Archive | October 19th, 2010






October 19, 2010

by Hanan Habibzai


Iran Looking to Influence Strategies in Afghanistan

By Hanan Habibzai, STAFF WRITER

The presence of Iranian diplomat in a key international meeting raised concerns over Iran’s controversial role in Afghanistan.

It is first time, an Iranian representative attending a meeting on Afghanistan’s development issues organised by an international group. ‘’Iran will attempt to influence international strategies, if it regularly allowed attending such meetings ‘’ A Kabul University student Qadimullah Masoomi expressed his concerns.

According to The New York Times, the move welcomed Monday by both the American and international officials. A high ranking Iranian diplomat Ali Qanezadeh was also present at a briefing by Gen.David H Petraeus on NATO’s strategy for transition in Afghanistan

The Double game in Afghanistan

At the meantime some sources within Hamid Karzai government are thinking that Iran is aiding the Taliban.


their views are particularly dominant in Shiite areas

They say several Iranian citizens have been held in Afghanistan for supporting the insurgency.‘’Iran can not see the American presence in Afghanistan and that’s why continuingly interfering Afghanistan’’.

Mr Masoomi added. Some officials in western Afghanistan claimed that Iran is training “a huge number of political opponents of the Karzai government in a refugee camp in Iran called Shamsabad.

Iran claims sympathy with Afghanistan but many Afghans are accusing the western neighbour perusing its own agendas in Afghanistan to increase their influence across the country for gaining certain interests.

Local population in Western Afghanistan expressed concerns over Iran’s widespread influence in the area.They urged, it is the right time for US to move its authority toward Afghan border with Iran.

Afghanistan, The Historical Background

During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980s ,Russian ambassador to Afghanistan considered as a key foreign diplomat in Kabul who had enormous influence on internal and foreign Afghan policy and decisions.

After the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, Iran succeeded to gain the same role Russian diplomat was playing in Afghanistan.

Iranian ambassador was quick to increase its dominant lengths within Afghan government and extend its authority to remove or employ key security and civilian officials across Karzai’s government.

Iran gradually more invests on Afghan media and no one can speak freely against Iran in the streets of Kabul.

Few months ago, Iran succeeded to pressurise media and imposed ban through Afghan attorney general on a private TV channel Amroz, a critic of Iranian regime.

Iran’s religious leaders are extremely influential in the region and their views are particularly dominant in Shiite areas. Maintaining this influence is the key to Iran’s expansion plans, Iraq is a route to Surya, Lebanon, Palestine and even Israel.

Iran has effectively created a tunnel for itself through across the Middle East, supplying and arming extreme groups in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

The success of its plans will eventually lead to the destabilisation of Sunnite Yemen and Saudi Arabia, creating the power vacuum Iran wants in Central Asia.

What does all this mean? A small mistake by the US in its Middle East policy could result in the country upping the pace of its plans. An Iranian dominated Middle East would pose a major threat to the West, Afghanistan, Israel and even Pakistan.

To put it simply, if America leaves Afghanistan, Iran will step in to increase its influence in the Central Asian and Middle Eastern countries through that region. Already Iran has its claws in Afghanistan.

It provides financial and political support to the religious Shiite minority, while thwarting the religious worship if the Sunnite minority in Tehran.

The Sunnites who dare to have their own religious centres face detention, whereas Iran spends millions of dollars to build a dominant Shiite religious centre in the heart of Kabul.

The majority Pashtuns in Afghanistan fear that their religion and power will be in danger in an Iran-controlled Afghanistan. Iranian influence in the region will almost certainly destroy international efforts for peace efforts in the entire region.

Iran’s hand can also be seen in Afghanistan’s neighbour Tajikistan where its influence is widespread. 

Talks on how to tackle Iranian agendas should include discussion of the issue I have raised. Ignoring the creeping hand of Iran will disturb peace efforts not just in Afghanistan, but across the entire region.




Whatever you do, don’t look “Muslim” Obama

19 Oct 2010

The sad but predictable tale of Barack Obama giving in to Islamophobia, again (via Ali Abunimah):

US President Barack Obama has ruled out a visit to the Golden Temple in Amritsar, sacred to Sikhs, because Obama does not want to wear the head-covering that is required as a sign of respect in case it makes him look like a Muslim.


The slow curse of disaster capitalism covers the world

19 Oct 2010

I recently wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald about the ever-increasing arrival of the Shock Doctrine in Australia and Asia-Pacific. Privatisation running riot.

George Monbiot writes about the same problems facing Britain:

We’ve been staring at the wrong list. In an effort to guess what will hit us tomorrow, we’ve been trying to understand the first phase of the British government’s assault on the public sector: its bonfire of the quangos. Almost all the public bodies charged with protecting the environment, animal welfare and consumers have been either hobbled or killed(1). But that’s only half the story. Look again, and this time make a list of the quangos which survived.

If the government’s aim had been to destroy useless or damaging public bodies, it would have started with the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It was set up to relieve poverty in developing countries, but when New Labour tried, and failed, to privatise it, the CDC completely changed its mission. Now it sluices money into lucrative corporate ventures, while massively enriching its own directors. Private Eye discovered that in 2007 this quango paid its chief executive just over a million pounds(2). The magazine has also shown how the CDC has become entangled in a series of corruption cases(3). Uncut. Unreformed.

The same goes for the Export Credit Guarantee Department. The ECGD effectively subsidises private corporations, by underwriting the investments they make abroad. At one point, 42% of its budget was spent on propping up BAE’s weapons sales(4). It also pours money into drilling for oil in fragile environments(5,6). A recent court case showed how it has underwritten contracts obtained with the help of bribery(7,8). Uncut. Unreformed.

The Sea Fish Industry Authority exists “to help improve profitability for the seafood industry”(9). Though it is a public body, all but one of its 11 directors work for either the fishing industry or food companies(10). They seek to “promote the consumption of seafood”(11), to “champion the industry in public debates”(12) and to “influence the regulatory process” in the industry’s favour(13). Uncut. Unreformed.

Can you see the pattern yet? Public bodies whose purpose is to hold corporations to account are being swept away. Public bodies whose purpose is to help boost corporate profits, regardless of the consequences for people and the environment, have sailed through unharmed. What the two lists suggest is that the economic crisis is the disaster the Conservatives have been praying for. The government’s programme of cuts looks like a classic example of disaster capitalism: using a crisis to re-shape the economy in the interests of business.


Just another day of racism in Israel

19 Oct 2010


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that his cabinet needed more time to decide when and how to dismantle certain illegal West Bank outposts, due to the “political implications” involved.

The government “needs time to consider its priorities” with regard to these outposts, Netanyahu said ahead of a High Court of Justice deliberation on the matter.


A bill sponsored by MK Gideon Ezra (Kadima ) and seven other Knesset members proposes to ban residents of East Jerusalem from serving as tour guides in the city, potentially putting hundreds out of work. Ezra, who said he was temporarily freezing work on the bill so as not to damage the negotiations with Palestinians, said in the introduction to the bill he believed Palestinian residents of Jerusalem should not be certified guides because they did not represent Israel’s national interest well enough “and in an appropriate manner.”


If the Taliban can be engaged, why not the other “terrorists”?

19 Oct 2010

So Richard Barrett, the coordinator of the United Nations Al Qaeda-Taliban monitoring team, thinks it’s time to “talk to the Taliban.”

Guess the next major piece in the New York Times will be that Israel should talk to Hamas, Hizbollah and Iran.

How to push for gay rights in the US

19 Oct 2010

Fuck yeah: 

So many innocent drone victims

19 Oct 2010

Remind me who the terrorists are again?

New information on the Central Intelligence Agency’s campaign of drone strikes in northwest Pakistan directly contradicts the image the Barack Obama administration and the CIA have sought to establish in the news media of a program based on highly accurate targeting that is effective in disrupting al-Qaeda’s terrorist plots against the United States.

A new report on civilian casualties in the war in Pakistan has revealed direct evidence that a house was targeted for a drone attack merely because it had been visited by a group of Taliban soldiers.

The report came shortly after publication of the results of a survey of opinion within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan showing overwhelming popular opposition to the drone strikes and majority support for suicide attacks on U.S. forces under some circumstances.

Meanwhile, data on targeting of the drone strikes in Pakistan indicate that they have now become primarily an adjunct of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, targeting almost entirely militant groups involved in the Afghan insurgency rather than al-Qaeda officials involved in plotting global terrorism.

The new report published by the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) last week offers the first glimpse of the drone strikes based on actual interviews with civilian victims of the strikes.

In an interview with a researcher for CIVIC, a civilian victim of a drone strike in North Waziristan carried out during the Obama administration recounted how his home had been visited by Taliban troops asking for lunch. He said he had agreed out of fear of refusing them.

The very next day, he recalled, the house was destroyed by a missile from a drone, killing his only son.

The CIVIC researcher, Christopher Rogers, investigated nine of the 139 drone strikes carried out since the beginning of 2009 and found that a total of 30 civilians had been killed in those strikes, including 14 women and children.


Mike Leigh, a Jew of integrity, says no to Israeli racism

18 Oct 2010

A man of principle who dares to take a stand when saying and doing nothing (and getting a free trip) is so much easier:

Bafta-winning film-maker Mike Leigh has pulled out of a teaching trip to Israel due to his concern over the country’s proposed loyalty oath bill.

