Archive

For November, 2011

Nov 30

Illegitimate Egyptian Elections

By No Comments

Illegitimate Egyptian Elections – by Stephen Lendman

 

Last February, Mubarak’s 30-year dictatorship ended. Another one replaced him. Egypt’s military holds absolute power.

 

Authoritarian dominance is unchallenged. Elections are more theater than real. Egypt’s multi-round complex process complicates them further. So do logistics. Understanding what to do is daunting.

 

The hybrid ballot lists parties and individual candidates. Voters choose from both. Candidates represent professionals and worker/farmers. Influence peddling and fraud are rife.

 

Egypt’s process perhaps has no parallel anywhere. Voters cast three votes, including for scores of new parties and candidates they don’t recognize.

 

Egypt’s junta deliberately designed a hard to comprehend complex system despite strong opposition from participating parties.

 

Individual candidates will be chosen by popular vote. Party totals may not determine representation in Parliament. Party listed candidates will get seats based on how high they’re listed.

 

At issue is controlling the process and outcome.

 

Vote-counting is especially prone to fraud. One of Stalin’s memorable quotes was, “It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”

 

Some results will be announced after each round. Party list ones won’t come until January.

 

Human rights activist Hossam Bahgat complained about Egypt’s allegedly first ever “free and fair election,” saying “we’ve opted for one of the world’s most complicated electoral systems.”

 

Of course, regime supporters call it free and fair. Independent observers see it otherwise.

 

Procedurally it works as follows:

  • 6,700 candidates are participating;

 

  • Lower House People’s Assembly voting is held on November 28, 29, December 14 and January 3; 498 members are chosen for five-year terms – 454 by proportional representation, another 44 in single-seat constituencies, and 10 more members nominated;

 

  • Upper House Shura Council voting will be on January 29, February 14 and March 4; 264 members are chosen for six-year terms; 174 are directly elected; the president appoints the others;

 

  • Presidential voting will occur sometime from mid-2012 to 2013; no date was announced.

    Egypt’s governorates, divided into varying numbers of districts, vote on different days, further complicating the process. Cairo, Alexandria and seven other governorates began voting on November 28. The remaining 18 will vote in two later rounds.

     

    Voters will complete two ballots, choosing a party and individual candidates. Each district will elect four to 12 party MPs. They’ll also choose popularly elected ones.

     

    In Cairo, for example, 36 party candidates will be chosen in four districts, as well as 18 popularly elected ones in nine districts.

     

    Allocating party seats in Cairo works as follows:

    • if party A gets 50% of the vote, their top 18 candidates are chosen;

     

    • if party B gets 25%, their top nine ones are picked;

     

    • if party C gets 25%, their top nine also are seated.

     

    Seats are divided equally between professional and worker/farmer classifications. If the top two candidates from each category win a majority of votes, runners-up will be passed over for the highest standing candidate of the alternate working class. Try sorting that out.

     

    The process is so complicated, it’s hard understanding and explaining it properly. Imagine how Egypt’s voters feel. Most are flying blind.

     

    Egypt’s Anti-Democratic Tradition

     

    Last year’s parliamentary elections were corrupted by fraud, violence and repression. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party (NDP) dominated. Opposition parties won only seven seats. Another seven went to independent candidates.

     

    Muslim Brotherhood candidates were entirely shut out. This year, they’re expected to emerge dominant with less than a majority overall. Voting so far is reasonably orderly and peaceful. Of course, outcomes matter most.

     

    Egyptians will eventually realize they’ve again been had like so many previous times. Entrenched junta power won’t yield. Egyptians wanting civilian rule won’t get it.

     

    The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) will retain power to propose and veto legislation, convene and adjourn parliament, appoint and replace the prime minister and cabinet members, and have final say on how Egypt’s governed. Elected officials will serve them.

     

    Traditional authoritarian rule runs the country. Elections don’t choose those running it. They provide a veneer of democratic change, not the real thing.

     

    During single-party elections from 1957 – 1972, candidates were screened for party loyalty. In the 1960s, dual-member constituencies were introduced with seats reserved for worker/farmers. It hardly mattered. In 1976, Anwar Sadat allowed left, center and right parties to compete. Independents could also run.

     

    In 1979, however, candidates opposing Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel faced repression and electoral fraud. Mubarak’s 1984 and 1987 elections marginally improved the process. More parties could run, including ones Sadat excluded. Muslim Brotherhood candidates were allowed to run under the auspices of an allied secular party.

     

    However, the 1984 Election Law excluded smaller parties from parliament. None getting less than 8% support won seats. Instead, their votes were added to the party receiving a plurality.

     

    In addition, the dual-member constituency system was replaced by multi-member districts in which party lists competed. Parliament remained a bourgeoisie preserve. Opposition parties were marginalized. Generals dominate to this day.

     

    They’ve run Egypt since Nasser’s Free Officers Movement gained power in 1952. They have major economic interests. Real opposition isn’t tolerated. Egypt’s Emergency Law enforces power. First enacted in 1958, it remained in effect since 1967, except for a brief 1980 period. In 1981, its current version was enacted.

     

    It permits suspending constitutional rights, instituting martial law, enforcing censorship, curtailing anti-regime protests, marginalizing opposition, restricting assemblies and free movement, arrests and indefinite detentions with or without charges, trials in military tribunals, and overall extralegal police state harshness.

     

    Amnesty International’s 2010 Egypt Report said Emergency powers are used “to detain peaceful critics and opponents as well as people suspected of security offenses or involvement in terrorism.”

     

    Some are detained administratively. Others get unfair military trials. Many are tortured. Death sentences are imposed. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are restricted or denied.

     

    Egypt’s police, other security forces, and army enforce hardline control. Activists, dissidents, anti-regime Islamists, other opposition forces, and anyone perceived threatening entrenched power can be arrested, detained, tortured and/or killed.

     

    A still in force 1996 press law criminalizes defamation insults, and libel to suppress press freedom and speech, including against bloggers. Academia isn’t safe either. State authorities control appointments, promotions, and university administrations.

     

    As a result, subtle self-censorship prevails. Opposition professors have been fired. Activist students are harassed. Women are regularly mistreated. A 2008 Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights report said over 80% of women suffer public sexual humiliation from groping to criminal assaults.

     

    Gays and other minorities are also targeted. Men accused of homosexual acts are arrested. Though religious freedom is allowed, police at times clash with Christians. Street children are especially abused. Thousands live in Cairo.

     

    Human Rights Watch estimated over 11,000 arrests and detentions for weeks in unsanitary, hazardous conditions, “often with adult criminal detainees who abuse them.” In addition, they’re denied adequate food, water, bedding and medical care. So are other prisoners.

     

    A Final Comment

     

    Institutionalized police state power runs Egypt. Generals are in charge. Parliamentary and presidential elections won’t change things. Egyptians are stuck with systemic injustice they abhor.

     

    Their liberating struggle just began. So have others across the region. They face repressive regimes unwillingly to yield power. They’ll crack down hard to keep it. Washington supports the worst of them.

     

    Democracy’s nowhere in sight. Expecting it is a foolish leap of faith. Military rule remains solid.

     

    Only sustained activism can change things, but never easily, quickly, or without thousands of casualties on Egyptian and other regional streets.

     

    And it can get just as nasty in America and across Europe if social justice protests reach critical mass. Hopefully it won’t deter committed activism for long denied change.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 30

    At Risk Eurozone Sovereign Credit Ratings

    By No Comments

    At Risk Eurozone Sovereign Credit Ratings – by Stephen Lendman

     

    Moody’s says Eurozone crisis conditions place all member state credit ratings at risk.

