of defense equipments to India. The present UPA government led by the Congress party also did not consider changing the ‘friendly’ relation. Here, the India-America connection seems to have struck the right cord. According to the America obsessed Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, India’s relation with Israel is of an ‘enlightened self-interest’. After the Mumbai terror attacks, India-Israel relation has taken a new-fangled turn. India-Pakistan situation is now viewed as parallel to Israel’s situation with Syria, Lebanon and Iran. There are plenty of free advices available now on how India can learn from Israel’s experience to “consider cross-border raids against terrorist camps or retaliation to pressure the terrorist sponsor to desist”. From a peculiar perception of terrorism, hoards of lessons are delivered by the national and international experts on how India can possibly emulate Israel. At the same time, India is being continuously advised to ignore the dangerous ‘root cause’ argument and go for all an out offence against the dreaded global terrorists (read Muslims).

What will India do then? Will India consider emulating Israel to fight its own war on terror? Will India take lessons from Ariel Sharon’s guide book? Will India also become a cruel aggressor like Israel? Will India adopt Israel’s ideology of war and start bombarding the home, school and hospitals of terrorist affected regions situated in neighboring countries? Well, these are secret desires of scores of home-bred patriots and international friends. Only time can tell what India will ultimately do. But one thing is certain. India’s choice will determine whether the Indian subcontinent will turn into another Middle East in future or not.

Image Courtesy: Mohammed Omer, Rafah Today

Map Courtesy: history.howstuffworks.com

Mumbai attacks and the 'conspicuous' Indian elite

The recent terror attacks on Mumbai are occupying a central space in the collective mindscape of India. Everyday there are human stories and revelations oozing out from the devastating wound it has created. Newer information is emerging about the callousness of the security setup, about the hidden rivalry between the security agencies. The investigative reporters are busy to unearth unknown brave hearts of those terrible days. There are also the latest exposures of cosmetic faces on TV talk shows - those who are suddenly looking awakened from their habitual socio-political aloofness. There are plentiful of peace marches, candlelight vigils, endless panel discussions and token gestures of unity. These developments are beautiful to see and sweet to hear. But day by day, this indiscreet clamor with risen fists on front of the Taj Mahal hotel and blabbermouth socialites crying hoarse in front of TV cameras – swearing to protest against hideous politicians, delivering precious advice to stop paying taxes and instigating for an American style robust response are getting harder to digest.

Suddenly the elites have become very much conscious about the importance of good politics and started spitting venom against ugly politicians. Suddenly they have metamorphosed and became socially committed. Suddenly they are presenting patriotic overtures and turned into war-mongers. A significant qualitative change indeed! Their mounting conscience is like the froth of cappuccino. After some time it will settle down.

Who are this elite citizenry declaring war against politicians today? These are the same snobs who always felt apathetic to politics and cherished to consider that politics is the refuge for the third-rate Homo sapiens - the rascals and scoundrels. These are the same lot who are always silent during any atrocious communal riot, during the butchery of Muslims in Gujarat, Christians in Orissa or Dalits in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. These are the same people who gladly contribute to fund hate. These are the same people who exhibit their deep love for America but love to hate China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela or Cuba. These are the same people who are skeptical about Mayavati and scornful about Lalu Prasad Yadav; bitterly critical about mainstream communists but sympathetic to the brutal Maoists. These are the same people who seldom votes but wishes to maintain their larger influence over the democratic system which they are bitterly denouncing today. These are the same people who are now parroting the stupid concept: to replace the politicians by CEOs to run the country.

But is it really the rage or a raucous cry out of deep fear? It is indeed the first time Indian elites are stunned to find themselves in a situation where their lives are just as insecure as the common masses; their symbols of wealth and power look insecure. This is the first time they saw that their ‘own’ people - the creamy layer of the society can also be robotically targeted and brutally killed.

Why did the proactive reporters could not find a single brave heart among the elites trapped inside the hotels? Why are the brave hearts found only among the ordinary? What are the responses of the rescued elite hostages of Taj, Oberoi and Trident about their saviors - the ordinary hotel staff, the ordinary kitchen worker and the ordinary maintenance worker who took terrorist bullets trying to save and shield them? For a while they will emotionally talk about the sacrifice, eulogize them for their bravery and soon will stop thinking about them.