Leigh said he was not prepared to take part in the “great masters” programme at the Sam Spiegel Film & Television School in Jerusalem. In a letter to school director Renen Schorr, he cited several of Israel’s policies, including the oath, which would require non-Jews seeking Israeli citizenship to pledge allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”.

“As you know, I have always had serious misgivings about coming, but I allowed myself to be persuaded by your sincerity and your commitment,” Leigh wrote. “And it is because of those special qualities of yours that I am especially sorry to have to let you down. But I have absolutely no choice. I cannot come, I do not want to come, and I am not coming.

“Eight weeks after our lunch, the Israeli attack on the flotilla took place. As I watched the world very properly condemn this atrocity, I almost cancelled. I now wish I had, and blame my cowardice for not having done so.

“Since then, your government has gone from bad to worse. I need not itemise all that has taken place … I still had not faced up to the prospect of pulling out until a few weeks ago, but the resumption of the illegal building on the West Bank made me start to consider it seriously. And now we have the Loyalty Oath.

“This is the last straw – quite apart from the ongoing criminal blockade of Gaza, not to mention the endless shooting of innocent people there, including juveniles …”

Posted in Middle EastComments Off on A.LOEWENSTEIN ONLINE NEWSLETTER



October 19, 2010

by Gordon Duff  



By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

“hopelessness, fear and hate and a case of world class “stupid” has made the world’s greatest military power, not only a threat to world stability but an outright embarrassment”

The French think Americans are stupid.  The French think everyone is stupid.  However, when the French changed from the Franc to the Euro, watching them taking change out of their pockets, looking at the new coins, it was as though they had a live scorpion in their hands.  One of the things I always say about the French, “they are the only country with nuclear weapons that never invented the wheel.”  Now half the Americans I know want to live there and most talk about moving anywhere, anywhere but America.  Americans say they can’t stand living here anymore, the country with the cheapest food and gasoline, clearly the best television and definitely the the best looking women.

This isn’t one political side, one race, one religion, its everyone.  At first the complaints talk about a government nobody can stand but it all comes back to one thing, stupidity.

All Americans believe that all other Americans are stupid.

That belief causes feelings of alienation, loneliness, frustration and, most of all, anger.  Americans are angry.

Every two years there are elections, state, local and federal with a presidential election every four years.  The presidential elections are worst of all.  They are increasingly dreaded by all Americans with daily polls telling them their candidate is hated for this or that no matter how ahead they may be.  Polls are simply made up, one polling company works for one party and another for the opposition.  Instead of information, they are meant to confuse, dismay and make the public feel helpless.  This is the key to everything, helplessness.

Thus far, we have hit on two feelings, anger and helplessness.  These feelings are driven by what Americans are told.  The question is, who is actually doing the “telling?”  This may be where the “stupid” comes in.  Americans never ask who is telling, government, news organizations, industry or is there really some secret organization running everything, some backroom cabal of devil worshiping war mongers and cannibals?  This brings another card into play, the internet.  Americans generally accept that news organizations are controlled by some evil force. 

Many Americans believe that Fox News, the pro-Israeli and ultra-right wing network is the purveyor of all that is good and true.  Others follow CNN or ABC, perhaps MSNBC.  However, even the most rudimentary investigations show ownership and management of all these sources, newspapers, magazines, all are intertwined.  They are all the same and any imagined differences are just that, imagined.

Thus, the internet is supposed to represent real freedom somehow.  If there is any real truth, the economics of the internet could make it possible.  A website could run on donations or be financed for next to nothing.  Investigative reporters could work for nothing, simply out of honor and decency.  This is happening and “the truth is out there” but the internet is hardly a safe environment for “the truth.”  The internet may be where “stupid” really takes root, using methodologies no other media would attempt. 

Even, assuming corporate control of the media, a control that has a distinct Israeli face representing over 90% of all media executives and a similar percentage of ownership, the systematic presentation of disinformation and mythology as news doesn’t come close to that seen on the internet.

Where a few thousand dollars a year can manage an internet site offering real freedom of speech, a few million dollars of corporate money can manage dozens of sites, promote them in search engines and, as we have seen, not only take over that medium also but tell the same message as the controlled “corporate” press and do it without any accountability whatsoever, without any restraint. 

In fact, things go much further than that.  Where “normal” news is designed to cause fear and hopelessness, pretty-much everyone has caught onto this one by now the internet goes so much further.  The same forces, the villainous cabal,  whose financial stranglehold on media and entertainment has “dumbed down” America, uses the internet to drive many to the edge of insanity, the edge and well beyond the edge.

Stupid is one thing but when combined with outright insanity and the inherent paranoia and lack of judgement that go with it and the utter lack of discernment that stupidity is famous for, an opening is created, more like a festering wound.  The same forces that have used the media and entertainment industry to foment fear and hopelessness have been able to control, not only thousands of internet sites but have recruited “bloggers” by the thousands also. 

Using rewards like trips to Israel, access to politicians and, particularly, admission to tightly controlled and carefully orchestrated “media events” these automatons of the internet, the “robotic bloggers” accept “talking points” on a daily basis, working their own blogs along with comment sections of news sites and the personal networking groups as well.

This could be considered a type of harvest, one where the ripened fruit comes to you.  There is a science to this.  Let’s take a look at how it works.  Some of the concepts used are called “layering.”  This is “mind control 101.”

Network news organizations have established, through repetition, an addiction to “information,” a need to feed something inside, a feeling of drama based on anger not unlike the methods used by Joseph Goebbels to enrage the German people at the Jews.  Where, at one time, the airwaves couldn’t be used for blatant political manipulation, the destruction of the “fairness” rule during the Reagan administration allowed financial entities to take control of, not so much just the media, but all perception, literally replacing the normal sensory inputs, you know, eating and sex, things like that.

A news junkie is tied to his remote control, has a list of “companion” internet sites that are monitored continually and basks in feelings of “victimhood.”   Discernment and reason are sacrificed for blame.  “They” did it or “he” did it.  In Nazi Germany, Goebbels always said either the Jews or communists did it.  Now the tables are turned and the democracies of the west are the target and “Islamophobia” is the tool used to push them to self destruction.  A different page may be on the calendar but it will always look like 1939 as long as the “big lie” works, and it works better than ever, much better in fact.

“Facts” established by a media that simply “makes up” the news are taught in schools as history and current events.  We now have a generation raised entirely on information fed them by financial organizations, an international “cabal” as it were, with an agenda inconsistent with democracy and peace.

“Stupid” has allowed public education, even at university level, to become little more than indoctrination.  The baseless mythologies pushed forward, the real government conspiracies and the lies used to cover them up, become an “unquestioned” part of our national history, the real heritage of an age of stupidity and unreason.  Up becomes down, right becomes wrong and truth becomes lies.  More accurately, truth becomes “conspiracy theory” and the wildest conspiracy theories, the really dangerous ideas, are parroted across the airwaves, and even make it into our schools and text books.

When Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were allowed to stay in office and out of prison after the Iraq invasion and the deluge of incontrovertible proof of treason on their parts, America announced to the world it was a nation of gutless morons.  Bibi Netanyahu jokes about this constantly as does all of Israel and much of the rest of the world, those not being bombed or invaded anyway, those that can still laugh.  Stop any Israeli in the street, ask them what they think of America, even Israelis that are American citizens.

Another definition for idiot:

An American who doesn’t know that the term “goyim” means “stupid cattle.”

The agenda is clear.  Fear and hopelessness are meant to push the public to seeking “strong leaders.”  However, the same controlled media also controls the message and defines which leaders are “strong” and which leaders are “weak.”  Thus, “strong” is defined as favoring continual war, eliminating constitutional rights in the name of “national security” and supporting total deregulation of financial markets, creating a “pirate” class of “banksters, scamsters and manipulators” who systematically restructure the alignment of national assets.  By assets, we we mean your retirement funds, the value of your home and even your job. 

By “realign” we mean steal.

This is where “stupid” becomes even more dangerous.  When simple “dumb” can bring about, not just the elimination of the middle class, suppression of human rights, but cost America the lives and health of an entire generation of our young adults who have been pushed into military service, some by misguided patriotism, some to avoid poverty and homelessness, “dumb” is inexcusable.  When “stupid” is more dangerous than any terrorist, any ‘false flag” attack or any extremist political movement, “stupid” is the real enemy.





19. Sep, 2010 

 Commentary/Analysis, Israel, Media, Middle east, News/Politics, Palestine, U.S. Foreign Policy, War –  


Imperialism, its character, means and ends has changed over time and place. Historically, western imperialism, has taken the form of tributary, mercantile, industrial, financial and in the contemporary period, a unique ‘militarist-barbaric’ form of empire building.  Within each ‘period’, elements of past and future forms of imperial domination and exploitation ‘co-exist’ with the dominant mode.  For example , in the ancient Greek and Roman empires, commercial and trade privileges complemented the extraction of tributary payments. 

Mercantile imperialism, was preceded and accompanied initially by the plunder of wealth and the extraction of tribute, sometimes referred to as “primitive accumulation”, where political and military power decimated the local population and forcibly removed and transferred wealth to the imperial capitals.  As imperial commercial ascendancy was consolidated, manufacturing capital increasingly emerged as a co-participant; backed by imperial state policies manufacturing products destroyed local national manufacturers gaining control over local markets.  Modern industrial driven imperialism, combined production and commerce, both complemented and supported by financial capital and its auxiliaries, insurance, transport and other sources of “invisible earnings”.