     

    It warned 87 European banks to expect downgrades. Moreover, Fitch revised America’s debt outlook to negative. Nonetheless, its AAA rating is unchanged. For how long is another issue.

     

    At the same time, Italy’s La Stampa said IMF intervention will rescue the country. No source was given, and Il Sole 24 Ore, Italy’s Financial Times, didn’t report it. It makes the claim all the more suspect.

     

    IMF’s funding capacity gives it $387 billion to contribute. It can also raise another $250 billion from willing contributor countries and has other tools.

     

    At issue is will IMF use all its firepower for Italy? Will member states lend it more? Will bilateral loans be sought from countries like China, and/or will the European Central Bank (ECB) supply additional funding?

     

    Two Financial Times articles appealed to Germany to save Europe and Italians to be patriotic and buy debt.

     

    Imagine asking Italian workers to rescue the country that sold them out. Imagine asking Germany’s $3.5 trillion economy to rescue other Eurozone ones with a combined $9 trillion GDP.

     

    It’s high time solutions accepted reality. Europe’s monetary union failed. Combining 17 dissimilar economies under one system was doomed from day one. It was just a matter of time and circumstances. They’ve now arrived.

     

    The main issue is will anything do more than buy time? Adding more debt compounds today’s crisis. Rising sovereign debt bond yields say so. So do credit rating cuts on Portugal, Belgium and Hungary with more coming.

     

    Talk is increasing about the troubled Eurozone dissolving. UK financial regulator Andrew Bailey believes it’s “within the realm of contingency planning.”

     

    Others say breaking up is an idea whose time has come. It’s hard to do, but bad unions are worse. Doomsday scenarios are mentioned, including separating strong countries from weaker ones. Historically, monetary and fiscal union succeeded only in America.

     

    Other troubled countries include Japan. It’s coping with a staggering 200% debt/GDP ratio, far greater than EU economies or America. Even China’s looking less rock solid. Its industrial sector contracted and export volume slowed to single-digit volume.

     

    Contagion is spreading everywhere. It hit Greece two years ago, then Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy.

     

    Spain’s economy is double the size of Greece, Ireland and Portugal combined. It’s mortgage, commercial loans, and other debt can bankrupt Europe. Its impact would affect nations globally. It’s running out of time. It’s heading rapidly for default.

     

    Its unemployment rate is 23%. Around half of all youths can’t find work. A million or more people may lose homes, the equivalent of seven million in America. Its income inequality is the highest since the EU’s Eurostat (its official statistics agency) began analyzing income distribution in 1995.

     

    Following the fall 2007 crisis, its PSOE government clashed salaries up to 15%, attacked pensions, cut child benefits, introduced destructive labor reforms, and ended banning employing contracted temp workers indefinitely.

     

    Expect Spain’s new right-wing Popular Party (PP) to pass stiffer austerity measures. As a result, anger may explode more than already. Spain’s a power keg. New Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy wants all Spaniards working together. Punished workers may take another route.

     

    Unemployment, homelessness, strikes and mass protests are increasing. Bond investors want no part of Spanish debt. It’s priced nearly 5% above equivalent German bonds. It’s nearly fourfold the 2008 peak level and beyond what triggered Greece’s collapse.

     

    Moreover, in one month, Spain’s 3-month sovereign yields doubled to over 5%. Its new government won’t fare better than previous ones. Names and faces may change, but problems remain and grow. If Spain defaults, it’s too big to save. So is Italy, and, of course, America dwarfs them all if it falls.

     

    Everywhere, especially in troubled sovereigns, governments spend all their resources. They’re borrowing all they can get internally and abroad. Push is rapidly reaching shove. A day of reckoning too onerous to manage approaches.

     

    Funding holes for European banks are deepening. The Financial Times said they managed to roll over just $413 billion of the $654 billion due this year. As a result, they’ve got a huge $241 billion funding gap. In 2012, $720 billion in debt comes due.

     

    Europe’s banking sector deleveraging problem grows greater than they’re able to handle. The FT says disposal assets on their balance sheets total $3.3 trillion in the next few years. Who has pockets deep enough to absorb it?

     

    America’s in greater trouble than people realize because of extreme speculative excess. Toxic derivatives impose crushing burdens. The Comptroller of the Currency estimates banks held $176 trillion of them at the height of the 2008 debt crisis. Today, US banks hold $249 trillion, 41% more.

     

    Moreover, America’s crushing federal debt exceeds 118% of GDP. Add unfunded liabilities and it’s over $120 trillion. Totals rise despite imposed deficit reduction measures and proposed new ones. Over $1 trillion added annually compounds an already unmanageable burden.

     

    Expect international creditors to balk. Borrowing will get tougher. Economic decline will follow. A burgeoning new debt crisis will dwarf 2008. Its effects will spread globally.

     

    Progressive Radio News Hour regular Bob Chapman believes “Europe still does not have a longer-term structural solution to its debt crisis and none is in the offing.”

     

    The Eurozone’s crisis is undermining the entire continent. It has global effects. Worse yet, he learned, “the Bundesbank usually holds back bonds for market making operations.” It only sold about half its latest issue. “If the crisis continues to deepen, Germany and the other eurozone nations will have to reexamine where they are headed.”

     

    Eurozone 10-year debt costs close to 7%, the highest level since the euro’s creation. The 2% spread between France and Germany’s unprecedented. Bond markets can’t function without ECB help. Sovereign government debt is unmanageable. Increasing it makes it worse.

     

    Italy’s largest bank, Unibank, has $51 billion to refinance. Its bond yields now yield over 10%. Only the ECB can bail them out like the Fed does for Wall Street.

     

    Besides what Eurozone countries have to refinance next year, banks have to roll $720 billion of their own at high rates. Moreover, troubled sovereigns need around $6 trillion to avoid default. Solvent countries can’t provide it without going broke. Neither can the Fed, ECB or IMF.

     

    Capital flight is also an issue. In 2011, Greek banks lost 20% of their deposits. Will Italian and Spanish ones be next? Smart money says so. World leaders grope for solutions. Good ones aren’t being chosen “The situation is unsustainable,” says Chapman.

     

    If troubled Eurozone sovereigns default, or just Italy and/or Spain, “US banks cannot possibly stay solvent.” Knock-on contagion will crush them. All 27 EU nations are at risk. So are others globally. “This as we predicted has no solution.”

     

    Weaker states will be cut loose. The euro will be phased out. Article 123 of the EU Treaty prohibiting ECB financing is illegal. Sticking with treaty provisions assures collapse. Germany won’t abandon the system. Instead, they’ll drop weaker states and hope others hold together.

     

    Worsening conditions assure damned if you do or don’t outcomes. Ordinary people will be hurt most, including in stronger nations like Germany. End game trouble’s approaching at a faster clip.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 29

    Target Syria

    By No Comments

    Target Syria - by Stephen Lendman

     

    Washington’s Greater Middle East project involves waring against the region one country at a time to replace independent regimes with client ones.

     

    Softer targets were attacked first. Tougher ones remain, notably Iran and Syria. Subduing them may involve turning the entire region into an uncontrollable cauldron, not least because China and Russia have interests to defend.

     

    Russia maintains a strategic naval base at Tartus, Syria, its only Mediterranean location. It considers it vital protection for its Black Sea Fleet. It’s being modernized to accommodate heavy warships after 2012. Russia came to stay.

     

    Three Russian warships now patrol Syrian waters. Unofficial sources confirm it, saying Russia’s there to protect strategic and national security interests, as well as prevent war.

     

    About 120,000 Russian citizens are in Syria. Moscow’s obligated to protect them the way they aided South Ossetian Russians after Georgia attacked the province in August 2008.

