Showing posts with label media lies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media lies. Show all posts

Saturday, March 06, 2010

The Bogus Hispanic Crime Wave

This is especially salient for San Jose, where the po-po have racked up a
wildly disproportionate arrest rate for young Latino males. They're not
racist, though - at least that's what they keep telling me.--Pete

Counterpunch Diary

Nothing more easily elicits roars of assent across a good slice of the
political spectrum than the hoarse alarums that wave after wave of
brown-skinned illegals continually flood across the border, plunging
neighborhoods and whole cities into an inferno of crime, over-whelming
cops and prosecutors, clogging the justice system, cramming the prisons.
Lou Dobbs is pondering a political run powered by a thousand pop-eyed
commentaries catering to this fear. "A third of the prison population in
this country is estimated to be illegal aliens," he shouts. Glenn Beck
screams about "an illegal alien crime wave." The panic is by no means
confined to the nutball right. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia, launching his
commendable plan for a National Criminal Justice Commission last year,
invoked the specter of organized Mexican gangs that supposedly threaten
"hundreds" of American cities. "There are an estimated 1 million gang
members in the United States, many of them foreign-based," Webb wrote.
"Every American neighborhood is vulnerable. Gangs commit 80% of the crime
in some locations. Mexican cartels, which are military-capable, have
operations in 230+ U.S. cities."
It's all nonsense. There's no crime wave swollen by brown gangbangers to
city-destroying proportions. If you want a lucid walk through the data you
can turn to … The American Conservative, whose March issue features a
cover story by the magazine's publisher, Ron Unz. There's a photo of a
tattooed gangbanger, and the title -"HisPANIC," then the subtitle: "The
Myth of Immigrant Crime."
Yes, this is the magazine co-founded by Pat Buchanan, whose physical form
I last clapped eyes on at the Republican convention in the Houston
Astrodome in 1992, roaring to a climactic fist-shake against the black and
brown hordes who had recently rioted in Los Angeles: "We must take back
our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country!"
Unz comes to statistical analysis of populations and crime data with
decent credentials—he majored in theoretical physics at Harvard, then went
on to physics graduate study at Cambridge and Stanford before swerving
into very successful software work on Wall Street and now a busy life in
Silicon Valley, fostering ideas on both sides of the political aisle. I
should add that I count him as a discriminating friend, supportive of left
ventures such as CounterPunch as well as The American Conservative, whose
tiller he took over in 2007.
At the heart of Unz's essay is the matter of age-weighting. Most serious
crime is committed by young males, especially those between 18 and 29.
Now, the age distribution of Hispanics and whites in the overall
population is markedly different. The median age for Hispanics is around
27; for whites it's above 40. But to get useful comparisons you need to
look at the relative criminality of Hispanics and whites of the same age;
you need to sift out immigration-related offenses (more than half of all
federal prosecutions) from state-prosecuted crimes such as robbery, rape,
murder, burglary, assault and theft; you need to review comparative data
state by state, since there are very significant regional differences in
the way justice systems are administered, hence significant variations in
incarceration rates.
Unz's bottom line: "Hispanics have approximately the same crime rates as
whites of the same age." Since poverty and crime have an intimate
connection, and since America's Hispanics are advancing economically, the
Hispanic crime rate will most likely drop more. An important further
point: Unz uses Census figures for all the states, with a total estimate
in 2008 of around 45 million Hispanics. But there's a widespread view that
illegal immigrants are significantly undercounted. So if there are, as
some "brown tide" scaremongers allege, 25 million unreported Hispanic
illegals above Census numbers, then the true Hispanic crime rate is 35
percent lower than Unz estimates. Almost beyond the shadow of a doubt,
white crime rates nationwide are significantly higher than Hispanic ones.
Senator Webb needs to refocus his Threat Assessment.
But what about Los Angeles, allegedly the dystopian HQ of immigrant crime,
half Hispanic in population, many of them poor and illegal? All crime
rates in LA, Unz explains, have been dropping for two decades. Homicides
plunged 18 percent last year. Violent crime is roughly the same in LA as
in Portland, Oregon, the whitest major city in America, the same as it was
in the lily-white LA of the early 1960s. But the gangs? Ah, yes. You see,
the feds dole out hundreds of millions each year for gang prevention. Pay
a city to find a gang problem and the city will oblige.
Unz had a question for me: "Pro-immigrant advocacy organizations spend
hundreds of millions of dollars each year in this exact subject area. So