Under pressure from nationalist and socialist anti-imperialist movements and regimes, colonial structured empires gave way to new nationalist regimes.  Some of which restructured their economies, diversifying their productive systems and trading partners.  In some cases they imposed protective barriers to promote industrialization.  Industrial-driven imperialism, at first opposed these nationalist regimes and collaborated with local satraps to depose industrial oriented nationalist leaders. 

Their goal was to retain or restore the “colonial division of labor” – primary production exchanged for finished goods.  However, by the last third of the 20th century, industrial driven empire building, began a process of adaptation, “jumping over tariff walls”, investing in elementary forms of ‘production’ and in labor intensive consumer products.  Imperial manufacturers contracted assembly plants organized around light consumer goods (textiles, shoes, electronics).

Basic changes in the political, social and economic structures of both the imperial and former colonial countries, however, led to divergent imperial paths to empire-building and as a consequence contrasting development performances in both regions.

Anglo-American financial capital gained ascendancy over industrial, investing heavily in highly speculative IT, bio-tech, real estate and financial instruments.  Germany and Japanese empire builders relied on upgrading export-industries to secure overseas markets.  As a result they increased market shares, especially among the emerging industrializing countries of Southern Europe, Asia and Latin America. 

Some former colonial and semi-colonial countries also moved toward higher forms of industrial production, developing high tech industries, producing capital and intermediate as well as consumer goods and challenging western imperial hegemony in their proximity.

By the early 1990’s a basic shift in the nature of imperial power took place.  This led to a profound divergence between past and present imperialist policies and among established and emerging expansionist regimes.

Past and Present Economic Imperialism

Modern industrial-driven empire building (MIE) is built around securing raw materials, exploiting cheap labor and increasing market shares.  This is accomplished by collaborating with pliant rulers, offering them economic aid and political recognition on terms surpassing those of their imperial competitors.  This is the path followed by China.  MIE eschews any attempt to gain territorial possessions, either in the form of military bases or in occupying “advisory” positions in the core institutions of the coercive apparatus. 

Instead, MIEs’ seek to maximize control via investments leading to direct ownership or ‘association’ with state and/or private officials in strategic economic sectors.  MIEs’ utilize economic incentives in the way of economic grants and low interest concessionary loans.  They offer to build large scale long term infrastructure projects-railroads, airfields, ports and highways.  These projects have a double purpose of facilitating the extraction of wealth and opening markets for exports. 

MIEs also improve transport networks for local producers to gain political allies.  In other words MIEs like China and India largely depend on market power to expand and fight off competitors.  Their strategy is to create “economic dependencies” for long term economic benefits.

In contrast imperial barbarism grows out of an earlier phase of economic imperialism which combined the initial use of violence to secure economic privileges followed by economic control over lucrative resources.

Historically, economic imperialism (EI) resorted to military intervention to overthrow anti-imperialist regimes and secure collaborator political clients.  Subsequently, EI frequently established military bases and training and advisory missions to repress resistance movements and to secure a local military officialdom responsive to the imperial power.  The purpose was to secure economic resources and a docile labor force, in order to maximize economic returns

In other words, in this ‘traditional’ path to economic empire building the military was subordinated to maximizing economic exploitation. Imperial power sought to preserve the post colonial state apparatus and professional cadre but to harness them to the new imperial economic order.  EI sought to preserve the elite to maintain law and order as the basic foundation for restructuring the economy. 

The goal was to secure policies to suit the economic needs of the private corporations and banks of the imperial system.  The prime tactic of the imperial institutions was to designate western educated professionals to design policies which maximized private earning.  These policies included the privatization of all strategic economic sectors; the demolition of all protective measures (“opening markets”) favoring local producers; the implementation of regressive taxes on local consumers, workers and enterprises while lowering or eliminating taxes and controls over imperial firms; the elimination of protective labor legislation and outlawing of independent class organizations.

In its heyday western economic imperialism led to the massive transfer of profits, interest, royalties and ill begotten wealth of the native elite from the post-colonial countries to the imperial centers.  As befits post-colonial imperialism the cost of administrating these imperial dependencies was borne by the local workers, farmers and employees.

While contemporary and historic economic imperialism have many similarities, there are a few crucial differences.  For example China, the leading example of a contemporary economic imperialism, has not established its “economic beach heads” via military intervention or coups, hence it does not possess ‘military bases’ nor a powerful militarist caste competing with its entrepreneurial class in shaping foreign policy.  In contrast traditional Western economic imperialism contained the seeds for the rise of a powerful militarist caste capable, under certain circumstance, of affirming their supremacy in shaping the policies and priorities of empire building.

This is exactly what has transpired over the past twenty years, especially with regard to US empire building.

The Rise and Consolidation of Imperial Barbarism

The dual processes of military intervention and economic exploitation which characterized traditional Western imperialism gradually shifted toward a dominant highly militarized variant of imperialism.  Economic interests, both in terms of economic costs and benefits and global market shares were sacrificed in the pursuit of military domination.

The demise of the USSR and the virtual reduction of Russia to the status of a broken state, weakened states allied to it.  They were “opened” to Western economic penetration and became vulnerable to Western military attack.

President Bush (senior) perceived the demise of the USSR as a ‘historic opportunity’ to unilaterally impose a unipolar world.  According to this new doctrine the US would reign supreme globally and regionally.  Projections of US military power would now operate unhindered by any nuclear deterrence.  However, Bush (senior) was deeply embedded in the US petroleum industry.  Thus he sought to strike a balance between military supremacy and economic expansion. 

Hence the first Iraq war 1990-91 resulted in the military destruction of Saddam Hussein’s military forces, but without the occupation of the entire country nor the destruction of civil society, economic infrastructure and oil refineries.  Bush (senior) represented an uneasy balance between two sets of powerful interests: on the one hand, petroleum corporations eager to access the state owned oil fields and on the other the increasingly powerful militarist zionist power configuration within and outside of his regime. 

The result was an imperial policy aimed at weakening Saddam as a threat to US clients in the Gulf but without ousting him from power.  The fact that he remained in office and continued his support for the Palestinian struggle against the Jewish state’s colonial occupation profoundly irritated Israel and its zionist agents in the US.

With the election of William Clinton, the ‘balance’ between economic and military imperialism shifted dramatically in favor of the latter.  Under Clinton, zealous zionist were appointed to many of the strategic foreign policy posts in the Administration.  This ensured the sustained bombing of Iraq, wrecking its infrastructure.  This barbaric turn was complemented by an economic boycott to destroy the country’s economy and not merely “weaken” Saddam. 

Equally important, the Clinton regime fully embraced and promoted the ascendancy of finance capital by appointing notorious Wall Streeters (Rubin, Summers, Greenspan et al.) to key positions, weakening the relative power of oil, gas and industrial manufacturers as the driving forces of foreign policy.  Clinton set in motion the political ‘agents’ of a highly militarized imperialism, committed to destroying a country in order to dominate it …

The ascent of Bush (junior) extended and deepened the role of the militarist-zionist personnel in government.  The self-induced explosions which collapsed the World Trade Towers in New York served as a pretext to precipitate the launch of imperial barbarism and spelled the eclipse of economic imperialism.

While US empire building converted to militarism, China accelerated its turn toward economic imperialism.  Their foreign policy was directed toward securing raw materials via trade, direct investments and joint ventures.  It gained influence via heavy investments in infrastructure, a kind of developmental imperialism, stimulating growth for itself and the “host” country.  In this new historic context of global competition between an emerging market driven empire and an atavistic militarist imperial state, the former gained enormous economic profits at virtually no military or administrative cost while the latter emptied its treasury to secure ephemeral military conquests.

The conversion from economic to militarist imperialism was largely the result of the pervasive and ‘deep’ influence of policymakers of zionist persuasion.  Zionist policymakers combined modern technical skills with primitive tribal loyalties.  Their singular pursuit of Israel’s dominance in the Middle East led them to orchestrate a series of wars, clandestine operations and economic boycotts crippling the US economy and weakening the economic bases of empire building.

Militarist driven empire building in the present post-colonial global context led inevitably to destructive invasions of relatively stable and functioning nation-states, with strong national loyalties.  Destructive wars turned the colonial occupation into prolonged conflicts with resistance movements linked to the general population.  Henceforth, the logic and practice of militarist imperialism led directly to widespread and long-term barbarism-the adoption of the Israeli model of colonial terrorism targeting an entire population. 

This was not a coincidence.  Israel’s zionist zealots in Washington “drank deeply” from the cesspool of Israeli totalitarian practices, including mass terror, housing demolitions, land seizures, overseas special force assassination teams, systematic mass arrests and torture.  These and other barbaric practices, condemned by human rights organizations the world over, (including those in Israel), became routine practices of US barbaric imperialism.

The Means and Goals of Imperial Barbarism

The organizing principle of imperial barbarism is the idea of total war.  Total in the sense that (1) all weapons of mass destruction are applied; (2) the whole society is targeted; (3) the entire civil and military apparatus of the state is dismantled and replaced by colonial officials, paid mercenaries and unscrupulous and corrupt satraps.  The entire modern professional class is targeted as expressions of the modern national-state and replaced by retrograde religious-ethnic clans and gangs, susceptible to bribes and booty-shares.  All existing modern civil society organizations, are pulverized and replaced by crony-plunderers linked to the colonial regime.  The entire economy is disarticulated as elementary infrastructure including water, electricity, gas, roads and sewage systems are bombed along with factories, offices, cultural sites, farms and markets.