     

    Provocatively, America’s nuclear carrier USS George HW Bush anchored off Syria. Its Strike Group and additional vessels are conducting maritime security and support operations nearby. The US 6th Fleet patrols the area.

     

    Meanwhile, Washington and Turkey urged their citizens to leave Syria. A November 23 US statement said “depart immediately while commercial transportation is available.” Whether something’s brewing isn’t known. Tough talk alone doesn’t suggest it. Nonetheless, it’s worrisome.

     

    Syria’s being assaulted like Libya. Heavily armed insurgents are involved. Washington orchestrated everything. Neighboring countries are involved, including Israel. Syria’s blamed for defending itself. Libya redux looks possible. Continued violence and escalating tensions suggest it.

     

    An anonymous Russian intelligence official said America “is playing a very dangerous game here. One that may result in Russia taking defensive actions to protect itself, its military installation and Russian citizens.”

     

    A Russian military expert called US carriers “expensive floating targets that are vulnerable to attacks by aircraft, missiles and torpedos. They were designed for Cold War scenarios, and are less useful in establishing control of areas close to shore.”

     

    According to Pravda.ru, Center for Military Forecasts analyst Anatoly Tsyganok said Washington no longer will inform Russia about planned troop deployments.

     

    “Apparently, it is connected with the situation in the Mediterranean Sea,” he said. “One may assume that NATO will create a military group near Russia’s southern borders to strike Syria.”

     

    “They will most likely raise this issue at the NATO summit in December. They will try to analyze Syria’s actions in case NATO conducts a military operation against the country, like (earlier) in Libya.”

     

    Itar-Tass contributor Anatoly Lazarev accused Washington of “initia(ting) the campaign for strangling Damascus.” Russia stresses dialogue for conflict resolution. “Washington obviously does not like the stand assumed by Moscow. By all appearances, it wishes to play first the Libyan and now the Syrian card” to ensure its regional interests “at all costs.” Then on to new targets to control the entire region.

     

    International Crisis Group (ICG) Comments on Syria

     

    Founded in 1995 by World Bank vice president Mark Malloch Brown and former US diplomat Morton Abramowitz, ICG supports power, not popular interests. Comments on its Middle East Project Director Peter Harling’s analysis follows below.

     

    Titled, “Uncharted Waters: Thinking Through Syria’s Dynamics,” he assessed where things now stand, saying:

     

    “The Syrian crisis may or may not have entered its final phase, but it undoubtedly has entered its most dangerous one to date. The current stage is defined by an explosive mix of heightened strategic stakes tying into a regional and wider international competition on the one hand and emotionally charged attitudes, communal polarisation and political wishful thinking on the other.”

     

    Based in Damascus, Harling’s observing events firsthand. Entirely missing from current considerations, he believes, “is a sober assessment of the challenges provoked by (balance of power) shifts and the very real risk that they could derail or even foreclose the possibility of a successful transition.”

     

    Of course, it’s for Syrians, not outside powers, to decide. Intervening in other nations’ internal affairs is illegal. For Washington, its NATO partners, and Israel it’s standard practice. Harding’s analysis omitted international law issues, focusing on imperial ones instead.

     

    Five key issues are excluded from Syria’s debate, he believes, including:

    • the dominant Alawite community’s fate;

     

    • Syrian and Lebanese ties;

     

    • implications of international intervention;

     

    • impact of the protest movement’s militarization; and

     

    • “creeping social, economic and institutional decay.”

     

    Assad linked the Alawite community’s fate to his own to assure loyalty among people who’ve gained little from the regime. Crisis conditions bonded them to Assad’s government. The same holds for Syrian Christians.

     

    Critically, the regime controls Damascus and Aleppo, Syria’s largest city. It secured them because protests there remain peaceful. Its “divide-and-rule tactics have kept most Alawites, many Christians, as well as some Druze and Sunnis on its side.”

     

    Nonetheless, civil society segments support insurgents. The longer conflict persists, the greater the incentive for affected business, middle class, and other elements to seek ways to end it. At issue is protecting their own self-interest. They want calm to get back to business as soon as possible.

     

    At the same time, Assad won’t step down or be deposed internally. Regime officials need him. He’s been instrumental in keeping support among BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and other countries. He’s also popular so why remove a regime prop.

     

    As for sanctions, civilians are mostly harmed much like everywhere they’re imposed. Assad said parliamentary elections will be held next February or March. Constitutional review will follow. So will presidential elections if new provisions in it say so.

     

    If Syrians agree to test him, violence might subside but won’t end as long as criminal insurgents are encouraged by Washington, Turkey and other regional states to maintain pressure.

     

    Nonetheless, without a political solution, violence will continue. Civilians will suffer horrifically. Military intervention may follow. For now, Assad’s holding firm. Violence hasn’t reached critical mass to topple him. Regime change isn’t imminent. Syria’s military supports him. Turkey’s pressure is limited, he believes.

     

    Arab League states have no credibility whatever. They condoned Libya’s ravaging, say nothing about NATO’s plans to colonize another Arab state, ignore Bahraini and other regional atrocities, and brutalize their own people protesting against political, economic and social injustice.

     

    On November 27, DEBKAfile said Syria’s neighbors are preparing for potential retaliation after League members imposed sanctions. Israel moved armored brigades to its Lebanese and Syrian borders. Turkey’s military is on alert. Lebanon and Jordan also responded defensively.

     

    “Military sources in the Gulf report that 150 Iranian Revolutionary Guards specialists had landed at a military airport south of Damascus on their way to Lebanon to join Hizbollah which began bringing its rockets out of their hideouts.”

     

    Russia’s supplying Syria super-advanced S-300 anti-missile systems, as well as advanced Pantsir-1 (SA-22 Greyhound) anti-air missiles and supersonic Yakhont (SS-26) missiles for targeting vessels blockading Syria’s coast.

     

    Resolution’s nowhere in sight. Conditions remain fluid. War winds are blowing. Redrawing the region is planned. Arab Spring talk belies strategies to do it. Perhaps destroying it comes first.

     

    A Final Comment

     

    On November 27, Arab League states approved stiff anti-Syrian economic sanctions. Their 14-point plan includes travel bans on regime officials, asset freezes, blocking sale of “nonessential” commodities, halting transactions with Syria’s central bank, and ending financing for Arab-funded projects in the country.

     

    Sanctions are effective immediately. Ordinary people will be hurt most. At issue is weakening popular support for Assad to facilitate regime change more easily. In fact, people under duress usually rally behind sitting governments for support. It remains to be seen if Syrians follow suit.

     

    On November 28, Mathaba.net reported that Kuwait’s al Rai daily learned from unnamed senior European sources that Arab states, with US logistical support, will impose a no-fly zone over Syria once an authorizing Arab League charter decree is issued, calling for the protection of Syrian civilians.

     

    With or without one, attacking a nonbelligerent state is illegal. Nations may only respond against others defensively. Intervening militarily in their internal affairs is prohibited. Nonetheless, doing it for humanitarian reasons will be invoked. It doesn’t wash but may work, with or without a Security Council resolution.

     

    America and NATO partners aren’t deterred by international or statute laws. As a result, Syria is increasingly vulnerable.

     

    According to al Rai, a no-fly ban will target Syrian artillery and military vehicles, including tanks and armored personnel carriers. They’ll be prohibited from moving freely. European sources say they’d be crippled “in less than 24 hours.”

     

    War winds are blowing stronger.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 29

    Palestinian Unity: A Threat, Says Israel

    By No Comments

    Palestinian Unity: A Threat, Says Israel - by Stephen Lendman

     

    Palestine is sovereign territory. In 1987, Law Professor Francis Boyle drafted its Declaration of Independence. On November 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council (PNC) adopted it, affirming Palestinian statehood.