if my theories were correct or even just remotely plausible, wouldn't such
a vast army of paid researchers have long since discovered the same
evidence and blasted it out to the four corners of the earth via a very
supportive mainstream media?"
My answer: remember that mainstream NGO liberalism—starting with
Rockefeller and particularly saturating every environmental foundation—is
built on the bedrock of demographic panic about the pullulating poor,
particularly the brown and black and yellow hordes. Every billionaire
setting up his foundation almost invariably has population control in his
mandate. Shoulder to shoulder with hysteria about immigrant crime waves
rides fear of the fecund darker races. So I think we can surmise an
instinctive racist bias among foundation liberals, their likely belief
that Hispanics do commit more crimes and hence their desire to steer clear
of all data that they fear might ratify this instinct.
Now, among the names that cause Nation columnist Katha Pollitt to twitch
with reflexive irritation, the name Cockburn can most certainly be
included. Hardly had I published Unz's conclusions in the Nation magazine
than Pollitt dashed to her laptop to pound a peeved commentary.
It's "annoying," she snapped, "when conservatives take credit for work
liberals have been doing for much longer and far more seriously. It's even
more irritating when a leftist [that's AC] is so eager to bash liberals,
he joins the parade."
Then Pollitt listed a number of papers from the liberal end of the
spectrum on the topic of Hispanics and crime, plus some testy comments
from academics working in this field, claiming that Unz was reinventing
the wheel and that what the American Conservative was trumpeting on its
cover was old news, known to all, or at least to liberal communicators
such as Pollitt, though not Cockburn, all too eager to take yet another
whack at the pwogs.
The trouble is that Katha--to judge from this piece at least--doesn't
actually know anything about the topic of Hispanic crime, therefore
doesn't know what's widely known, what's not widely known, and what's
completely mistaken. Even the very limited research she references is on
the topic of "immigrant Hispanic crime" not "overall Hispanic crime," and
these studies are sometimes are highly misleading for that reason. For
example Katha quotes Rubén Rumbaut at UC Irvine as saying patronizingly on
the phone to her that "I'm amused by [Unz's] 'discovery' of something I've
been writing about since the last millennium." She encourages Nation
readers to peruse a 2007 paper by Rumbaut. Actually, this paper
claims--wrongly--that Mexican crime rates skyrocket 700 per cent in the
generation after immigration. According to a Rumbaut chart, American-born
Hispanics are 250 percent more likely to be imprisoned than American-born
whites--a result which would be grim news for America's future if it were
correct. Here's a link.. Scroll down a bit to Figure 3, and Nation readers
can discover where Tom Tancredo may have got his ideas about Latino crime
rates.
But Katha seems to have been in too much of a hurry even to look at the
studies she cited as proof that "everyone already knew" exactly the
opposite of what the studies actually claimed. Similarly, she cites
Harvard's Robert J. Sampson as having had an op-ed in the New York Times a
few years back, arguing that immigrant Hispanics had low crime rates. But
this column didn't say anything about the much larger number of
native-born Hispanics, a very different question.
Pollitt's derision--buttressed by a couple of academics (not a breed
renowned for intellectual generosity) about the supposed lack of
originality of Unz's piece--is misplaced. As Unz points out, no one
previously explored the age-adjustment or cross-correlation methods, even
in the academic literature.
Let's go to the all important general point: just how well known are the
facts about Hispanics and crime? Anecdotally, I should say that my report
on Unz's TAC piece, scrutinized by a few Nation editors—presumably well
informed on social issues --did not elicit the swift rebuke that I was
flogging a dead horse.
It's true that some academic specialists have generally been aware that
Latinos didn't have especially high crime rates (though as far as I know
nobody's previously used Unz's particular methodologies to make the point
directly and quantitatively.) Even the volume of academic literature seems
extremely scant, relative to the magnitude of the subject involved. Over
the last decade, there have been a couple of books by Ramiro Martinez
dealing with the subject, and a relatively small number of journal
articles, few of which are very direct or explicit. But there's a huge
difference between academic specialists being generally aware of this, and
perhaps occasionally communicating their results to other academic
specialists via turgid journal articles and books, and this information
getting out to a wider public audience.
As a Nation reader responded crisply to Pollitt: "You are wrong to
suggest that a few articles here and there have successfully debunked the
Latino crime wave myth. They have not done anything of the kind except