The Israeli argument of “dual use” targets serves the militarist policymakers as a justification for destroying the bases of a modern civilization.  Massive unemployment, population displacement and the return to primitive exchanges characteristic of pre-modern societies define the “social structure”.  Educational and health conditions deteriorate and in some cases become non-existent.  Curable diseases plague the population and infant deformities result from depleted uranium, the pre-eminent weapon of choice of imperial barbarism.

In summary the ascendancy of barbarous imperialism leads to the eclipse of economic exploitation. The empire depletes its treasury to conquer, destroy and occupy.  Even the residual economy is exploited by ‘others’:  traders and manufacturers from non-belligerent adjoining states.  In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan that includes Iran, Turkey, China and India.

The evanescent goal of barbarous imperialism is total military control, based on the prevention of any economic and social rebirth which might lead to a revival of secular anti-imperialism rooted in a modern republic.  The goal of securing a colony ruled by cronies, satraps and ethno-religious warlords – willing givers of military bases and permission to intervene – is central to the entire concept of military driven empire building. 

The erasure of the historical memory of a modern independent secular nation-state and the accompanying national heritage becomes of singular importance to the barbarous empire.  This task is assigned to the academic prostitutes and related publicists who commute between Tel Aviv, the Pentagon, Ivy league universities and Middle East propaganda mills in Washington.

Results and Perspectives

Clearly imperial barbarism (as a social system) is the most retrograde and destructive enemy of modern civilized life.  Unlike economic imperialism it does not exploit labor and resources, it destroys the means of production, kills workers, farmers and undermines modern life.

Economic imperialism is clearly more beneficial to the private corporations; but it also potentially lays the bases for its transformation.  Its investments lead to the creation of a working and middle class capable of assuming control over the commanding heights of the economy via nationalist and/or socialist struggle.  In contrast the discontent of the ravaged population and the pillage of economies under imperial barbarism, has led to the emergence of pre-modern ethno-religious mass movements, with retrograde practices, (mass terror, sectarian violence etc.).  Theirs is an ideology fit for a theocratic state.

Economic imperialism with its ‘colonial division of labor’, extracting raw materials and exporting finished goods, inevitably will lead to new nationalist and perhaps later socialist movements.  As EI undermines local manufacturers and displaces, via cheap industrial exports, thousands of factory workers, movements will emerge.  China may seek to avoid this via ‘plant transplants’.  In contrast barbaric imperialism is not sustainable because it leads to prolonged wars which drain the imperial treasury and injury and death of thousands of American soldiers every year. Unending and unwinable colonial wars are unacceptable to the domestic population.

The ‘goals’ of military conquest and satrap rule are illusory.  A stable, ‘rooted’ political class capable of ruling by overt or tacit consent is incompatible with colonial overseers.  The ‘foreign’ military goals imposed on imperial policymakers via the influential presence of zionists in key offices have struck a mighty blow against the profit seeking opportunities of American multi-nationals via sanctions policies.  Pulled downward and outward by high military spending and powerful agents of a foreign power, the resort to barbarism has a powerful effect in prejudicing the US economy.

Countries looking for foreign investment are far more likely to pursue joint ventures with economic driven capital exporters rather than risk bringing in the US with all its military, clandestine special forces and other violent baggage.

Today the overall picture is grim for the future of militarist imperialism.  In Latin America, Africa and especially Asia, China has displaced the US as the principal trading partner in Brazil, South Africa and Southeast Asia.  In contrast the US wallows in unwinable ideological wars in marginal countries like Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan.  The US organizes a coup in tiny Honduras, while China signs on to billion dollar joint ventures in oil and iron projects in Brazil and Venezuela and an Argentine grain production. 

The US specializes in propping up broken states like Mexico and Columbia, while China invests heavily in extractive industries in Angola, Nigeria, South Africa and Iran.  The symbiotic relationship with Israel leads the US down the blind ally of totalitarian barbarism and endless colonial wars.  In contrast China deepens its links with the dynamic economies of South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Brazil and the oil riches of Russia and the raw materials of Africa. 

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles. His latest book is War Crimes  in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column in America (Atlanta:Clarity Pres 2010)

Read More From Petras:

Posted in USAComments Off on IMPERIALISM & BARBARISM



October 19, 2010

by Debbie Menon

By James Petras —


Over the better part of the present decade, Latin American stock markets have boomed.  Overseas investors have reaped and repatriated billions in dividends, profits and interest payments.  Multi-national corporations have piled into mining, agro-business and related sectors, unimpeded and with virtually no demands by local regions for ‘technological transfers’ and environmental constraints.  Latin American regimes, have accumulated unprecedented foreign currency reserves to ensure that foreign investors have unlimited access to hard currencies to remit profits. 

The decade has witnessed unprecedented political and social demobilization of radical social movements.  Regimes have provided political and social protection for foreign and national investors as well as long term guarantees of private property rights.

Nary a single regime in the region, with the unique exception of Venezuela, has reverted the large scale privatizations of strategic economic sectors implemented by previous neo-liberal regimes in the 1990’s.  In fact the concentration and centralization of fertile lands has continued with no pretense of land or income redistribution on the policy agenda. 

While bankers, and investors, overseas and nationals, celebrate the economic boom and more importantly express their positive appreciation by investing billions in the region, leftist pundits claim to find a “resurgent left” and write of one or another version of 21st century socialism.  In particular many prominent and widely published Euro-American progressives and leftists intellectuals and pundits have badly served their followers and readers.  Commentaries based on jet flyovers provide glowing reports of Latin America’s march to the left and national independence. 

Such accounts lack any empirical, historical, analytical or statistical foundation.  Writers as diverse as Chomsky, Tariq Ali, Wallerstein, who have never conducted any field research below the Rio Grande at any time or for that matter consulted major investors reaping billions in today’s Latin America have become instant experts on the social and political nature of the regimes, the state of the social movements and current economic policies. 

It seems as if Latin America is fair game for any and all Western leftist writers who can echo the political rhetoric of the incumbent regimes.  No doubt this secures an occasional official invite but it hardly serves to clarify the most striking socio-economic features of the current crop of regimes in Latin America and their sharply defined development strategies.

A wealth of data based on extensive field interviews, statistical studies published by international development agencies, reports by economic consultancies and business and investment houses, as well as discussions with independent social movement leaders provides ample documentation to argue that Latin America has taken multiple roads to 21st century capitalism, not socialism or anything akin to it.

In fact one of the great success stories celebrated by the business press, is the marginalization of socialist politics, the general acceptance of “globalization” by the leaders of the political class (from the center-left rightward) and the de-radicalization of the intellectual/academic elite who wage battle against neo-liberal phantoms while providing populist legitimization for the politicians of 21st century … capitalism.

Twenty-First Century Capitalism:  Continuities and Changes

 Investors, speculators, multinational corporations and trading companies from Asia, Europe, North America and the Middle East have, in recent years found virtue and value in the economic development policies pursued by recent Latin American leaders.  In particular, they applaud the new found political stability and economic opportunities for long term, high rates of profits.  In fact Latin America is looked at as an outlet for profitable investments surpassing those found in the unstable and volatile markets of the US and EU.

Twenty-first century capitalism (21C) as we know its operations in Latin America overlaps in some of its major features with the multiple variants of 20th century capitalism.  21C has embraced the “open market” policies of the late 20th century neo-liberal model; it has, promoted agro-mineral exports and importation of finished goods similar to the early 20th century colonial division of labor.  It has borrowed from the nationalist developmental strategy, policies of state intervention to ameliorate poverty, bailout banks, promote exporters and foreign investors.

As in most ‘late and ‘later’ developing capitalist countries, the state plays an important role in mediating between agro-mineral exporters and industrial capitalists (national and foreign) in some of the larger countries like Brazil and Argentina.

Unlike earlier versions of liberal and neo-liberal capitalists which, in the first instance dissolved pre-capitalist constraints on capital flows and later labor and welfare demands constraining capitalist exploitation, current heterodox liberal (or “post-neo-liberal”) regimes attempt to harness and co-opt labor and the poor to the new export strategy.  In part, 21st capitalism, can pursue “free market” and welfare/poverty policies because of the favorable world market conjuncture of high commodity prices and expanding markets in Asia.

Increased activity by the state in regulating capital flows and “picking winners and losers”, promoting agro business over small farmers, exporters and large retail importers over small and medium producers and retailers – highlights the compatibility, indeed the importance, of state interventionism in sustaining the “free market” agro-mineral export model.  While some sectors of capital complained about potential deficits and rising public debts resulting from increased state spending on poverty programs and in raising the minimum wage, in general most capitalist view the current version of “statism” as complementary and not in conflict with the larger goals of expanding investment opportunities and capital accumulation.

The ideologues of 21C have played a significant role in securing the legitimacy of the system, especially in its initial period, by projecting images and narratives of “anti-imperialism”, “twenty-first century socialism” and in the Andean countries a new “indigenous” variant of a “democratic and cultural revolution” (Bolivia).  Given the heavy reliance on the extractive development strategies and the strong presence of foreign corporations in strategic economic sectors and on lands, in or proximate Indian territorial claims,traditional Indian rituals and symbolic representations, anti-imperialist rhetoric and charisma plays a key role in greasing the wheels of 21C, in the face of rebellious popular constituencies (especially in Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia).