     

    Nonetheless, Israel’s illegal occupation continues. Gaza’s under siege. Israeli forces attack repeatedly. Deaths and injuries result. Dozens of weekly West Bank incursions harass Palestinians ruthlessly. Numerous arrests follow. Innocent civilians are imprisoned, including children young as 10.

     

    Peaceful protesters are assaulted violently. Settlement expansions continue on stolen land. Dispossessed Palestinians have no redress. Police state repression terrorizes millions of people. World leaders yawn and do nothing.

     

    Last April in Cairo, Hamas and Fatah leaders proclaimed unity. Palestinians hoped it signaled rapprochement between the two sides.

     

    Both agreed to form a transitional government soon. The two delegations, headed by Fatah President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, discussed security issues and ways to coordinate forces cooperatively. They also agreed to hold presidential and legislative elections within a year.

     

    Despite reservations on both sides, signing ceremony comments signaled hope. Abbas suggested turning a page, saying:

     

    “Four black years have affected the interests of Palestinians. Now we meet to assert a unified will. Israel is using the Palestinian reconciliation as an excuse to evade (peace. It) must choose between peace and settlement.”

     

    Based on his long collaborationist history with Israel, his commitments need to be tested. Saying and doing often differ. The jury so far is out.

     

    For his part, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal said:

     

    “Hamas was ready to pay any price for internal Palestinian reconciliation. The only battle of the Palestinians is against Israel. Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any settlers and without giving up a single inch of land and without giving up on the right of return.”

     

    At the time, Netanyahu denounced unity, saying:

     

    “What happened….in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism.”

     

    In fact, Israel is the region’s leading purveyor of state terrorism by far. Moreover, Netanyahu, other Israeli officials, and previous ones spurn peace. Why else would decades of negotiations go nowhere.

     

    Hopefully, Hamas and Fatah agreements will hold. On November 24, the International Middle East Media Center headlined, “Abbas, Mashal, Meet in Cairo, Affirm National Unity,” saying:

     

    Both sides affirmed “Palestinian national unity and partnership. An understanding was reached to hold legislative and presidential elections in May 2012.” Abbas said:

     

    “I am pleased to inform the Arab and Islamic Nations that we started a new phase of partnership to best serve the Palestinian people. We deal with each other as partners.”

     

    “We have unified responsibility towards our people and our cause. We discussed the reconciliation agreement in detail, and we are pleased to say that were no disagreements on any issue.”

     

    It remains to be seen if he means it.

     

    Mashal also signaled hope, saying:

     

    “I want to assure everybody, these are not just words. I want everybody to wait and see the real outcome on the ground. We hope that our people, all factions, will help us in serving our cause.”

     

    Another meeting is planned for December 22 to affirm agenda details.

     

    In response, Israeli officials condemned the agreement, calling Hamas (Palestine’s legitimately elected government) a terrorist organization.

     

    Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said:

     

    “The foreign ministry is examining the possibility of Israel pulling out of the Gaza Strip in terms of infrastructure.”

     

    In other words, Israel may cut off electricity, water, and other essentials in retaliation. Already, besieged Gazans lack enough food, medicines, and other basic supplies. Everything is rationed. Shortages cause harm.

     

    Rolling blackouts happen daily for hours. Normality’s denied. So are Palestinian tax revenues PA leaders need to function. A senior Israeli official said if Hamas and Fatah conclude unity, “it would make a transfer of funds impossible.”

     

    In recent weeks, Israel escalated Gaza attacks. Potentially they signal more war. In mid-November, Israel’s military commander Benny Gantz warned about another large-scale operation. Palestinians take the threat seriously.

     

    On November 27, Haaretz writer Amir Oren headlined, “Egypt turmoil may prompt Israel to strike Gaza,” saying:

     

    The possibility of a post-election Islamist Egypt raised concerns. Why isn’t clear as Israel and Western nations have close ties to others. In fact, Israel’s using it as a pretext perhaps to unleash what’s already planned.

     

    Timing may depend on an “intelligence assessment of likely targets, the weather, the readiness levels of regular and reserve troops and, last but not least, the situation in Egypt” if new leaders are anti-Israeli.

     

    These and other factors affect new conflict strategies. “During Gantz’s nine months as chief of staff, plans for new operations have been drawn, old plans have been revised and numerous battle-oriented discussions have been staged.”

     

    Events on the ground will dictate decisions. Preemption’s a strong possibility. Israel favors it, claiming it’s responding defensively when, in fact, it’s committing lawless aggression – especially against soft targets like Gaza.

     

    Meanwhile, various UK media reports suggest Israel (with US logistical support) may attack Iranian nuclear sites by yearend or in early 2012. Britain’s Foreign Office believes it could come “sooner rather than later,” possibly by Christmas.

     

    In mid-November, Washington held discussions with Israel to discuss sanctions. Whether or not possible belligerence was considered isn’t known. Both countries bogusly call Iran a threat. Israel wants a regional rival eliminated. America wants client states throughout the Middle East to solidify its unchallenged dominance.

     

    Attacking Iran and/or Syria involves huge risks. The potential for general war is real. Its dangers are frightening. In her 1962 book titled, “The Guns of August,” Barbara Tuchman discussed events leading to WW I and its early weeks.

     

    Once started, things spun out of control with cataclysmic consequences, including over 20 million dead, many millions wounded, and a generation of young men lost before it ended.

     

    The lesson is be careful what you wish for. You may get more than you bargained for. A century ago, no mass destruction weapons existed. Today’s can cause nuclear winter, including by accident.

     

    As a result, igniting another global conflict should give officials pause about the consequences for potential gains. It should also make them consider what’s next if their calculations are wrong. Nonetheless, those in charge often go for broke, and let the devil take the hindmost.

     

    Iran’s military chief of staff, General Hassan Firouzabadi, addressed possible aggression on the country, vowing strong retaliation. General Yadollah Javani specifically warned Tel Aviv, saying:

     

    “If Israel fires a missile towards our nuclear or critical facilities, it should know that every inch of Israel, including its nuclear centers, are a target for our missiles (to strike), and we have this capacity today.”

     

    Turkey was also warned. General Amir-Ali Hajizadeh said if Iran is attacked, NATO’s (offensive) missile shield there will be struck first.

     

    Subduing Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya didn’t go as planned, despite rhetoric claiming so. Imagine the greater challenge Syria and Iran pose, given their strength and allies.

     

    Whether it’s enough to give militarists pause is uncertain. So far, it doesn’t seem so. Millions tremble at what may be coming. Everyone should!

     

    Some Good News

     

    With so little, savor it!

     

    Since its founding in July 2005, the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign convinced dozens of businesses to leave Israel.

     

    Germany’s Deutsche Bank divested from Elbit earlier, a company involved in building Israel’s Separation Wall. Norway’s government ended operations with an Israeli security firm, and Harvard divested from Israeli companies.

     

    In late November, French banking giant BNP Paribas announced it was pulling out entirely. Claiming financial reasons masked the truth.

     

    Pressure forced them out. PNB Paribas has many global operations, including in neighboring countries. Moreover, its Israeli one financed large French companies doing business in Israel.

     

    Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer and Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz tried, but failed, to retain them. Word is both sides exchanged harsh words.

     

    Maybe other large companies will follow PNB Paribas. Some day perhaps they’ll all stop doing business with an apartheid state worse than South Africa’s, much worse.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 28

    Israel: Profile of a Rogue State

    By No Comments

    Israel: Profile of a Rogue State – by Stephen Lendman

     

    Rogue states spurn international law, treaties, conventions, and in Israel’s case its own laws and Supreme Court decisions.