perhaps through those few who read the articles. The myth is still
pervasive not only because of the blatant racists out there but because it
has not effectively been debunked in academia and the media. ..Outside of
your rarefied circles, their are many, many people who believe Latinos are
the worse criminals in our society and they will continue to do so until
as long as racism comes down from the wealthiest layers of society. That
is what you should be reporting on rather than telling us that we all know
Latins aren't all criminals because someone, somewhere wrote in some
obscure article that they aren't. Please come down out of your ivory tower
and learn what racist viewpoints the average person has and why they have
such viewpoints.
"As far as I can tell," Unz says, "there's been virtually no effort to get
the information out to a wider audience. I'm pretty sure I've almost never
seen anything mentioned in any of the six newspapers I've read daily for
the last 15 years, or in any of the numerous opinion magazines to which I
subscribe. If you go on the websites of the major liberal
pro-immigrant/pro-Hispanic public advocacy organizations ranging from the
National Immigration Forum to La Raza you'll find almost no mention of
this claim anywhere, let alone any study or report highlighting it. If you
try using Google, you'll find very, very little that suggests otherwise.
"In fact, one of the very few individuals who's directly specialized in
this field is Ramiro Martinez, cited by Ms. Pollitt, who's written almost
the only books directly on the topic of Hispanic crime. I sent him a copy
of my article, which he said he liked, and we traded several notes. He
actually agreed with me how unfortunate it was that so little of the
public had been informed of these important facts. My claim is certainly
not that the academic specialists have been deluded, but simply that they,
and the organizations sponsoring them, have done an extremely poor job of
communicating their findings to the general public."
Katha cites Sampson's op-ed in the NYT, addressing crime rates of
immigrant Hispanics. Meanwhile, there have been a large number of major
NYT news stories focusing on murderous Latino gangs, Latino prison
inmates, and Latino social pathologies which have provided exactly the
opposite impression, let alone what's daily on Rush Limbaugh, Fox News,
and similar media outlets. Given how much money Ford, Soros, et al.,
spend, maybe during all these years they could have issued one study or
report entitled "Hispanic Crime Rates" arguing that Hispanics have
approximately the same crime rates as whites, and sent it out with a big
press release.
There are at least about 50 million Hispanics in America, and they're
projected to become 25 percent of the total national population. Whether
they have high crime rates or low crime rates is a huge issue for the
future of America, and a very large fraction of the public wrongly
believes they have high crime rates. As Unz wrote to me, "All my article
really does is prove that rocks fall downward--but that may still be a
huge revelation to lots of people. I'd be very curious if Ms. Pollitt can
find any sentence in any article which she's ever written or which The
Nation has ever published by someone else saying something like 'Hispanics
seem to have approximately the same crime rates as whites of the same
age.'"
Probably naívely, I thought it encouraging that a magazine founded by Pat
Buchanan should devote its March cover and a substantial number of pages
to a persuasive assault on right-wing hysteria about the supposedly
astronomic crime rates of Hispanics in America. But aside from my own
piece – I think the first commentary on Unz's work – The American
Conservative's cover story raised no interest on the left. However,
reaction across the larger political spectrum reaction on the right
swiftly gave the lie to Pollitt's claim that this was all stale news.
Slate listed Unz's piece as "one of the top pieces of the day, saying "Ron
Unz takes on, and takes down, one of the far-right's most cherished
doctrines". Tyler Cowen, New York Times economics columnist, called it
"An excellent article, full of good information." Heather Horn, announced
on the The Atlantic Monthly/Atlantic Wire that "Unz debunks the high
Hispanic crime rate myth...the piece requires a full reading."
Over at the libertarian Reason Magazine Rodney Balko called it "One of
the more courageous endeavors I've seen from a political magazine in a
long time." USA Today called attention to it.
The Ron Paul movement, fresh from its remarkable victory in the CPAC
presidential straw poll, was quite supportive. Not only did the Ron Paul
News website prominently highlight Unz's article and mention it in a
twitter feed to their supporters, but LewRockwell.com, a popular website
closely associated with Ron Paul, republished large excerpts of the piece,
and followed it up with several blog items focusing on the ongoing debate
surrounding the piece . A couple of the leading anti-Immigrationist
publications struck back with lengthy and detailed critiques.
Unz responded to these with specific rebuttals published on the TAC
website, where his original article can be found.