The media bosses, our conscience keepers, have devoted too much space to illustrate this rage of our phony elites. The electronic media has taken the center stage in this aspect. Serious looking anchors with theatrically modulated voice attempted to accelerate public emotion by adding ingredients of detestation against politics into their recipe. Jingoism was carefully promoted (mainly through readers response section) as the ideal balm to the wound. All politicians are brought under a homogeneous group and mercilessly bashed. Placards with thrilling slogans are shown again and again to demonstrate the public anger. Continuous narratives supported with titillating images were conveyed ceaselessly to help create mass hysteria. In the pretext of voicing on behalf of the people, the Indian media issued a clear verdict to the worried nation: in the wake of the Mumbai attack, politicians have lost whatever credibility they might have had before.

Do the Indian media want the public to believe that their activism will mould the politicians towards morality and decency? Not at all. The media only wanted to grab an opportunity to propagate their social worthiness. In situations, idiocy rules the day where anything and everything can be lambasted in the pretext of patriotism. To acquire public applause, the electronic media therefore chose the dangerous path of cheap sensationalism and in a trendy manner ran the Mumbai attacks on TV like a reality show, continuously flashing unconfirmed breaking news. All news channels were principally acting alike – only the upper polish differed from channel to channel since the targeted audience was different. The class bias of their selective reporting was also blatant in nature. By barely covering the massacre on the Chatrapathi Shivaji Terminus (CST) railway station where more than 50 people were killed or the government run GT hospital, all efforts were focused on the ‘dramatic’ events of the symbolic Taj and the Oberoi and Trident hotels.

Lot of the elites now talks about unity. Unity is a sweet word but does not necessarily suggest a solution. Who knows it better than our elites that unity is warm and endearing when it is selective?

During the eventful days, a section of the media has cleverly pressed another ploy - by labeling the Mumbai attacks as India's 9/11. The reason is simple. They were trying to subtly promote the idea of aping the American way to demonstrate military aggression against Pakistan. The Indian public was asked to restrict their vision like a blinkered horse and consider: why the United States has never suffered a major attack on its soil since 9/11. Because they were tough. Because they do not fear to call a spade a spade. The Indian Government was advised with a warning: be tough like America; learn from them how to respond. Otherwise India will continue to bleed forever. A prominent section of the elitist Indians expressed a similar view. Fools rush in where fools have been before.

America’s post 9/11 ‘tough’ and costly response (the estimated cost of the Iraq war is $ 3 trillion, about three times India's GDP) has turned into multifaceted disasters: it has ruined Afghanistan and Iraq, destabilized the north-west Frontier province of Pakistan and made that territory much more generous to terrorists, killed millions including innocent civilians. Nearly 5000 soldiers of American military are also killed and 100,000 of them has returned home wounded and injured, suffering from serious mental disorders. It has acted as a stimulus for Islamic terror groups and aggravated Islamic fundamentalism not only in the Muslim world but also in countries where the words were unfamiliar before America’s ‘tough’ response occurred. It has substantially increased insecurity and fuelled far more terrorism activities worldwide.

On July 16, 2008, the American government has issued a ‘Worldwide Caution’ that says, “Current information suggests that Al-Qaida and affiliated organizations continue to plan terrorist attacks against US interests in multiple regions, including Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. These attacks may employ a wide variety of tactics including suicide operations, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings and bombings.” The magnification of worldwide terror attacks is the direct result of America’s ‘War on Terror’ which has gravely angered the Arab and Muslim world. It was not difficult to make out why the terrorists had targeted American and British passport holders in Mumbai hotels and attacked Nariman House, the epicenter of the Jewish community in Mumbai. Israel is a key ally of America and is notorious for their imperious methods of tackling Islamic terrorism.