     

    Daily examples offer proof, including from Ahmed el-Helah and Mariam Itani’s new book titled, “The Suffering of the Palestinian Child under the Israeli Occupation,” saying:

     

    Over a million Palestinian children “live and suffer every moment of their lives under the painful reality of occupation.”

     

    Growing numbers are killed, injured, maimed, handicapped, arrested, imprisoned, and tortured. Most are impoverished and many hungry.

     

    “What about those who have lost their parents, friends, brothers and sisters due to” continuous Israeli oppression?

     

    “What about the children who live in fear and who suffer distress or cannot sleep, who feel unprotected in the face of a ruthless and arrogant Israeli occupation?”

     

    They’re Palestine’s children, out of sight and mind to most people everywhere. Who outside Palestine understands their suffering?

     

    Who can imagine the indifference of world leaders, supporting a ruthless, racist occupier, disdainful of human and civil rights?

     

    Who understands enduring daily assaults, police state justice, and fear of being bombed, shot, or otherwise harmed? How do you comfort young children to hold up in the face of what adults can’t tolerate?

     

    From September 29, 2000 (the start of the second Intifada) through December 31, 2008, Palestinian children witnessed around 5,900 killings and another 35,000 Israeli caused injuries.

     

    During Israel’s war on Gaza, another 1,400 died and thousands sustained injuries, many of them permanently disabling.

     

    Children enduring Israeli atrocities “lose their childhood and innocence, just as they lose hope and joy in their lives.”

     

    The occupation’s extreme harshness causes physical and emotional problems. It also “ignite(s) the spirit of resistance and deepen(s) hatred” against a rogue oppressor disdainful of their rights.

     

    The authors concluded saying Israel’s occupation must be condemned, ended, and responsible officials “prosecute(d) in international judicial institutions for committing the most horrific and inhumane crimes against” young children, wanting only to live free like Jews.

     

    On November 24, Haaretz writer Ari Shavit’s article headlined, “Israel is becoming a bullying and violent place,” saying:

     

    “It’s depressing” to see free expression compromised. It’s heading perhaps toward prohibiting it altogether to quash political criticism.

     

    “It’s depressing….to make it harder for journalists to publish in-depth investigative reports.” It’s unacceptable to gag the media and criminalize writers exposing vital truths everyone should know.

     

    It’s frightening to see “dark forces….resolved to undermine the rule of law” and defile democratic values and justice.

     

    Shavit calls it “the bacterium of the end that justifies the means; the disease of an agenda that bends the rules.” No wonder Israel’s not fit to live in, including for most Jews.

     

    Following Palestine’s UNESCO membership, Israel froze Palestinian Authority (PA) tax revenues vitally needed to operate. Doing so was lawless, malicious and vindictive.

     

    On November 24, the International Middle East Media Center (IMEMC) headlined, “Israel Won’t Release Funds to a Fatah-Hamas Unity Government,” quoting Israel’s ultranationalist Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, saying:

     

    “Israel will not recognize it, will not negotiate with it, and will not transfer it even one dime” unless it accedes to Israeli demands. In other words, only Israel’s rights matter, not Palestine’s under any government.

     

    On November 23, IMEMC said Israel again bombed Gaza and attacked Palestinian fishing boats. No injuries were reported, but terrified fishermen “suffered anxiety attacks while trying to rush back to shore.”

     

    Israel forces also invaded An-Nahda, east of Rafah with tanks and military bulldozers to destroy Palestinian land and crops. Shots were fired. Helicopters used flares. No injuries occurred.

     

    On November 24, the Palestine News & Information Agency (WAFA) said Israeli forces used heavy military machinery to destroy Palestinian huts and wells in Idhna, west of Hebron.

     

    Samu, Beit Awwa, Halhul, Dora, and Taffuh were also raided near Hebron. Recently released prisoners were ordered to report to Israeli intelligence for questioning. Others were targeted earlier. They’ll perhaps be reincarcerated unless agree to spy on their own people. Most refuse and suffer grievously.

     

    WAFA also said about 14 buses carrying around 1,400 settlers broke into Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus. Protected by Israeli forces, they performed rituals and prayers lawlessly.

     

    An Israeli military spokeswoman called it a “coordinated entrance.” Palestinians said Israeli soldier fired tear gas and stun grenades at angry residents.

     

    Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai said Jews “must restore Israeli control over the tomb because we have to do what is best for Israel.” Palestinian rights don’t matter. Neither do rule of law principles. Might makes right oppresses Palestinians daily.

     

    On November 23, Israel forces raided a Palestinian school in Khirbet Susiya south of Yatta in Hebron. Its principal got demolition orders for the school, a water well and three adjacent greenhouses.

     

    Seven teachers and 36 students are affected. After Israel demolished the school last year, it was rebuilt with bricks and tin. Lawless demolitions are official Israeli policy.

     

    On November 23, 972mag.com headlined, “Police, protesters clash in front of Likud headquarters in Tel Aviv,” saying:

     

    Angry about anti-democratic Knesset measures, about 200 people “block(ed) King George Street in the center of the city. Police” used pepper spray. At least one arrest occurred.

     

    Earlier in the evening a larger protest was held near where summer social justice demonstrators rallied for weeks.

     

    Many covered their their mouths with tape or masks to symbolize opposition against Israel’s war on free expression. Increasingly, Israelis know even Jews now have fewer rights on the way perhaps to losing them entirely.

     

    On November 21 in Vienna, a closed-door IAEA meeting discussed a nuclear-free Middle East. Iran boycotted the session. Syria attended and called Israel’s arsenal a “grave and serious threat.”

     

    Attending pro-Western despotic Arab League representatives declined comment. Nothing came out of the meeting, despite calls for more Israeli transparency.

     

    Israel refused, saying transparency won’t come until “the threat perception of all regional members is low.” In fact, Israel alone threatens neighbors, including with nuclear weapons.

     

    On November 24, Netanyahu criticized Arab Spring supporters, saying it reflects “moving not forward, but backward.” He added that history will prove him right about the “Islamic, anti-Western, anti-liberal, anti-Israeli, and anti-democratic wave” sweeping the region.

     

    “Israel is facing a period of instability and uncertainty in the region….I remember many of you urged me to take the opportunity to make hasty concessions, to rush to an agreement” with Palestinians. “But I will not establish Israel’s policy on illusions. There’s a huge upheaval here. Whoever doesn’t see it is burying his head in the sand.”

     

    In fact, Israel alone menaces regional neighbors. Democracy’s disappearing at home. Arab citizens are treated like fifth column threats. Most Israeli Jews are marginalized. Israel’s closest Middle East allies are despots. It’s only enemies are ones it creates. It needs them to justify violence, occupation and severe repression.

     

    Indeed anti-Israeli sentiment is increasing with good reason. Despots like Netanyahu and extremist MKs make it possible. Kadima MK Shaul Mofaz accused him of creating an Israeli dictatorship, saying:

     

    “Orwell’s world is coming to life under your government’s legislation, which is aiming to enforce elements of oppression and is creating a vision of horrors the likes of which we’ve never seen. It is as if 1984 is here.”

     

    He referred to life inside Israel. Imagine how much worse conditions are for Occupied Palestinians, suffering horrific daily oppression.

     

    A Final Comment

     

    Even a broken clock is right twice daily. On November 22, so was The New York Times, giving rare op-ed space to legitimate commentary for Sarah Schulman’s piece titled, “Israel and ‘Pinkwashing,’ ” saying:

     

    In 2005, American PR firms began a “Brand Israel” campaign, seeking to portray the Jewish state as “relevant and modern.”