The paradox of putative “center left” regimes embracing the liberal ‘colonial division of labor’ in relation to the world market is to some degree obfuscated by the greater diversification of markets.  “Coloniality” is identified with economic relations with the US while the new economic ties with Asia are presented as expressions of south-south solidarity and other such euphemisms, even as the latter mirrors the former in economic essentials. Nevertheless  there are important political differences between the US and China, insofar as the latter does not engage in coups and clandestine operations and military interventions (at least in Latin America).

Key to the 21C model is social stability, preservation of the liberal democratic political framework and civil supremacy – all of which pits these governments against the US backed coups in the continent, including failed coups in Venezuela(2002) and Bolivia(2008) and a successful coup in Honduras (2009).

If US style militarism is a potential external destabilizing factor, the growth of narco-capitalism in the economy and state is a major domestic threat, now mostly concentrated in North America (Mexico), Central America, the Andean countries (Colombia).  The dilemmas of 21C is how to balance between the destabilizing role of US drug agencies and the need to ensure “good relations” with all major trading partners-including the US.

The State of the State in 21C Latin America

 Coming out of the crises and breakdown of neo-liberalism at the turn of the century, the state emerged with a stronger and more active role in the economy, particularly with regard to regulating overseas financial flows.  Several regimes, increased the state’s role in revenue sharing with foreign MNC (Brazil, Bolivia, and Venezuela).  Others partially or wholly nationalized a few troubled enterprises (Venezuela, Bolivia, and Argentina).  Still others paid off their debt to the IMF, in order to end its “supervision” over fiscal and macro-economic policy (Brazil, Argentina). 

Most states adopted economic stimulus policies to reactivate the economy, reduce unemployment and accommodate some of the social demands of labor.  All governments adopted policies designed to maximize income and revenues from the rising prices of commodities, by investing in and promoting the exploitation of agro-mineral production.

To cushion against future external economic shocks, the states adopted conservative fiscal policies, accumulating budget surpluses and increasing foreign reserves.

Not withstanding the expansion of the state’s role and its timely intervention to maximize benefits from world demand, it remains a subordinate partner to private capital.  Even in Venezuela where several important industries were nationalized, state enterprises accounts for less than 10% of the GNP.  Equally important the state and economy, public and private, is subordinate to a global “colonial division of labor” in which Latin America, exports agro-mineral products and imports finished goods.  The emphasis on extractive industries, encourages large scale foreign investments, while stable, orderly, fiscal balance sheets, large scale foreign reserves and relatively high interest rates attracts financial capital.

The appearance of a strong state, however, is belied by several historical and structural factors.  While some regimes purged a few of the top military and police officials from the previous dictatorships, there was not institutional transformation, including the process of recruitment, training and political reorientation.

Moreover all governments continue to collaborate with and join in military exercises and training missions with US military advisory programs, with a notorious history of being the “schools of the coup-makers”.  Equally dangerous to state stability, the new development strategy depends on and promotes business elites, who in the past sought out military officials and fomented coups, when and if they felt their profits or interests, were threatened.

The current stability of the Latin American states rests in part on potentially volatile commodity prices and demand, military institutions with many carryovers from the past and too many links to Washington coup-masters and a private sector willing to abide by the rules of democratic capitalism, as long as they continue to exercise hegemony over the society and economy.

Comparing the ‘Orthodox’ and ‘Heterodox’ Roads to 21st Capitalism

Considering the fact that, for now and the foreseeable future, none of the Latin American countries have any plans or projects to socialize the economy – with the possible exception of Venezuela – the key theoretical and practical issue is identifying the divergent roads to capitalist development.  By origin, trajectory and social alliances we can identify ‘heterodox’ and ‘orthodox’ strategies, with some overlap at the margins.

The heterodox approach to 21C is sometimes dubbed “21 Century Socialism” by some of its local publicists, primarily by overlooking such commonplace considerations as the private ownership of the principle means of finance and production (banks, industries, mines, trade, plantations), the large scale influx of “hot money” in pursuit of bonds  bearing high interest rates and  low rates of royalty payments on the extraction of minerals and energy resources.

One of the keys to understanding the emergence of 21C is in its origins in the popular political upheavals and the ideological “rupture” with the previous “neo-liberal” epoch.  The radical origins left an imprint in concrete measures adopted by the emergent regimes, the style of politics and the search for new sources of ideological legitimation.

By force of circumstances, namely the economic crises of neo-liberalism, the new “post neo-liberal” regimes adopted a series of populist measures to ameliorate poverty, reduce unemployment and reactivate the economy.  All of these changes meant active state intervention to rectify the failures of the ‘market’, while seeking to secure the interests of the capitalist class. 

These measures were accompanied by a strong dosage of anti-neo-liberal rhetoric to accommodate popular rage against the inequities of the system.  In some cases these changes were accompanied by a vague reference to “socialism” without central planning, public ownership or worker management. 

The trajectory of regimes pursuing the heterodox road began with populist welfare measures, which were gradually diluted over time as social pressures and unemployment diminished and re-activization took hold.  By the end of the decade (2010), the post neo-liberal regimes turned more and more toward “developmental modernization”.  The latter approach was driven by a high powered campaign to maximize private, especially foreign investment, especially in the high growth export sectors. 

The reordering of the post-neo-liberal state stopped well short of anything beyond replacing “neo-liberal” technocrats with others more attuned to the new heterodox leadership.  For the most part, efforts were made for greater flexible accommodation of domestic and foreign social partners via conciliation of ‘moderate’ trade union and social movement leaders and the business elite.

The heterodox road to 21C has the good fortune to coincide with the world commodity boom and the good sense to put in place financial controls which softened and shorted the duration of the US-EU induced financial crash (2008-2010) and economic recession.

The ‘orthodox’ road to capitalist development was able to sustain the neo-liberal policies, through a harsh regime of repression, electoral chicanery and in some cases by outright terror, closing political space and precluding popular upheavals which might have led to heterodox policies.  Prominent to the orthodox road was the rise and consolidation of a lumpen-bourgeoisie which brought in tens of billions of dollars in revenues from drug and other illicit activities which were laundered in the formal economy and provided a modicum of economic growth in certain sectors.  While the heterodox model diversified trade and markets, with dynamic partners in Asia, the orthodox model remained wedded to stagnant US markets. Bilateral ties with US imperialism weakened domestic economic priorities and heightened public expenditures in non-productive (military) sectors.

The Divergent Outcomes of Hetero and Orthodox Models of 21C

The most striking differences between heterodox and orthodox economic performances is found in the striking growth, poverty reduction, and political democratization in Brazil, Bolivia and Argentina and until 2009 Venezuela and the social regression, economic stagnation, gross violation of human and democratic freedoms found in ‘orthodox’ Mexico and Colombia.  Extreme violence characterizes rule by the political elites in the countries pursuing orthodox neo-liberal policies.  In contrast there is a process of state consolidation based on relative open politics among the countries pursuing heterodox policies.  There seems to be a strong correlation between economic growth, political legitimation, poverty reduction and the decline of state repression as a mechanism of political rule.

On the other hand there is a strong correlation between the growth and incorporation of large scale drug trafficking into the economy and polity, the reliance on violence and free markets to forcibly dispossess small holders and the increase reliance on corruption and force in the formation and maintenance of governing elites.

Heterodox models imply and practice the politics of social incorporation via capitalist welfarism, (non exempt from corruption and patronage) and tripartite consultation. Orthodox regimes operate through unregulated capital markets and its ruinonous effects on small producers, public sector employees and wage workers.

The heterodox models, though drawing heavily on foreign capital, retain, cultivate and promote national capitalists linked to the domestic market and dependant on mass consumption.  These sectors are not always opposed to periodic increases in wages.

The regimes pursuing orthodox strategy, heavily dependant on declining US markets and on large scale military and police expenditures, have lost out on the lucrative markets of Asia, the Middle East and other regions.  Moreover, in the case of Mexico its structural dependence on an unstable tourist economy, declining immigrant remittances from an increasingly anti-immigrant US and petrol exports in decline due to negligent management, is a result of its early embrace of “free trade’ (NAFTA).  The latter destroyed its diversified productive base and encouraged the turn to narco trafficking.

The result of the orthodox strategy of unregulated capital flows has two major negative consequences:  it has led to the massive outflow of Mexican capital – licit and illicit  – into the US, especially in real estate, bonds and stocks, depriving Mexico of investment capital.  Secondly, the close links between Mexican and US finance, led to the transmission of the Wall Street financial crises impacting on Mexico’s financial and credit markets as well as its “real economy”.  In contrast, in most of the heterodox economies, which had earlier suffered from close links to Wall Street, their tighter financial controls diluted the impact of the US crises on their economies.

Peru:  A Hybrid Version of Hetero-Orthodox Strategies:

Peru has experienced the high growth characteristic of the heterodox economies, while relying on ‘orthodox’ neo-liberal policies.  It combines the extractive export model without the compensatory social welfarism and tripartite polices of the heterodox capitalist models. 