--

Saturday, January 31, 2009

AlterNet: Just How Fucked Up Is the Discourse Surrounding Israel and Palestine?


By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/123580/

OK, here are three facts that I think say a lot about how screwy the discourse over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really is ...

1. There is a group of regular AlterNet readers and commenters who, based on my writing about the conflict -- and my own meanderings through the comments boards -- have concluded that I'm a Zionist shill, a stooge of American Israel Public Affairs Committee, who will reflexively defend Israel right or wrong. They see in me a monster without a drop of human empathy for the suffering of the Palestinians. They've accused me of silencing any criticism of Israel by calling those who dare to "speak truth to power" anti-Semites.

They believe this to be true, deep down in their heart of hearts.

2. There is another group of regular AlterNet readers and commenters who, based on the very same body of writing, about the very same conflict, have concluded that I am a vicious anti-Semite bent on nothing short of the annihilation of the Jews. Some, perhaps guessing at my heritage because of my surname, suggest that I am a self-loathing Jew, working out some deep psychological issues by calling for Israeli blood to flow freely on the streets. They accuse me of spewing eliminationist rhetoric and see me as being immune to the horrors of terrorism perpetrated against innocents. They see me as a "useful idiot" for a global Islamo-fascist movement.

This, they believe in their heart of hearts.

3. I am, in fact, neither pro-Palestinian* nor pro-Israeli per se; I have a background in security studies and international conflict resolution, and I have a strong belief in international law and a universalist view of human rights. I believe that both Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have the desire and the right to live in peace and that a majority within both groups (or a plurality when the conflict heats up) want little more and find the rejectionists on both sides odious and deserving of blame for the continuation of the bloodshed.

In other words, neither of these groups of readers' impressions -- perfectly divergent -- comes anywhere within miles of my actual views (which I've written about at length).

And that's the point of this post -- just a little anecdote suggesting how hard it is to solve a bloody, decades-long, incredibly tragic conflict dominated by ideologues who just hear what they want to hear.

* Obviously, in the context of our ridiculously binary, pathetically oversimplified discourse around Israel and Palestine, I can rightly be considered "pro-Palestinian."


Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/123580/

Sunday, January 11, 2009

U.S.-backed Israeli massacre in Gaza, continued...

The latest numbers from Gaza put further truth to the lies told not only by the corporate defense contractor-owned media outlets but even by our Democratic representatives in the Senate and the House, like Reid and Pelosi.

885 dead and over 3400 wounded. 85% of the dead and injured are civilians, almost one third of them are children.

There is increasing evidence of the use by the Israeli military of white phosphorus, a substance that burns human flesh to the bone and is considered illegal internationally and its use a war crime. Hospitals are reporting more and more deep burns which cannot even be cleaned and dressed for lack of gauze, which tends to burn when in contact with residual phosphorus anyway.

For those who continue to parrot the party line calling this massacre retaliation for the missile attacks by Hamas into southern Israel, be advised that until 2 weeks ago, a total of 17 Israeli civilians had been killed by those rockets. The number of Palestinian civilian deaths due to Israeli rocket fire runs well into the thousands. While the violence on both sides needs to be quashed, rest assured that the Hamas government is well within their right of resistance to retaliate for the year-long Israeli blockade of food, medical supplies, energy and water into Gaza. The murderous apartheid government of Israel is indeed the aggressor.

Guerrilla warfare, called terrorism by powerful in order to further vilify their enemies, is always necessary when resisting violent occupation of wildly disproportionate military might. If this be terrorism, what then to call the collective punishment being so horribly meted out by the Israeli military for home-made rocket launches? The notion of the right to defend the citizenry runs both ways, does it not?

It is interesting to note that this obvious holocaust of ethnic cleansing is being carried out by Israel, who should know better the pain of such attempts at genocide.

Pete

Friday, January 02, 2009

Are All Americans Guilty?

Paul Craig Roberts: Whatever Happened to Western Morality?

On the last day of the old year in CounterPunch, two Israelis, Jeff Halper who heads the Israeli peace movement ICAHD and Neve Gordon who is chairman of the department of politics and government at Ben-Gurion University, asked, “Where’s the Academic Outrage Over the Bombing of a University in Gaza?”

“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,” report Halper and Gordon. They note that Columbia University president Lee C. Bollinger, who has in the past ignorantly insulted Islamic representatives, “has been silent.”

It is the goyim moralists who are silent, not the Jews. It is the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, not the goyim media, that provides reports of Israel’s abuse of Palestinians. Gideon Levy’s “The Neighborhood Bully Strikes Again” was published in Haaretz (29 December), not in the goyim press. Levy’s words--“Once again, Israel’s violent responses, even if there is justification for them, exceed all proportion and cross every red line of humaneness, morality, international law and wisdom”--are not words that can appear in American print or TV media. Such words, printed in Israeli newspapers, never reach the goyim.

The extent of Americans’ ignorance is breathtaking. Israel has the Palestinians jammed into tightly controlled ghettos known as Gaza and the West Bank. With Egypt’s help, Israel controls the inflows of food, medicines, water, and energy into Gaza. Palestinians in Gaza are not permitted to enter Israel or Egypt. Last week a humanitarian ship bringing food and medicine was rammed by Israeli gunboats and turned away.

In the West Bank Palestinians are walled off from their fields, jobs, medical care, education, water, and from one another by endless checkpoints, roads for “Jews only,” walls, barbed wire, and machine gun towers. Palestinians are being evicted from their towns house by house, block by block.

Israel’s slow theft of Palestine is illegal under international law but protected by US “diplomacy.”

The Palestinians are no more of a threat to Israel than Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto were a threat to the Nazi state. Yet, everywhere in America--Congress, the executive branch, the print and TV media, the universities, evangelical Christian institutions--there is the belief that Israel is on the verge of annihilation by Palestinian terrorists. This ignorance, so carefully cultivated by the Israel Lobby, turns genocidal aggression into self-defense.