     

    “The government later expanded the marketing plan by harnessing the gay community to reposition its global image.”

     

    Tel Aviv’s tourism board wants the city branded as “an international gay vacation destination.” Last May, “Prime Minister Netanyahu told Congress that the Middle East was ‘a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted.’ ”

     

    “The growing global gay movement against the Israeli occupation (calls) these tactics ‘pinkwashing:’ a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.”

     

    Israel manipulates hard-won Israeli gay community gains for PR purposes. It also ignores Palestinian gay rights organizations, including Aswat, Al Qaws and the Palestinian Queers for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

     

    Improving gay rights doesn’t offset gross human rights violations, especially for Palestinians without “a land to call home.”

     

    Imagine if all New York Times articles, op-eds and editorials featured journalism like this daily.

     

    Imagine if all major media did, including television.

     

    Imagine the better world we’d all live in instead of one plagued by social injustice, war and environmental destruction endangering everyone.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 28

    Indefinite Domestic Military Detentions

    By No Comments

    Indefinite Domestic Military Detentions – by Stephen Lendman

     

    Congress is now considering legislative language to mandate indefinite military detentions of US citizens suspected of present or past associations with alleged terrorist groups, with or without evidence to prove it. More on that below.

     

    The 2006 Military Commissions Act authorized torture and sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, and prosecute alleged suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), hold them (without evidence) indefinitely in military prisons, and deny them habeas and other constitutional protections.

     

    Section 1031 of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act contained the 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA). The phrase “unprivileged enemy belligerent” replaced “unlawful enemy combatant.”

     

    Language changed but not intent or lawlessness. Obama embraces the same Bush agenda, including keeping Guantanamo open after promising to close it, allowing torture there and abroad, and treating US citizens as lawlessly as foreign nationals.

     

    MCA grants sweeping police state powers, including that “no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever….relating to the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission (including) challenges to the lawfulness of (its) procedures….”

     

    MCA scraped habeas protection (dating back to the 1215 Magna Carta) for domestic and foreign state enemies, citizens and non-citizens alike.

     

    It says “Any person is punishable… who….aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures,” and in so doing helps a foreign enemy, provide “material support” to alleged terrorist groups, engages in spying, or commits other offenses previously handled in civil courts. No evidence is needed. Those charged are guilty by accusation.

     

    Other key provisions include:

    • legalizing torture against anyone, letting the president decide what procedures can be used on his own authority;

     

    • denying detainees international law protection;

     

    • letting the executive interpret or ignore international and US law;

     

    • letting the president convene “military commissions” at his discretion to try anyone he designates an “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” detaining them indefinitely in secret;

     

    • denying speedy trials or none at all;

     

    • letting torture coerced confessions be used as evidence in trial proceedings, despite US and international law prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment at all times, under all conditions, with no allowed exceptions;

     

    • letting hearsay and secret evidence be used; and

     

    • denying due process and judicial fairness overall.

     

    On May 21, 2009, Obama addressed national security and civil liberties issues, including Guantanamo detainees, military commissions, and torture.

     

    Saying his “single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe,” he bogusly claimed Al Qaeda “is actively planning to attack us again (and) this threat will be with us for a long time….”

     

    He added that uncharged detainees “who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people” (with or without evidence to prove it) will be held indefinitely without trial.

     

    Obama’s March 7, 2011 Executive Order authorized military commission trials for Guantanamo detainees with revamped procedures, despite pledging to close the prison.

     

    Congress Considers New Freedom-Stripping Legislation

     

    On October 17, 2011, the ACLU addressed Section 1031 of S. 1253: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, saying it “significantly curtails existing protections against indefinite detention without charge or trial.”

     

    It goes beyond previous laws by hardening them extrajudicially.

     

    The last time Congress authorized indefinite detentions for uncharged US citizens without trial was in 1950. The Emergency Detention Act provision of the Internal Security Act authorized incarceration for those considered likely to commit espionage or sabotage.

     

    It was never used, then repealed by the 1971 Non-Detenton Act, stating:

     

    “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.”

     

    At issue was never again subjecting US citizens to lawless internment the way Japanese Americans were treated in 1942, forcing loyal citizens into War Relocation Camps.

     

    Section 1031 of S. 1253 “would be the first exception to the statute’s protections.” Subsection (d) provides US citizens “little or no” indefinite detention protections domestically or abroad.

     

    The provision refers solely to “citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States.” However, the Constitution fully protects them.

     

    “Section 1031 could cause cleared naturalized United States citizens and cleared immigrants to be sent to a foreign country, even in the absence of any wrongdoing.”

     

    Subsection (c) provides four options:

    • indefinite detention without charge;

     

    • military commission trials;

     

    • trial by another tribunal; or

     

    • transfer “to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.”

     

    Even someone erroneously arrested and cleared of wrongdoing could be held indefinitely without charge, given non-civil trials, or sent abroad.

     

    Post-9/11, Arab and/or Muslim Americans lawlessly experienced “roundups” because of their faith and ethnicity. Latino immigrants face similar abuse.

     

    Section 1031 would authorize similar practices. Military forces could be used. US citizens would be terrorized, detained and held indefinitely without charge or trial, based solely on suspicions, baseless allegations or none at all.

     

    No reasonable proof is required, just suspicions that those detained pose threats. Under subsection (b)(1), indefinite detentions can follow mere membership or support for suspect organizations.

     

    US citizens at home and abroad could be detained. Presidents would have unchecked authority to arrest, interrogate and indefinitely detain law-abiding citizens if accused of potentially posing a threat.

     

    Constitutional, statute and international law won’t apply. Martial law will replace it. As a result, anyone for any reason or none at all could be indefinitely detained for life without charges or trial.

     

    Section 1031 exceeds the laws of war. Its ambiguities and excesses would institute extrajudicial national security state terror. No one anywhere would be safe.

     

    It calls “covered persons” anyone captured or detained, even unconnected to hostilities. In other words, the executive could order anyone indefinitely incarcerated on his say alone. The provision would exceed current presidential authority.

     

    Like the companion House bill, detention would be authorized based on alleged prior associations with suspect groups. US military personnel anywhere in the world would be able to seize US citizens and others.

     

    Anyone could be incarcerated for life with no possibility for redress. Section 1032 requires suspects held in military custody, outside constitutionally mandated civil protections.

     

    Due process and judicial review won’t apply. Police state lawlessness could terrorize anyone suspected of terrorist group ties without proof.

     

    In other words, presidents could order anyone imprisoned for life without cause. Despotic regimes operate this way. So would America more extrajudicially than ever.

     

    Tyranny will replace constitutional law. Middle of the night arrests could become common. No one anywhere would be safe, including unjustly accused citizens.

     

    The ACLU calls indefinite detention without judicial review “an appalling abuse of power. We know that our government has already mistakenly detained hundreds of people on suspicion of terrorism over the past 10 years.”

     

    “Many have languished in custody for years with no way to even assert their innocence or address the evidence against them. All people are entitled to due process.”

     

    Imagine new likely power abuses, including claiming OWS protesters threaten America.

     

    Imagine human and civil rights workers, as well as anti-war activists targeted.

     

    Imagine anyone challenging wealth and power interests at risk.

     

    Imagine an America more than ever not fit to live in, and nowhere to hide.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 27

    Rage for Change in Egypt

    By No Comments

    Rage for Change in Egypt – by Stephen Lendman

     

    Last February, Egyptians celebrated Hosni Mubarak’s ouster. He became an obstacle to Washington’s Middle East agenda and had to go.