In the first reaction post after the Mumbai attacks, this blogger had spoken about the need to restrain emotional outbursts and urged to convert the gruesome incidence into a watershed – by looking within to dispose of the enduring vices of this country. There is now an emerging possibility that the incidence could be turned into a watershed of a different kind. The proactive interference of America is showing disturbing signs that the big brother might seize this opportunity and eventually coerce India into their strategic partnership in this subcontinent. They have earlier done the same with Pakistan and the consequences are out in the open. Now it could be India’s turn.

Image courtesy: english.sina.com

Crisis of Capitalism

America is the anchor of global economy in the era of globalization. The American financial collapse has therefore spread like a thermonuclear chain reaction throughout the globe with far-reaching implications. Government experts of the effected countries are sitting together and scratching their worthy heads to bail out the crisis. To calm down the turmoil, the United States Federal Reserve and Treasury Department has declared to pump as much as $1.3 trillion into the system which is nothing but just a tactical response; a desperate effort to shore up confidence in the system. While the investment bankers and their executives have made massive profits out of their speculative operations over the past few years, when they have suffered losses, governments are feeling obliged to bail out these companies using taxpayer’s money. The greatest irony is, after vociferously advocating for a deregulated, liberalized financial system and encouraging removal of government constrains on use and flow of capital, the same advocates of the international economic order are asking for government intervention with regulatory measures today. Some of them like David Macke, the economist for J.P. Morgan Chase has even gone one step ahead to say that “At the end of the day, if you socialize enough of the financial system, it has to work.” Counterparts in India is also toeing the similar line and advocating for ‘national policies’ to survive the crisis but with a caution – don’t allow the Left forces, the commies, to take advantage of the situation.

Credit expansion and the subsequent credit crunch is the prime reason behind the current turmoil in financial markets. By creating new and additional money, the American banking system started lending out at artificially low interest rates to borrowers whose ability to repay the loans were in doubt. This process has distorted the spending pattern of the society as a whole and in turn led to a large scale waste of capital. To understand the current financial crisis we have to go to America – the paradise of capitalism, from where the crisis originated.

After the stock market crash and the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 1999-2000, American economy ran into a recession and caused a global slowdown in the following year. In June 2003, in an effort to stimulate the present economy and to avoid deflationary consequences of the previous poor years of economic performance, the United States Federal Reserve cut interest rates to a 45 year low, all the way down to slight more than 1 per cent. Taking advantage of the low interest rate, American banks started to borrow billions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and then spread the funds in the credit system, primarily in the mortgages market, providing easy housing loans. Banking business became simple: borrow at a lower rate from the Federal Reserve and lend at a higher rate to creditors. The effect of this additional money flow with minimal interest rates helped the American economy to recover momentarily but at the same time was silently encouraging another bubble – this time in the housing sector.

After been aggressively provoked by banks and financial institutions with attractive credit terms, millions of middle class Americans, who in a normal state of affair could not afford or even think of borrowing, started to take out huge amount of credit money to realize their ‘American dream’. The estimate of United States Federal Reserve shows that, in 2005 homeowners extracted $750 billion from equity of their homes (up from $106 billion in 1996), spending two thirds of it on personal consumption, home improvements, and credit card debt. Through housing loans (mortgages), a solid flow of large scale capital investment poured into the housing market. As a consequence of this loose money policy, the housing sector boomed.

Purchase of housing property by massive borrowing was not necessarily done to live in but as an investment venture to cash-in from the rising real estate market. Expectations was that the purchased property could be re-sold with higher profits in future. A largely fabricated demand based on speculation of greater profits created a euphoria among common people. The increased money flow had also temporarily helped the stock markets to stabilize and grow. Its rising index boosted the financial wealth of many upper and middle class households, made them feel richer. In addition, consumer loans (credit cards) provided them the necessary fodder to fly into rampant consumerism with easy available credit money and drove them into the labyrinth of greater borrowing and spending.

Home prices were rising and most people seemed to prosper as long as the new and additional money kept pouring into the housing market at an accelerating rate. But the ecstasy didn’t last longer. From 2004 to the first half of 2006, to prevent the inflationary consequences of its policy, the Federal Reserve began to gradually normalize interest rates. Borrowing became costlier now and as a result the additional money flow in housing market started to decelerate. The housing boom was not founded on a real demand for housing and the drastic price rise of property was far beyond its real value. Growing unemployment and slow down of the economic growth rate of American economy exacerbated the situation towards a crisis.