Peru has diversified its overseas markets – Asia is its principle export market – while embracing bilateralism and military ties with the US.  It is a major drug producing and trafficking venue, but the drugs do not dominate the economy and political system to the same degree as Mexico and Colombia.  While poverty reduction has not been pursued with the same vigor as Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, it has increased the consumer power of the urban middle classes, especially of Lima. 

While Bolivia pursues policies of symbolic representation, legal protections and political patronage to the Indian movements, Peru under Garcia, like Ecuador under Correa are more concerned about promoting investments from foreign owned mining companies as the vehicles for what they call “economic modernization” than respecting the claims of indigenous peoples.

High commodity prices, especially for industrial and precious metals, rising demand and large scale investments under conditions of limited nationalist opposition, allows Peru to sustain high growth, even as it neglects the welfare component of the heterodox model. There are indications of change.  In the recent (2010) mayoralty election in Lima, a mildly center-left candidate defeated an orthodox neo-liberal, raising the possibility that the next regime may ‘modify’ the orthodox model toward greater “welfarism”.

Crises, Upheavals and the 21st Century Road to Capitalism

The crises of neo-liberalism generated a variety of political outcomes; with the possible exception of Venezuela, the popular revolts which took place in the immediate aftermath of the crises all led to capitalist divergent ones.  For the majority of Latin American states it meant a sharp increase in state intervention, even temporary takeovers of bankrupt or near bankrupt banks to save depositors and investors: a kind of “statism” by capitalist invitation (or obligation).  The new statism became the bases for the emergence of 21st century capitalism.  The “anti-neo-liberal ideology” articulated by its practioners befuddled impressionistic western intellectuals who saw it as a “new variety” of socialism or at least a “stepping stone” in that direction. outcomes, albeit sharply

In historical perspective, statism, was from the beginning, a necessary first step toward the reactivation of capitalism.  The apparently radical “first steps” were in fact the end game of the popular rebellions of the turn of the decade.  Over time, especially with the economic recovery and the commodity boom, capitalism experienced a take off by the middle of the decade. Heterodox capitalism began to shed some of its distinctively several welfarist features in favor of a straight developmentalist perspective.  Technocrats emphasized large scale long term foreign investments and “economic modernization”.  This meant public-private investments in infrastructure, to accelerate the movement of commodities to world markets.

The sustained growth of the heterodox model put an end to the radical debate on globalization, by adopting it with a vengeance.  The new argument between the heterodox and orthodox focused on how “globalization” could be harnessed to national growth and made to work for all classes via appropriate distributive mechanisms.  In other words, the heterodox capitalists argued that greater global integration would deepen and increase the wealth available for social welfare. 

With the advent of adverse global conditions during the crises of 2009, intensified competition and a temporary decline in prices, the heterodox policymakers argued that global conditions prohibited increased social spending and wage and salary increases.  With rapid economic recovery and the rapid rise in commodity prices by mid 2010, wage and salary tensions increased.

If the impetus for the onset of the new heterodox regimes was the crises of neo-liberalism, the subsequent economic success of the heterodox regimes set in motion the dynamic growth of powerful business interests seeking to refashion a more conservative rightist political configuration.  The latter would reduce the wage and social welfare cost of the export sector.  In effect the success of capitalist heterodoxy and its trajectory toward high growth based on large scale capital inflows has set in motion a shift to the right, including right wing political alternatives.

While important differences still persist between heterodox and orthodox roads to capitalism, the tendency is for these to diminish.  The orthodox faced by the world recession resorted to greater state intervention to prop up the economy while the heterodox increased their pursuit of greater market shares by broadening their appeals to international investors.

As the Latin American countries move beyond the crises of 2008-2009, the improved economic performances, does not appear to correlate along the orthodox-heterodox axis.  Slow recovery is most evident in Venezuela (heterodox) and Mexico (orthodox); while rapid recovery is evident in Brazil (heterodox) and Peru (orthodox).  While one might cite Venezuela and Mexico’s dependence on the US market and Brazil and Peru’s links to dynamic Asian markets, we need also to analyze the internal class composition of each set of countries. 

The predominance of “rentier” elites in Venezuela and Mexico in contrast to dynamic domestic and foreign capitalists in Brazil and Peru may account for some of the differences in performances.  Clearly identifying the ‘dynamic’ road to 21st century capitalist development is problematic and the outcome uncertain.  The question of whether the commodity boom is part of a long or short cycle may be a determining factor in shaping the possibilities for the reappearance of authentic 21st century socialism.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 64 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles. His latest book is War Crimes  in Gaza and the Zionist Fifth Column in America (Atlanta:Clarity Pres 2010)

Read More From Petras:





Prosecuting John Ashcroft

Video – Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Obama Wants Absolute Immunity For The Attorney General!

Posted October 19, 2010







Dear Friends,

I know that those of you who tried to watch the video about Breaking the Silence after 8:00 AM this morning found a note advising that it had been removed from the site.  I have advised Breaking the Silence and hope that it can send another link that will allow us to watch the video. 

These are trying times, not only here, I know.  But this being where I live, it is what I feel and focus on most, which is not to say that many things today are not isolated or localized.   Israel is what it is because the world lets it get by with, literally, murder.  But whose hands are clean?  Certainly not the hands of the United States. 

Ok to business.  If you have already seen Bradley Burston’s ‘A special place in hell,’ I apologize.  I hadn’t, but feel that it is an important piece not the least because it suggests what you (wherever you live) can do to help change the situation.  I recommend clicking on the link and reading the original, because then you can click on the many blue lines that lead to information either about what Burston is saying or to addresses or other material relevant to doing something about what is happening in Israel these days. 

At the end Burston recommends organizations that you can join and support.  They are not my favorites, but ok.  I would add to them, however, organizations that support bds (boycott/divestment/sanctions), and to International Solidarity Movement, and other organizations in your community that support an end to Israel’s occupation and colonization of Palestine.

Three additional items follow Burston’s piece (the longest).  The 2nd tells us that Netanyahu wants the proposed loyalty oath to be taken also by Jews who wish to become Israeli citizens under the Law of Return.  Much easier for a Jew (perhaps—I’m one Jew who would not sign) to sign than for a Muslim or Christian or Buddhist, etc. to affirm loyalty to a Jewish state.  Leave the democratic part out.  Israel is not now nor has ever been democratic.  How many Jews would wish to affirm loyalty to the White Christian United States of America, or Germany, or any other place? 

The law is obviously racist.  But it is worse yet, because it will make Palestinians or other non-Jews who wish to live here as citizens demean themselves.  Not enough to be a loyal citizen?  No one has to be a lesser citizen, the Jews being the top drawer.  Not my cup of tea.  The bill has received a great deal of flack.  Let  us hope that the Knesset does not vote it into law.  But . . .

Item 3 is a sad report from the Christian Peacekeepers Team about a Palestinian shepherd made homeless and his young son jailed.

The 4th item is on a more positive note.  “The British film-maker Mike Leigh has cancelled a visit to Israel in protest against controversial plans to compel non-Jewish new citizens to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state.”  May many others follow suit.  BDS is picking up and if that keeps up, it eventually will pressure Israel’s leaders to temper their policies and perhaps even to change them! 

Let’s hope.



1. Haaretz,

October 12, 2010

A Special Place in Hell / Top 10 worst errors Israel is about to make

Making major mistakes: what they are, why they matter, where they stand, and what you can do about it.

By Bradley Burston

1. The Loyalty Oath.

What it is: A proposed amendment to Israel’s Law of Citizenship, which, if approved by the Knesset, would require non-Jews seeking citizenship to pledge allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” The bill does not require Jews to make the same declaration.

Why it matters: A watershed measure which has been widely condemned as formally racist, passage of the bill, a key demand of Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beiteinu party, could also fuel Lieberman’s drive to head the Israeli right, and eventually, run for the premiership.

Where it stands: Approved by the cabinet this week by a 22-8 vote, with all Labor ministers and three Likud MKs opposed. To become law, it must now pass three Knesset votes in the coming months.

What you can do: Add your voice to those working to defeat passage of the law. The law must have the support of the Likud [27 seats] and Labor [13] in order to pass. Write to Prime Minister and Likud Chair Benjamin Netanyahu and to Defense Minister and Labor Chair Ehud Barak to urge them to bar the bill from passage. The individual e-mail addresses of all Likud MKs may be found by clicking their names on the Knesset website. Senior Likud MKs Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Michael Eitan, as well as Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin have already spoken out strongly against the Loyalty Oath. Others are believed to have serious reservations, and may be persuaded to abstain or work to keep the bill from reaching the Knesset floor.

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel has compiled an extensive and informative listing of pending legislation with potentially anti-democratic consequences, including bills which could strip citizenship from people having taken part in Gaza aid flotillas and penalties for commemorating Naqba Day, the Palestinian day of mourning for the events of 1948.

2. Deporting Children Who Want to be Israelis

What it is: Interior Minister Eli Yishai, chair of the ultra-Orthodox Shas, has dug in his political heels to demand that the government expel 400 children of foreign nationals working in Israel, who no longer have valid permits to stay. Many of the children were born in Israel. Most say they feel that Israel is their home, and that they want to remain and become citizens.

Why it matters: Yishai has cast the deportations as holding the line against the possibility of millions of workers flooding into Israel, posing threats of disease and demographic dilution of the Jewish character of the state. In practice, however, the deportations come in lieu of a coherent policy on refugees, asylum seekers, and foreign nationals. Beyond this, most of the children know no other home, and like their parents, have demonstrated strikingly good citizenship.