     

    For years, State Department and Pentagon officials wanted him out for opposing key US policies, including Iran’s nuclear program and Bush’s 2003 Iraq war.

     

    A military junta replaced him, headed by Field Marshall Mohammed Hussein Tantawi. He’s a powerful old regime stalwart with close ties to Washington. However, US diplomats call him “aged and change-resistant.” Notably, he opposes economic and political reform that conflicts with military rule.

     

    On November 25, hundreds of thousands rallied in Cairo’s Tahrir Square against Washington’s backed military junta. Chants included:

     

    “The people demand the removal of the field marshall (aka dictator).” “We will not go, he should go,” and “Down, down with military rule.”

     

    Hundreds of thousands more protested in other Egyptian cities. For over a week, demonstrations rallied against Egypt’s ruling junta. November 25 and the previous Friday were called the “Friday of One Demand.”

     

    Deaths and injuries resolved people to press on. Unconfirmed reports suggest lethal US-made tear gas was used, containing a banned chemical agent. As a result, dozens died. Perhaps two thousand or more suffered ill effects. Official numbers have been suppressed.

     

    According to the International Business Times, “dangerous levels of CR gas” were used against protesters. Canisters were marked “Made in the USA.”

     

    CR causes epileptic-type convulsions, vomiting, miscarriages, temporary blindness, intense skin pain, asphyxiation, and other toxic effects.

     

    According to Dr. Uwe Heinrich, “there is a distinct possibility that….CS exposure can significantly contribute to or even cause lethal effects.”

     

    Former IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei’s Twitter message said Egyptian forces used “tear gas with (a) nerve agent.” Cairo University Hospital’s Dr. Mohamed Aden called it “some kind of neuro-toxic nerve gas.”

     

    On November 24, Tantawi appointed Kamal Ganzouri prime minister to select cabinet members for a new government. From 1996 – 1996, he held the same post under Mubarak, and also served as his Minister of Planning and International Cooperation.

     

    Protesters reacted angrily to his appointment. Calling him old guard, they chanted “Illegitimate, illegitimate!” For months, they’ve expressed intermittent visceral anger against ruling junta generals they want replaced by a civilian government.

     

    Obama initially called “for restraint on all sides.” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland expressed support for the ruling junta and its plan to elect a civilian government.

     

    It provides a veneer of legitimacy, a pseudo-democratic facade, no matter how, in fact, it’s manipulated. Egyptians understand and want the initial November 28 round cancelled.

     

    First they want the junta out, followed by legitimate elections they don’t control. Getting them is another matter in a nation with no democratic tradition. Elections under Mubarak were farcical. Improving them will be daunting, and the specter of US military power haunts nations choosing anti-Western governments.

     

    For decades, Washington’s given Egypt’s military billions of dollars in aid, mostly weapons and munitions. Cairo’s been the linchpin of US Middle East policy. Its generals are rewarded to serve it.

     

    Tantawi’s government collaborated in NATO’s Libya war. On March 17, the Wall Street Journal said “Egypt’s military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels….” Egyptian commandos also participated.

     

    Washington wants a valued ally retained. Whether or not they’ll tolerate Tantawi isn’t clear. He’s aging, set in his ways, and Egyptians despise him. A November 25 White House Press Secretary statement suggests change, but not what Egyptians have in mind, saying:

     

    “(W)e believe that the full transfer of power to a civilian government must take place in a just and inclusive manner….as soon as possible.”

     

    On November 23, a New York Times editorial headlined, “Egypt’s Unfinished Revolution,” saying:

     

    Egyptians didn’t “risk their lives….last winter just to see another military-backed tyranny. (They’re) rightly fed up, and they are back in Tahrir Square demanding real democracy.”

     

    Trouble is they won’t get what Washington and Egyptian rulers won’t tolerate. Tantawi and those around him may go. However, everything in Egypt will change but stay the same. Parliamentary democracy won’t happen. Electoral rules assure it.

     

    Whoever they are, military officials will have final say over whoever’s elected. The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) declared itself the guardian of “constitutional legitimacy.”

     

    SCAF will retain power to propose and veto legislation, convene and adjourn parliament, appoint and replace the prime minister and cabinet members, and have final say on how Egypt’s governed. “Elected” officials will serve them.

     

    Those allowed to run or have a chance to win also matter. Revolutionary Egyptians will be shut out. So are women, minorities and anyone challenging entrenched rule.

     

    When completed, 498 parliamentarians will be chosen. Most in some way will be tied to decades of corrupt military rule. Secular dominance will continue with likely significant Muslim Brotherhood (MB) representation. It ignited popular anger by cutting a deal with the military. It’s now staying more low key.

     

    Profile of the Muslim Brotherhood

     

    MB leaders aren’t liberal and don’t threaten Washington, Israel or Western interests. Western intelligence agencies, including CIA, have had longstanding MB ties, Britain since the 1940s.

     

    In his book “Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude,” former CIA case officer/Middle East specialist Robert Baer, described Washington’s “dirty little secret,” since the 1950s, saying:

     

    “The CIA funnel(led) support to the Muslim Brotherhood because of (its) commendable capacity to overthrow Nasser….The White House looked on the Brothers as a silent ally, a secret weapon against – what else? – communism.”

     

    “The covert action started in the 1950s with the Dulles brothers – Allen at the CIA and John Foster at the State Department. As far as Washington was concerned, Nasser was a communist.”

     

    In fact, he combined Pan-Arabism, nationalism, anti-colonialism and anti-Zionism. In his book, “Nasser’s Egypt, Arab Nationalism, and the United Arab Republic,” James Jankowski said he promoted unity, arguing that he did so to prevent Syria from going communist.

     

    Referring to the “logic of the Cold War,” Baer said America was willing to support radical Islamists as long as “Allah agreed to fight on our side….If Allah (wanted) political assassination(s), that was fine too, as long as no one talked about it in polite company.”

     

    In the 1920s, Britain established the MB’s precursor, the Society of Propaganda and Guidance. They used it to back colonial rule. Its journal, The Lighthouse, attacked Egyptian nationalists wanting self-determination.

     

    They called them “atheists and infidels.” Its Institute of Propaganda and Guidance taught regional Islamists political agitation methods to contest anti-colonialism back home. Hassan al-Banna, one its graduates, founded the MB in 1928.

     

    In his book “Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam,” Robert Dreyfuss called MB an “unabashed British intelligence front,” operating in Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine.

     

    In 1952, Gamal Abdel Nasser helped overthrow the Egyptian and Sudanese monarchies. After he became president in 1956, MB was used as a weapon against him. Saudi leaders provided funding and sanctuary after his crackdown. At the same time, America offered support as a bulwark against secular nationalism and communism.

     

    “In 1974, the Muslim Brotherhood formally issued a declaration commanding its members to support Sadat’s pro-IMF infitah (economic opening). Such an action was true to form for political Islam.”

     

    Throughout its history, MB members have been militantly pro-capitalist and against class-struggle on principle. Rarely did they support the poor, disenfranchised, or downtrodden. In Egypt, they didn’t side with aggrieved workers or farmers who lost out under Sadat.

     

    Instead they opposed unions and leftists besides engaging in strikebreaking. In turn, they were supported by wealthy financial and business interests, often secretly, including the Saudis. They also created their own businesses and banks, including the Faisal Islamic Bank of Egypt in 1976. It became a cornerstone of Islamic banks run by Saudi Prince Mohammed al-Faisal, son of King Faisal.

     

    Moreover, Uthman Ahmed Uthman, a wealthy industrialist called “the Egyptian Rockefeller” actively bankrolled the MB in the 1970s. Its ideology and Islamic banking catapulted right-wing Islam to worldwide power.