It fools Americans, but it doesn’t fool Israelis. The Israelis have always known that “self-defense” is a cloak for a Zionist policy of territorial expansion. The policy is controversial within Israel. Many Israelis object, just as many Americans object to President Bush’s illegal wars and violations of US civil liberties. Many Israelis give voice to their moral conscience, but they are overwhelmed by vested interests.

Karl Marx declared morality to be merely a mask for vested interests. The writings of Marx and Engels are scornful of good will and moral ideals as effective forces in history. The Israeli state epitomizes Marx’s doctrine that power alone is the effective force.

Many American conservatives share the Israeli state’s belief in the efficacy of power. Conservatives who turned against Bush’s wars did so because the US was not brutal enough. They turned away from Bush’s long inconclusive wars in the way that fans desert a losing team.

Americans used to say that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” but this hasn’t been the case for US and Israeli aggression. The success the two regimes have had in instilling fear into their populations is part of the explanation for the impotence of morality. Another part of the explanation is that vested interests are a powerful constraint on morality.

Consider the case of Lee Bollinger. Columbia University is dependent on Jewish money, faculty and students. If Bollinger were to take a stand against Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians, he would be denounced as an anti-semite. Presidents of competitor universities would not come to his defense. They would pile on in hopes of recruiting Columbia’s top faculty and students and redirecting the flow of financial resources from Columbia to themselves.

An American newspaper or TV network that took a stand against Israel’s abuse of Palestinians would be confronted with an advertising boycott organized by AIPAC. American politicians who criticize Israel go down to defeat by Israel Lobby money.

Hegel gave too much emphasis to ideas, Marx too much to material interests. Both forces operate in the world. There are times in history when revolutionary ideas shatter material interests. Other times the two coexist in a balance of power. In other times material interests prevail over morality.

We are living in the latter time. Financial interests, the military-security complex, and the Israel Lobby are the powers that rule America. They are buttressed by neoconservatives and Christian Zionists and by the patriotic hubris that America is the main force for good operating in the world. The evils America commits are dismissed as necessary to the service of good. The destruction of Iraq, for example, is justified as “bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.”

A number of commentators, including myself, predict a decline in America’s economic power. As this occurs, Israel will have to abandon its policy of violence. With the accumulated hatred that its policies have fomented, Israel will be vulnerable.

The world will need to remember that although Israel is a Jewish state, it is a state whose policies many Jews find objectionable, just as a majority of American Jews oppose President Bush’s wars of aggression in the Middle East and his unconstitutional policies at home. We must not confuse Israel’s Zionist government with world Jewry, just as we must not confuse the American people with the war criminals in the Bush Regime.

Consider, who do you trust with your civil liberties, the US Department of Justice or the ACLU’s phalanx of Jewish attorneys?

We must avoid the mistake that was made by blaming the German people for Hitler. It was the aristocratic German military that tried to remove Hitler. In contrast, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi blocked the attempt to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. Pelosi is a discredit to California, but shall we blame all of America for Pelosi’s defense of war criminals? How can we do so when US Rep. Dennis Kucinich courageously read out the articles of impeachment on the House floor?

Are all Americans guilty because Kucinich did not prevail?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

What is Hamas, Really?

A Beginner's Guide
By Ron Jacobs, Counterpunch

Since it became clear that the intention of Israel's latest military assault on Gaza is to destroy Hamas, various newspapers in the US have printed opinion pieces echoing the Washington line that it is Hamas' fault that Gaza is being pummeled by Israeli warplanes. Now, there may be some things one can blame Hamas for, but firing missiles at people and buildings in Gaza from Israeli warplanes is not one of them. It has been the desire of Tel Aviv and Washington to eradicate Hamas as a political force for a long time. The military Israeli assault currently going on is but the latest installment in fulfilling that desire.

Just prior to the assault there was a Israeli-enforced blockade on Gaza. This blockade prevented necessary goods from reaching the people living there. There was also an Israeli incursion in November that was the culmination of a series of border clashes between Israel and Palestinian gunmen. These clashes resulted in the deaths of at least 16 Palestinians. Of course, these occurrences were but a continuation of the low-intensity conflict between Hamas and Israel that in themselves are but a part of the conflict between Israel and Palestine that has continued since 1948. Hamas is but the most recent organization to represent the militant wing of the Palestinian resistance and, therefore be at the receiving end of Israel's most violent responses. At this point in history if Hamas did not resist, there would be no resistance to Tel Aviv's plans to render the Palestinians completely irrelevant in their own land. Most Palestinians understand this and are understandably angry at the current campaign in Gaza, no matter which political faction has their allegiance.