Where it stands: Yishai said this week that the deportations would begin in a few weeks, adding that he could have ordered another 10,000 to leave the country, but did not.

What you can do: Voice your concerns to Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar, who has led the effort for a cabinet reconsideration of the deportations. Also, support groups working to help vulnerable resident non-citizens, including Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, Kav Laoved and Hotline for Migrant Workers.

3. Expanding settlement in East Jerusalem

What it is: Plans to further expel Palestinians in order to install Jews in homes in the flashpoint areas of Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah, and to create a large tourism area to promote the City of David settler tourism enterprise.

Why it matters: Any changes in Jerusalem, in particular operations in which the municipality and the police shield and foster settlement expansion can have devastating consequences.

Where it stands: City officials are watching closely, waiting for protests and U.S. scrutiny to die down, before ordering new expulsions into effect.

What you can do: Support the protests. Attend. Monitor events. Make your concerns known to members of congress, senators, the President.

4. Resuming Construction of the Jerusalem Museum of Tolerance

What it is: A mammoth, contentious project of the Simon Wiesenthal Center of Los Angeles, built on an ancient Muslim cemetery in the heart of the Holy City’s downtown.

Why it matters: The location of the excavation work, the extravagance of the complex in a poverty-plagued city, and the insensitivity demonstrated by Wiesenthal Center chief Rabbi Marvin Hier have enraged Muslims and moderate Jews in the city and around the world.

Where it stands: The project has been faltering of late, following the resignation of renowned architect Frank Gehry. But SWC has declared its determination to go on, hastily hiring a new architectural team.

What you can do: Contact the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat to urge that the project be put to an end.

5. Perpetuating the siege on Gaza

See Israel’s 10 worst errors of the decade.

6. Using attack dogs against protesters sailing on aid boats to Gaza

Enough said.

What you can do: See contact Defense Minister, above.

7. Barring entry and/or jailing and/or expelling additional Nobel Peace Prize winners, intellectuals, authors, and clowns.

8. Gratuitously and intentionally angering Turkish and other Mideastern neighbors.

9. Gratuitously and intentionally angering the U.S. and E.U., and giving them the impression that Israeli and Diaspora Jews prefer settlements to peace with the Palestinians.

What you can do: Get involved with Americans for Peace Now, J Street, the New Israel Fund, Tikkun, Ameinu, Meretz USA and any of the many other organizations working at the local, national, and international level on behalf of peace, democracy, and social justice in Israel.

10. Failing to indict Avigdor Lieberman for alleged money laundering. 

What you can do: Pray.


2.  Ynet,

October 18, 2010


   Netanyahu orders change to loyalty oath

Prime minister heeds furor caused by suggested amendment to Citizenship Act, demanding aspiring citizens pledge allegiance to ‘Jewish, democratic Israel’; instructs justice minister to change new law to include Jewish Law of Return applicants,7340,L-3971329,00.html

Attila Somfalvi

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered Justice Minister Yaakov Ne’eman Monday to draft a new amendment to the Citizenship Act, this time applying the controversial loyalty oath to Jews seeking Israeli citizenship under Law of Return guidelines, as well. 

The original amendment, which stated that those seeking Israeli citizenship would be required to pledge their allegiance to a “Jewish and democratic Israel” instead of simply to the State of Israel, caused a political and public uproar and was slammed as racist.

Knesset Member Ahmad Tibi (United Arab List-Ta’al) commented on Netanyahu’s instruction to change the loyalty oath bill saying that “the idea is bad to begin with.” 

“It has no place in this or Lieberman’s version as there is no reason to compete with his fascism. Forcing an identity on Arabs and Jews alike is completely redundant,” he said. 

Balad Chairman Jamal Zahalka added that the proposed change “changes nothing.” The law, he said, “Remains racist because it demands Palestinians debased themselves by pledging allegiance to the Jewish state. If a country ever forces Jews to pledge allegiance to Christian or Muslim ideology, they would be accused of being anti-Semitic.”

Deputy Health Minister Moshe Gafni (United Torah Judaism) also criticized the decision, saying that “instead of the prime minister focusing on the real issues, such as the housing plight, he’s focusing on nonsense. 

“This pledge carries no benefits to the state or its citizens. I oppose it and I hope it fails to find a majority,” he said. 

Various senior legalists addressed the amendment since its publication, and while the consensus was that there was nothing legally wrong with the proposed bill, many agreed the wording was problematic.

Professor Yedidya Stern of the Center for Democratic Studies, who also serves as president of the Israeli Democratic Institute, explained that while Israel was well within its right in demanding naturalized citizens pledge their allegiance to the state, “If we wish to prevent racism, this should be applies to everyone seeking citizenship, including Jews.”

The redrafting ordered by the prime minister coincides with a proposal to the effect made by Ne’eman himself.  

Sharon Roffe-Ofir and Roni Sofer contributed to this report


3.  from cpt_hebron


Monday  18th October 2010

Al-khalil(Hebron)  Shepherd made homeless, livelihood threatened, son in prison.

Noah El-Rajabi is a shepherd, with two hundred  sheep and goats. He lives in Bani Na’im,17 kilometres from Hebron. He is married, and has seven children.

Bani Na’im is under Israeli military and civil control.

Ten weeks ago the Israeli military demolished his house. His wife and younger children now live in two rented rooms in Hebron. Noah and his oldest son lived in a tent supplied by the Red Cross, so that Noah could continue to work with his flock.

On Monday 11th October, at 8.00 a.m. the Israeli military arrived without warning and destroyed his water cistern, his tent, and a small wooden structure Noah used for cooking and storage.

His oldest son, aged 14, who was with Noah, protested at the soldiers’ action, and was arrested. His son is accused of assaulting two soldiers. Noah reports that soldiers kicked and beat some of the animals and that one pregnant ewe aborted.

CPTers met Noah in Hebron on Tuesday morning 12th October. He did not know where his son was being held, and where he could get water for his animals.

CPTers accompanied Noah to three Israeli police stations. The only information Israeli police gave was that his son was being held in Ofer military prison.  They refused to accept a complaint against the Israeli soldiers for their behaviour.

CPTers also visited Noah’s rented accommodation in Hebron. They met his wife and some of his younger children. ‘Please bring my son home’, his wife pleaded.

The animals are being looked after by Noah’s brother, and have been moved to another hillside, where there is water. Agencies in Hebron are trying to reconnect Noah’s water supply, but the cistern will have to be restored, and will run the risk of further demolition orders in the future.

CPT Al-Khalil is deeply concerned about the number of children who are being detained by the Israeli army and police. For further information on the imprisonment of Palestinian minors by the Israeli military, please refer to the annual reports of Defence for Children International (Palestine):  Go to ‘publications’, and then to ‘Palestinian Child Prisoners’ June 2009


4.  BBC,

October 18, 2010

Mike Leigh cancels Israel trip over loyalty oath

Mike Leigh is the award-winning director of Naked and Secrets & Lies

The British film-maker Mike Leigh has cancelled a visit to Israel in protest against controversial plans to compel non-Jewish new citizens to swear loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state.

The director, 67, had been due to spend a week at a film school in Jerusalem in late November.

But in a letter to the school’s director, he said Israel’s government had gone “from bad to worse”.

He called the loyalty oath “the last straw”.

Speaking on Monday at the London Film Festival, where he is showing his new film Another Year, Leigh said he wanted to send Israel “a very clear message”.

The bill, which has been approved by Israel’s cabinet but still has to be passed by the Israeli parliament the Knesset, would add a phrase to the citizenship oath taken by non-Jews, requiring them to pledge allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”.

Critics say the move is discriminatory and would largely target Palestinians marrying Israelis. Some suggest that there is a contradiction in describing the Israeli state as both Jewish and democratic.


Leigh said on Monday: “When the time comes that Israel behaves respectably, and when there is a just peace for the Palestinians, and when Gaza is returned to humanity, then I will be first in line to go and share anything that anyone wants to with my colleagues, the Israeli filmmakers and other artists.

“But until that happens I think it’s appropriate for all of us to leave a very clear message that we shouldn’t and can’t do that.”

Leigh’s letter to Renen Schorr, the director of the Sam Spiegel Film and Television School, and Mr Schorr’s response have been published on the school’s website.

In it, Leigh – himself Jewish – cites the Israeli attack on a Gaza-bound aid flotilla in May and the recent resumption of settlement-building on the West Bank as factors in his decision.

“I have become ever-increasingly uncomfortable about what would unquestionably appear as my implicit support for Israel were I to fulfil my promise and come,” he writes.

“I have absolutely no choice. I cannot come, I do not want to come, and I am not coming,” writes the award-winning director of Naked and Secrets & Lies. 

The move is regretted by Mr Schorr, who in his response says “the academic-cultural boycott of Israel… does not arouse the Israeli public… Boycotts and ostracism are the antithesis of dialogue”.


Posted in Middle East1 Comment




Capitalism depends on the manufacture of goods at comparatively low prices, but often sold at a premium.

For evidence of that we need look no further than the modern Western accoutrement, the mobile phone.

This has been brought into focus by the activities of Foxconn, whose naked exploitation of its workers has led to many suicides and growing concerns over its activities.

Foxconn is effectively a subcontractor to Western companies, Apple, Nokia, etc. They put together electronic goods and mobile phones that are so ubiquitous in the West.