The demand for houses started to drop fast. Suddenly there were only sellers and no buyers left in the housing market. As a consequence, the real estate value started to fall – up to 30 per cent in some areas effecting 12 million households. Owners were left with a mortgage debt higher than the value of the property. Many creditors turned into credit defaulters as they cannot afford to pay back the amount higher than what they borrowed. At this instant, the police on behalf of the multi-billion-dollar banks and mortgage industries, started to carry out mortgage foreclosure eviction, throwing out millions of American families, landlord and tenant both, from their homes.

Banks and financial institutes lost billions of dollars due to vast amount of outstanding mortgage debt. Over $5 trillion in total market capitalization has been evaporated into air. With empty coffers, banks cannot lend anymore now. They no longer could borrow cheap money from the Federal Reserve for their survival and started declaring bankruptcy. A reduction in the supply of loanable funds and an increase in the demand for more loans created a unique situation that is described as ‘credit crunch’. Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve boss has called the crisis that happens once in a century. In August 2007 the United States treasury department announced the housing bubble as "the most significant risk to our economy.”

This ‘most significant risk’ is derived from a basic contradiction of the capitalist economic system. With its fantastic productive capacity, capitalism generates overproduction that exceeds the population's consuming capacity. Long before, Karl Marx had defined capital as “dead labor”, which is “vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.” Capitalism is basically built on wage exploitation where the wage earners can never earn adequate money to buy back their own produce. Uneven distribution of wealth leads to social inequalities and limits the purchasing power of common people.

The effect of the present turmoil is similar to all periodic boom-bust cycles of capitalist economy where credit expansion in the financial market creates an expanded but fabricated demand for a particular sector and most of the additional capital funds created by the credit expansion are also invested in the same sector. It temporarily raise wages and the prices of raw materials. Buying and selling sharply increases paralleling with the rise in asset prices. But at the same time money gets cheaper, loses its buying power and leads the economy towards inflation. Once the system slows down, stock markets decline due to a reduction in the money flow and assets available to fund business activities.

Business houses badly needs available fund to repay their debts. But now they can neither borrow from banks anymore as a consequence of the credit crunch. Nor can they raise funds by liquidating the securities they hold as share prices have fallen. They try to accumulate funds from their last option – the option of reducing expenditures or cost-cutting. Pink slips are handed over to workers and staff members; cost-cutting in production and sales activity reduces revenues. It subsequently diminish profits and their ability to repay their debts reduces further. Of course no one expects them to spend from the enormous surplus accumulated in their private vaults to stimulate the crisis. Thus, when the value and quantity of money reduces, it results in more bankruptcies.

For the moment, India has remained partly immune to the high magnitude global financial crises because the Indian financial sector has remained somewhat regulated and less liberalized compared to most capitalist economies. But there is nothing to rejoice as the worst is yet to come. We can be assured that if situation ‘demands’, the Government of India will also not hesitate to use taxpayer’s hard earned money to bail out business houses. In a capitalist economic system this merry-go-round of the unending ups and downs of boom and bust cannot be permanently eroded. Though capitalism is held up as the best model to emulate but far from being efficient, it has only promoted reckless speculation and greed. Time and again it has not only been proved to be a dangerous system to depend upon, the validity of the entire system is in danger today.

Over the past few years global economy has mainly been following and driven by the American neoliberal economic model. Developing countries like India is no exception as its political and apolitical bosses are trying hard to fit in with the international financial markets by emulating this model which they continue to believe as the best. Their apologists are bravely hoping that “in a few months capitalism will revive itself with some corrections because whatever its flaws, it remains the best way for countries and people to become rich and prosperous.” (Emphasis added) This is the true essence of capitalism – to become rich and prosperous, to become greedy. Capitalism is a vulgar system that teaches every individual that avarice, envy, gluttony and heartlessness are the essential attitudes to achieve self-progression.