Despite the constant presence of Hamas in the news of the western world, most people reading that news know very little about the group. Back in 2006 journalist Khaled Hroub wrote a clear, concise and informative guide to Hamas. Simply titled Hamas: A Beginner's Guide the author utilizes a question and answer format to explain the politics and tactics of Hamas, their relationship to and with other Palestinian organizations, Israel and the rest of the world Hroub, a Palestinian supporter of a secular and independent Palestinian state, also examines the role of religion in Hamas' internal and external politics, as well as the group's opinion of democracy and theocracy.

The picture presented in these pages is certain to hold some surprises for its English readers. Having been fed anti-Palestinian propaganda for years, the Hamas described here is of a group that understands its religious desires are not what garnered it enough support to win the aforementioned elections. Although Hroub never denies that there are those in Hamas that would like to impose an Islamic state in a free Palestine, his text proves that this is but one element of the Hams organization. Indeed, the organization described in these pages is an organization that listens to its members and, even more importantly, listens to those it wants to represent -- the Palestinian people. Given this, Hamas proves to be a surprisingly democratic organization with a degree of political understanding rarely attributed to an Arab or Muslim organization. It is Hroub's contention that the results of the January 2005 election that gave Hamas a solid majority not only substantiates Hamas' claim that their positions on the essentially dead Oslo Agreements and the Israeli occupation of Palestine are the predominant positions of the Palestinian people, the aftermath of their victory has also shown that Hamas understands that it is its role as an agent of national liberation (and not its religious agenda) that has the support of the Palestinian majority. In the same way that the Israeli failure to defeat Hezbollah in Lebanon, the current assault will most likely only strengthen this support should Hamas merely remain intact as an organization once the attacks are over.

As the attack continues in Gaza one wonders if Hamas will respond with a campaign that includes suicide bombings. These grisly news events are examined in Hamas: A Beginner's Guide. Hroub traces their beginnings to the 1994 massacre of Muslim worshipers by Baruch Goldstein in a Hebron mosque. While acknowledging that suicide attacks have cost the Palestinian movement dearly in some quarters of the world, Hroub explains (without endorsing) the Hamas position on these attacks as tactically necessary. At the same time, he notes that Hamas targets only Israeli citizens and soldiers in the Territories and Israel itself. Although this may not be much solace to the western reader, the fact is, as Hroub tries to make clear throughout the book, Hamas considers the Israelis and Palestinians to be in a state of war. Consequently, the tactics of war are what rules Hamas' military actions.

The intention of Hamas: A Beginner's Guide is not to gloss over the harsh realities of the Palestinian struggle for freedom. Nor is it the book's intention to portray Hamas -- an important part of that struggle -- as a group without imperfections that sometimes engages in reprehensible tactics. This book will certainly not satisfy those whose notion of Hamas is framed solely by the US and Israeli characterization of the group as terrorists. However, for the average reader interested in trying to understand the group's motivations, philosophy, and plans, Hamas: A Beginner's Guide is an essential starting point. Furthermore, it might allow those an understanding as to why Israel's expressed hope to eradicate Hamas and bargain with the Palestinian Authority for a Tel Aviv-Washington imposed peace will most likely fail. Bare of propaganda either for or against the group, this text is the most fair-minded and balanced piece of literature on Hamas in the English language.

Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net

Monday, December 29, 2008

Just a note regarding corporate media's assertion of Israeli retaliation for Hamas rocket attacks...

...over the last seven years only 17 Israeli citizens have been killed by Palestinian rocket fire, which makes it extremely difficult for Israeli politicians, which are in the midst of an election, to argue that their response has been proportionate or defensible in any way.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Israel attack on Gaza: Fragile peace shattered again

The young Palestinian cadets who gathered in Gaza City’s police headquarters on Saturday would have been buzzing with excitement as they prepared for their passing out ceremony.
Gaza attacks: bodies outside Hamas police HQ
A Palestinian cradles the body of a Hamas policeman as others look for survivors outside the Hamas police headquarters following the Israeli air strike on Gaza City.

Proud mothers and fathers would have been invited to the parade, where the salute was to be taken by Major-General Tawfiq Jaber, the commander of the police force in the Gaza Strip, which has been controlled by the militant Islamist movement, Hamas, since June 2007.

What nobody on the ground knew was that, just as the band played and the cadets formed up to march past Gen Jaber, they were in the cross-hairs of the Israeli air force.

It is not yet known if the gathering was hit by a guided missile or, as is more likely, a laser-guided bomb. What is certain is that a huge explosion ripped through the scene, killing at least 40 people, including the General.

Within minutes fifty sites, all Hamas police and security force facilities located from Rafah in the south to Gaza City in the north, were attacked by 60 jet fighters. Saturday is a normal working day in Gaza and all these buildings were occupied.