But that labour comes at a cost, small cost for Foxconn and a large one for its workers as the strike in India shows:

“Foxconn India management’s defiance to recognise the demands of the Foxconn India Thozhilalar Sangam (FITS) union affiliated to the Centre of India Trade Unions (CITU), on wages and reinstatement of 23 workers, caused workers to commence an industrial struggle on September 22, 2010, according to information provided by the International Metalworkers’ Federation (IMF) and India labour rights group Cividep.

On September 8, FITS, claiming membership of around 1,500 workers out of the 1,800 total of regular workers, gave notice to strike to Foxconn India management demanding wage negotiations. However, the management entered in to an agreement with Foxconn India Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam (FITMS), a union affiliated to LPF workers wing of ruling DMK party.

From the early hours of September 22, 2010, FITS commenced its “sit-in” strike, around 1,500 workers participated and half of them are women workers. Around 6,000 contract workers and trainees were also not allowed to work by the strikers. In the evening of the same day workers called off the strike as the Foxconn India management promised to discuss with the FITS union in the presence of District Labour Commissioner on September 27, 2010.

However, on September 23, Foxconn India informed the workers that it already entered in to a memorandum of understanding with the FITMS union, hence no negotiations with FITS and announced the imposition of eight days wage cut for workers who participated in the strike.

Protesting against the management action, FITS resumed the sit-in strike on September 24. The management used police to arrest 1,500 workers and suspended 23 activists.”




Joint Statement from SJPs on Anti-Defamation Leagues “Top 10” List

This is the future. Yalla byebye Zionism, marhab justice. The students who drafted this letter did so with dizzying speed and scary efficiency and professionalism. They did so democratically, comradely, calmly, coolly, constructively, and for free–no AIPAC student ambassador-or-whatever internships for these guys. When young people are willing to work so hard, quickly, smartly, and freely for justice, you know we are going to defuse Zionism before it sets off conflagration or genocide. You may not know what side you’re on. It is never too late to choose the right one.

On October 14th, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) named Students for Justice in Palestine on its list of the “Top 10 Anti-Israel Groups in America,” claiming that “SJP chapters regularly organize activities presenting a biased view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including mock ‘apartheid walls’ and ‘checkpoint’ displays.” As members of several student groups working for justice in Palestine, we affirmatively state that the ADL’s characterization of our campus educational efforts and activism about Israeli injustices against Palestinians as “biased” is a disingenuous and misguided attempt to vilify students that criticize Israel’s occupation, which denies Palestinian human rights and self-determination. In this statement, we clarify our principles and invite the ADL to reconsider its categorical silence on egregious Israeli human rights violations by joining the movement for freedom, equality, and justice in Palestine.

Students for Justice in Palestine groups have developed independently as students across the country seek to raise awareness about the Israeli government’s violations of human rights. Our groups represent constituencies of students, faculty, staff and community members from diverse ethnic, religious, national, and political backgrounds including many Jewish and Israeli members who have been continually ostracized by organizations like the ADL. Our organizations work independently of one another, but collectively, we are united in our belief in justice, freedom and human rights for the Palestinian people. We are unified by our purpose of confronting these wrongs that cause so much death and suffering.

The ADL shields Israeli policy by invoking the “complexity of the conflict” without ever illuminating it. As students we have a definite responsibility to use the tools of knowledge at our disposal to penetrate that complexity; “to speak truth and to expose lies” and “to analyze actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions,” to quote social critic Noam Chomsky. Complexity can never be an excuse for complacency.

In that vein, groups like the United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International have affirmed in painstaking detail Israel’s deplorable human rights record and systematic intransigency. By educating ourselves, our campuses and our communities about what the Israeli government inflicts upon the Palestinian people within the occupied territories, inside Israel, and beyond, we can begin to identify the problems that cause this injustice.

United States foreign aid to Israel – which numbers in the billions every year – is chief amongst the issues enabling Israel’s continued occupation and racism. As students in America, therefore, our duty is three-fold: to apply our academic rigor to learn the truth, to educate and hold our communities accountable for support given in our name, and to lobby our government to end its diplomatic cover for Israeli injustice.

Palestinians have the right to fight for their freedom and to resist the occupation and colonization of their indigenous lands. Therefore, we are committed to non-violent activism that promotes education, civic and political organization to promote the Palestinian struggle for freedom. Many of our organizations have responded favorably to a 2005 call from over 170 civil society organizations within Palestine for activists to stand in solidarity by promoting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

We see this method as an important and practical tool that students can use to express solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom. We also believe it illuminates the behind-the-scenes relationships, economic and otherwise, that enable Israel’s behavior and that can be used to urge our communities to be accountable to the ways in which they may unwittingly support the occupation.

We are inspired by the international movement against South African apartheid—which successfully ended only 16 years ago—and we aim similarly to bring an end to the system imposed by Israel on the Palestinians. As in the South African movement, the BDS call has been endorsed by many conscientious citizens of Israel, including Arabs and Jews, as well as numerous social justice and peace activists around the world. Among the luminaries supporting the call for solidarity are Nobel Peace laureates like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, co-drafter of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights Stephane Hessel, distinguished professors, jurists, authors, intellectuals, and artists.

Ultimately, we locate ourselves in a legacy of social justice movements working at the grassroots for a free and just world. The ADL itself started this way a century ago. We suspect that the ADL, high on its perch among the political elite, has lost sight of its founding values. It opposed the South African anti-apartheid movement and engaged in massive spying on private American citizens. It recently abandoned its belief in religious freedom by condemning Muslim Americans hoping to build an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan.

The same day it attacked SJP, the ADL honored Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul who owns Fox News Network, one of the most despicable purveyors of hatred against Muslim, Arab, Latino, Black, and queer communities in our time. These are not the actions of an organization with a moral compass that points in the direction of justice.

We will continue to work for a just peace where Palestinians are free in their homeland and equals to Jewish Israelis. We invite the ADL to reflect and to choose to build this world, rather than to stop it.

Students For Justice in Palestine Group Signatories

Arizona State University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Bard College, International Solidarity Movement
Bates College, Students for Justice in Palestine
Benedictine University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Boston University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Brandeis University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Brown University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Clark University, Students for Palestinian Rights
Columbia University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Cornell University, United for Peace and Justice in Palestine
DePaul University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Florida International University, Miami, Students for Justice in Palestine
George Washington University, Students for Justice in Palestine
Hampshire College- Students for Justice in Palestine
Harvard College- Palestine Solidarity Committee
Harvard University- Alliance for Justice in the Middle East
Illinois Institute of Technology- Students for Justice in Palestine
Loyola University Chicago- Middle East Student Association (MESA)
Macalester College- Macalester Students United for Palestinian Equal Rights
Massachusetts Institute of Technology- Palestine@MIT
New York University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Northeastern Illinois University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Northeastern University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Northwestern University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Ohio State University- Committee for Justice in Palestine
Purdue University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Rutgers University- BAKA: Students United for Middle Eastern Justice
School of the Art Institute of Chicago- Students for Justice in Palestine
St. Xavier University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Suffolk University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Temple University- Students for Justice in Palestine
Texas Christian University- Students for Justice in Palestine
The Pennsylvania State University- University Park, Students for Justice in Palestine
Tufts University- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Arizona- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, Berkeley- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, Davis- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, Hastings College of the Law- La Raza Law Students Association
University of California, Hastings College of the Law- Middle Eastern Law Students Association
University of California, Los Angeles School of Law- Law Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, Los Angeles- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, Riverside- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, San Diego- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, Santa Barbara- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of California, Santa Cruz- Committee for Justice in Palestine
University of Chicago- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Connecticut- International Relations Association
University of Florida, Gainesville- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Florida- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Illinois at Chicago- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Maryland, Baltimore- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Massachusetts, Boston- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Michigan- Students Allied for Freedom and Equality
University of Pittsburgh- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of South Florida- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Southern California- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Southern California- Students for Justice in Palestine
University of Texas, Austin- Palestine Solidarity Committee
University of Washington, Seattle- Students for Justice in Palestine
Wellesley College- Justice for Palestine
Yale University- Students for Justice in Palestine


EAST COAST: Yaman Salahi [Connecticut]: 203-491-0092 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              203-491-0092      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,

Alex Cachinero-Gorman [Massachusetts]: 908-705-6033 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              908-705-6033      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,


Andrew Dalack [Michigan]:734-645-6860 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              734-645-6860      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,
Sami Kishawi [Illinois]:773-822-8157 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              773-822-8157      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,

WEST COAST: Lana Khoury [California] 650-274-9085 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              650-274-9085      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,
Gabriel Schivone [Arizona]: 520-302-6006 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              520-302-6006      end_of_the_skype_highlighting,

Technorati Tags: ADL, BDS, Israel, Palestine, SJP, Students for Justice in Palestine, ZionismRelated posts:

  1. The ADL’s Top Ten List: ISM made it The Anti-Defamation League has created a list of the top…
  2. Moshe Machover on anti-Zionism Moshe Machover was one of the founders of Matzpen, the…
  3. The Banality of Anti-Israel Lobby Doctrine This is a guest post from David Green. My own…
  4. The New New New anti-Semitism The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Con­tem­po­rary Anti­semitism…
  5. International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network open letter The Inter­na­tional Jewish anti-Zionist Network–I am nominally a member–posted this…  

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.


Shoah’s pages