The Indian upper and middle class have tasted blood. Who cares to look into the 2008 Global Hunger Index report which has exposed that 12 Indian states are suffering from ‘alarming’ levels of hunger? Who cares to know that more than 10 million children in India are malnourished and over 200 million people are insecure about their daily bread. They have learned to pretend that they ‘just doesn’t see’ and have devoted all their energy to be rich and prosperous. 33 to 50 per cent of the country's wealth is possessed by the top 10 per cent of India's population whereas an estimated 800 million of India's billion-plus people live on 50 US cents a day. Who cares to eradicate social inequalities and uneven wealth distribution? After all, what is the fun to be rich and prosperous if there are no poor around?

Remembering Che Guevara

On October 1967, the Bolivian army, assisted by the CIA agent Félix Rodríguez murdered Che Guevara in the remote Bolivian mountains. After the murder, they dismembered his two hands from the body and preserved them in formaldehyde. The reason was to maintain a CIA style proof for the disbelievers about his death. On 1997, thirty years later, in the Bolivian town of Vallegrande, a team of Cuban and Argentine scientists dug up a grave of seven skeletons. An olive army jacket shrouded the scull of “Skeleton No. 2,” which was lying face down without the hands. Watched by the silent crowd of journalists and local folks, a Cuban member of the team bowed his head in respect and removed the olive jacket. Several Cuban scientists broke down in sobs. Patricia Bernardi, one of the three Argentine forensic anthropologists on the excavation team clarified, "Everyone was overcome with emotion, not just the Cubans. Che was such a mythic figure.” (Ref: Newsweek July 21, 1997, p.17-23) His remains returned to Cuba and finally lay to rest at Santa Clara, the legendary city where Che had won the decisive battle of the Cuban Revolution.

In the recent years, the consumer culture has on purpose transformed Che as its dearest icon, an icon of rebellion. This trend has aggravated from the eve of the 30th anniversary of his death in the nineties. The Walter Salles directed film The Motorcycle Diaries released in 2004 and based on the young Guevara’s early travels through Latin America received a lot of media hype. The original book, also a surprised hit, sold very well in America and Europe. This year a nearly four-and-a-half-hour long epic film directed by Steven Soderbergh on Che, was premièred at Cannes in May and expected to be another hit as the film, according to media reports, stresses his last days in Bolivia and also is prominently featuring Che’s comrade in arms Tania. Che merchandizes has flooded the markets of Northern America and Western Europe with Che branded T-shirts, posters, cigars, cigarettes, coffee mugs, baseball caps, wristwatches and liquor bottle labels. It is paradoxical that after murdering Che, America transformed him to a profit-earning commodity.

Mandela, Moloise, Nicaragua and our days of innocence

Nelson Mandela was behind the bars in Robben Islands. There was a huge march in Kolkata demanding his release. Thousands were marching on the streets, hand on hand, carrying placards and banners, chanting anti-apartheid songs. At the front, leading the march was veteran and young communist party leaders and prominent intellectuals. The mood was upbeat. Nelson Mandela must be free at any cause. ‘Free Mandela’, ‘Down with Botha regime’, ‘Down with American Imperialism’, the marchers were roaring. Each of them were finding known and unknown faces everywhere and feeling a special bondage with them. The cause had nothing to do with the daily tribulations of the Kolkata folks but the spirit to reveal solidarity with a victim of discrimination, was enough for them to be a part in the protest. Soon, Mandela will be free on 11 February 1990. He will be elected the first Black President of South Africa on May 1994.

The stupid American

Average Americans are stupid. This common phrase has been floating among the residual relatives of the non resident Indian community for a long period of time. That’s the reason our children are doing so well there, that’s the reason our children are on high demand there, they say.

This reasoning itself sounds stupid. As if the Indians are a brainy super breed consigned to improve and manage the lives of their idiot counterparts and in exchange the Americans are feeding them with hefty pay packages, assigning them to run the economy on their behalf. According to them, the source of revenue of the non resident Indians is the American stupidity. Therefore India as a country must delightfully provide the necessary fodder to develop its generation next for their future mission and as a return they will pump back dollars to enrich the foreign currency reserves of the Indian state.