Plumes of thick black smoke rose into the grey winter sky the length and breadth of the Strip as the first wave of Israeli air strikes took place.

F-16 jets were heard overhead, along with the clatter of helicopter gunships and the whine of engines from unmanned drones.

At ground level, the air was filled the sound of ambulance sirens and the wailing of relatives gathered at Gaza’s numerous mortuaries, places that have seen plenty of carnage-fuelled grief over the years.

Once the smoke and dust cleared at the police headquarters, rescuers gingerly began searching the scene for signs of life. There were few.

Most of the fatalities appeared to be in uniform, although it is probable civilians were killed in the police compound.

With Israel restricting the entry of foreign reporters to Gaza, authoritative accounts of what happened came from local sources. The Telegraph’s fixer in Gaza went into mourning after losing a cousin in the attack.

A local television cameraman filmed uniformed bodies piled up on top of each other as all around the wounded writhed in pain.

Rescuers carried those showing signs of life to cars and ambulances, while others tried to revive the unconscious. Several of the rescuers beat their heads and shouted: "Allahu akbar (God is greatest)." One badly wounded, prostrate man quietly recited verses from the Koran.

Islam Shahwan, the Hamas police spokesman, gave the death toll at the police headquarters as at least forty. This was the most prominent target of Israel’s most punishing assault on the Gaza Strip since the end of the Second Intifada in 2004.

The Israeli government gave the green light for the military operation at a meeting of the National Security Cabinet on Christmas Day. The NSC met to deliberate how to deal with the expiry of a six-month ceasefire between Israel and Hamas on Dec 19.

Hopes for a renewal of the truce had been scuppered by tit-for-tat exchanges that began when Israeli ground forces raided Gaza in November. Their aim was to close down a tunnel linking Gaza with neighbouring Egypt. Militants were preparing to use this to smuggle in rockets to launch at southern Israel.

That ground operation, during which three Palestinian fighters were killed, sealed the fate of the ceasefire. The militants began to fire rockets in large numbers at the towns of southern Israel for the first time in months, placing commanders under immediate pressure to respond.

Israel will hold a general election in February and politicians cannot appear anything but robust in dealing with the threat posed by rocket fire from Gaza.

After the NSC’s decision to authorise a military operation, the only question was what kind of attack would follow. Israel has used ground forces before, but this has never provided a lasting solution to the menace of the rockets launched from Gaza.

This time, Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, Ehud Barak, the defence minister, and other security chiefs decided on something quite different.

Instead of a ground offensive or pinprick air attacks, they would order a massive air assault on all known Hamas security targets. Hamas operatives did not fire all the rockets launched from Gaza - other militant groups such as the Islamic Jihad Party fired many. But Israel believes that Hamas, as the governing power in Gaza, could be held responsible and targeted accordingly.

The office of Ehud Olmert, Israel’s outgoing prime minister, issued a statement explaining that the "cabinet has tasked the prime minister, foreign minister and defense minister with deciding on the time and manner of the said action". this added: "Following a unanimous decision, the three have decided on the Israeli Air Force strike which took place this morning. Israel stresses that it will continue to take action against the terror attacks and rocket fire emanating form Gaza against Israeli citizens.’’

After the first round of air attacks, the Israeli air force sent up patrols to deal with the predicted wave of retaliatory rocket launches.

After the initial round of strikes, sources inside Gaza reported more explosions as the air force sought to destroy rocket-launching parties.

However, they failed to stop all the retaliation. Late in the morning, an Israeli man was killed by a rocket in the Israeli town of Netivot. He was the first Israeli to die as a result of Palestinian rocket attacks since June.

In total, nine Israelis have been killed by rockets launched from Gaza since 2005, when it withdrew from the territory and dismantled all settlements.

Yesterday alone saw over 200 Palestinian deaths.

Telegraph, U.K. story

Saturday, December 06, 2008

Community fights racist frame-up of city councilor

Published Dec 4, 2008

Boston’s African-American community of Roxbury and a broad coalition of supporters are standing strong with City Councilor Chuck Turner, who has come out fighting ever since his Nov. 21 arrest. The attack on Turner, who has been charged with extorting $1,000 and lying to the FBI, is viewed as part of a frame-up scheme to undermine the African-American community’s right to strong political representation. Turner won in the last election with more than 80 percent of the vote.


Hundreds support Chuck Turner at City Hall rally,
Nov. 24.
WW photo: Liz Green

At 6 a.m. on Nov. 21, seven armed FBI agents had gone to Turner’s front door, terrorizing his household. He was arrested an hour later at City Hall, where he was already beginning his work day, and taken in handcuffs to Worcester, 45 minutes from Boston.

At the first word of the arrest, activists and allies went into high gear. Rank-and-file union leaders from United Steel Workers Local 8751—the Boston School Bus Drivers—along with organizers from the International Action Center, Women’s Fightback Network, Restore Our Heat & Lights Campaign, the Boston Workers Alliance, the youth group FIST (Fight Imperialism, Stand Together) and other community groups came forward to mobilize solidarity, defend the Turner household and offer whatever assistance was necessary.

People’s lawyers Barry Wilson and John Pavlos were secured and political supporters gathered in Worcester. Turner left the court surrounded by 40 supporters holding up signs and chanting, “Chuck, Chuck, Chuck!” He immediately spoke out to the throng of media, proclaiming his innocence and condemning the FBI abuse as well as the attack on his constituents’ right to the representative of their choice.

Horrific attacks on Turner from the Boston media and all corners of the capitalist establishment have thrown the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” out the window. In an unprecedented action, City Council President Maureen Feeney stripped him of all his committee chair positions and called for a special session of the City Council to consider removing him.

On Nov. 24 Turner, along with 500 supporters, held a rally and news conference on the steps of City Hall to demand that Feeney call off the City Council hearing and restore him to his committee positions. Feeney had to cancel the session.

About 70 community and grassroots supporters, including a delegation of more than 35 rank-and-file members of Local 8751, participated in another news conference and rally at Turner’s district office in Roxbury on Nov. 26. Turner said: “The media has not produced one story on the fact that I am the only Boston city councilor who in the modern era has maintained an office in the community. There has not been one story around the fact that my campaign owes Terri [Turner’s spouse] and I $140,000 because of our investment of our own resources in the maintenance of the district office.”

A mass meeting is scheduled for Dec. 2, and a Solidarity Day rally for Dec. 9. Turner’s next court appearance is at 3 p.m. on Dec. 10 at the Moakley Federal Court House in Boston. Visit SupportChuckTurner.com for details.

Turner’s massive support is based on four decades of grassroots activism and community organizing. He fought for jobs through the Third World Jobs Clearinghouse and United Community Construction Workers. He was a founder of the Boston Workers Alliance, the only organization of unemployed workers in the state, which also fights for formerly incarcerated workers’ right to a job.

Turner has fought on every community and progressive issue, from immigrant rights to foreclosure and eviction blockades and against war. Recently he spearheaded a campaign to restore heat and lights to those whose utilities have been shut off.

The attack on Turner seeks to cut off the grassroots leadership necessary to bring about the change people are looking and hoping for.

U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts Michael Sullivan, who is prosecuting Turner as well as State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson (see Workers World, Nov. 13), is a notorious right-wing Republican whose specialty is politically motivated false prosecutions. He prosecuted the Plymouth 25—Native activists and allies who were the victims of a police riot against their peaceful demonstration on the National Day of Mourning (“Thanksgiving” Day) in 1997.

Turner’s case is part of a national campaign of racist, politically motivated prosecutions. These include the cases of: African-American Milwaukee Alderman Michael McGee, who was convicted in October based on similar FBI entrapment and trial by media; Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana, who was subjected to an unprecedented FBI raid of his congressional office and was forced out of his committee positions by Speaker Nancy Pelosi even before being indicted; and Rep. Cynthia McKinney, who was lambasted for defending herself from racist guards at the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

These are but the most recent chapters in a long history of racist political frame-ups and abuse by the FBI that goes back to the attacks on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, Adam Clayton Powell and Shirley Chisholm.

Robert Traynham of the International Action Center said: “Sullivan should be fired for politically motivated, racist frame-up prosecutions and abuse of the FBI. The FBI should cease and desist from its longstanding pattern of frame-ups and harassment of oppressed community leaders.”


Articles copyright 1995-2008 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Page printed from:
http://www.workers.org/2008/us/boston_1211/

Monday, September 01, 2008

BushCo's dangerous game of Russian Roullette

This Is London - Moscow has issued an extraordinary warning to the West that military assistance to Georgia for use against South Ossetia or Abkhazia would be viewed as a "declaration of war" by Russia.

The extreme rhetoric from the Kremlin's envoy to NATO came as President Dmitry Medvedev stressed he will make a military response to US missile defence installations in eastern Europe, sending new shudders across countries whose people were once blighted by the Iron Curtain.

And Moscow also emphasized it was closely monitoring what it claims is a build-up of NATO firepower in the Black Sea.

The incendiary warning on Western military involvement in Georgia - where NATO nations have long played a role in training and equipping the small state - came in an interview with Dmitry Rogozin, a former nationalist politician who is now ambassador to the North Atlantic Alliance.

"If NATO suddenly takes military actions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, acting solely in support of Tbilisi, this will mean a declaration of war on Russia," he stated.

Yesterday likened the current world crisis to the fevered atmosphere before the start of the First World War.

Rogozin said he did not believe the crisis would descend to war between the West and Russia.