     

    For nearly 90 years, Washington, Britain and other Western governments supported Islamists strategically against nationalist or democratic movements. The 1920s relationship continues today.

     

    A Final Comment

     

    Though Egypt’s Constitution prohibits religious political parties, MB members won small numbers of legislative seats as independents, representing the largest opposition block. In upcoming 2011/2012 elections, expect them to gain even greater representation. Washington won’t object.

     

    Egyptians should plenty about a manipulative process to leave wealth and power entrenched at the expense of ignored popular interests.

     

    As a result, Egypt’s liberating struggle continues to replace military rule with democracy. Getting it’s another matter.

     

    Washington orchestrated Middle East events since last winter to solidify regional control. Change depends on challenging it successfully.

     

    Grassroots revolutionary upheaval is needed. Confronting entrenched power successfully is daunting. It remains to be seen if Egyptians will pay the price long-term.

     

    Will others across the region join them? Will Europeans and Americans? Their choice is fight back or endure poverty, human misery and tyranny.

     

    They’re spreading unless popular struggles stop what no one should tolerate. The time is now. The name of the game is resist!

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 27

    Spreading Eurozone Contagion

    By No Comments

    Spreading Eurozone Contagion – by Stephen Lendman

     

    The operative word is contagion. It’s malignant and spreading because it’s unresolved and irresponsibly addressed.

     

    Germany, Europe’s strongest economy, just had its worst ever bond auction since 1999. Over a third of 10-year bunds offered were unsold. More on the failure below.

     

    Comparable Italian yields jumped to 7.3%. Italy’s two-year bond hit 7.7%. The inverted curve signals tougher times ahead. Italy also sold six-month bills at 6.50%, its highest rate in 14 years.

     

    Troubled Spain had to pay 5.11% for three-month money, the highest short-term rate since formation of Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in 1999.

     

    Other Eurozone rates also rose, including Portugal’s after Fitch downgraded its debt to junk and retained a negative outlook. Hungary was downgraded to junk as well with a negative outlook. Yields there jumped close to 10%. Belgium’s in trouble. So are France and Britain. Credit default swaps on European sovereign debt and banks reached all-time highs.

     

    Earlier in the week French bonds were hammered. Europe’s debt crisis moved from periphery countries to core ones. Many believe the Eurozone can’t survive, except perhaps with fewer stronger members.

     

    The European Investment Bank (the EU’s financing institution) is also being pressured. Yields on its debt rose. So did European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) bond rates. Yields on its 10-year maturities jumped from 3 3/8% to 3.88%, up from 2.68% two months ago.

     

    In other words, not only are Eurozone countries being pressured, but institutions established to rescue them. Smart money’s saying don’t bet on Europe. Bet against it. Some say it also about America. Expect that chorus to grow.

     

    Belgium’s key business confidence measure was negative for three straight months. French consumer sentiment reached a two-year low.

     

    Goldman Sachs’ Manipulative Dirty Hands

     

    Paul Craig Roberts blames major US banks for Germany’s auction failure, including Goldman. At issue is their guarantee for $1 trillion or more of European sovereign debt through credit default swaps – “insurance against which they have not reserved.”

     

    As a result, they’re on the hook for any European sovereign debt failure. Big money’s involved. “The reputation of the US financial system probably could not survive its default on the swaps it has issued.”

     

    Moreover, Obama doesn’t want another major financial disaster in an election year. As a result, Washington “wants Germany out of the way of a European bailout.”

     

    Germany’s “in the way of the power that the EU authorities wish to wield.” They want Eurozone cohesion, “unity,” and loss of member countries’ sovereignty.

     

    Germany gave up its Deutsche Mark to be part of a failed Eurozone system. It traps member states in the euro straightjacket.

     

    It forced them to surrender sovereign monetary and fiscal policy to a czar-like central bank. It empowered bankers at the expense of sovereign governments and populations.

     

    Goldman’s dirty hands are especially evident. Mario Draghi is new unelected European Central Bank (ECB) president. Formerly he was Goldman Sachs International vice chairman and managing director. He also served on Goldman’s management committee and held other prominent banking positions.

     

    His job is to serve the money masters that run Europe and most other countries.

     

    Mario Monte is Italy’s new unelected prime minister. Goldman and other bankers sacked Silvio Berlusconi and installed him.

     

    Lucas Papademos is Greece’s new unelected prime minister. The same scenario repeated. George Papandreou was sacked. Papademos replaced him. Bankers installed him. He’s one of their own. He’s a former ECB vice president, once served as governor of the Bank of Greece, and is a member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

     

    In 1973, it was formed because of a crisis of democracy – too much of it. Jimmy Carter was a charter member. TC today has enormous global influence. Its power broker members explain why. Many come from EU member states.

     

    At home, they serve bankers. Paying them comes first. The scheme involves transferring wealth from sovereign states and populations to them. A dirty end game is planned.

     

    Banks wield more power than monarchs. They want a classless society of rulers and serfs. Unless stopped, they’re well on the way to getting it.

     

    2012 Economic, Financial and Political Issues

     

    Economist David Rosenberg suggested 10 behavioral changes likely in 2012, including:

     

    (1) greater consumer frugality

     

    (2) more sovereign country austerity

     

    (3) rising protectionism, nationalism and isolation

     

    (4) increased market volatility

     

    (5) more ideologically and fiscally-driven political movement

     

    (6) reduced growth and deflationary expectations

     

    (7) less risk-taking

     

    (8) shifts away from government responsibility for healthcare, education and other entitlements

     

    (9) rising social tensions, and

     

    (10) greater geopolitical risks affecting national defense, security of supplies and government procurement

     

    Eurozone Trouble

     

    Eurozone tensions are rising. France, Britain, Italy and America want Eurobonds issued and unlimited ECB funding for troubled countries. Germany opposes the idea. It favors indebted nations imposing deeper austerity cuts, no matter the consequences.

     

    Germany’s Vice Chancellor/Minister of Economics and Technology Philipp Roesler insists Berlin won’t take financial responsibility for other Eurozone countries even though it’s been doing it for Greece. Nonetheless, Roesler said:

     

    “We say ‘no’ to Eurobonds. A transfer union would be wrong because it would mean German taxpayers pick up the costs. Eurobonds are wrong because they would mean a rise in the interest rates for Germany.”

     

    Chancellor Angela Merkel told French President Nicolas Sarkozy and unelected Italian Prime Minister Mario Monte the same thing. She added that EU treaty changes will be proposed to give Brussels more power to enforce harsher austerity measures than already imposed.

     

    Expect her Eurobond stance to soften. If issued, they’ll be used to save banks and Europe’s super-rich at the expense of greater austerity on workers. She proposed a Group of Eight working cooperatively with the ECB, IMF and European Commission to run Eurozone countries without accountability. In other words, she wants financial oligarchs more empowered than already.

     

    Progressive Radio News Hour regular Bob Chapman calls Eurozone’s crisis “the lynchpin and the catalyst that could bring about a financial chain reaction worldwide.”

     

    Europe poses America’s biggest threat. It’s nowhere near coming up with debt crisis solutions. The ECB’s played a modest role so far. Britain, France and Washington want it to monetize debt like the Fed. Germany fears later inflationary fallout. Adding more debt to a huge problem compounds it.

     

    A Final Comment

     

    Expect much worse crisis conditions before they improve. Political leaders sold out their people. Mass street protests reflect it. An eventual breaking point is coming. Chapman and others believe anger may explode in revolution. People can only take so much.

     

    Chapman thinks 2008 troubles will “be repeated in a much larger way in 2012.” Looking ahead, things look awful. Debt’s out of control. Much of it won’t be repaid. Bankers run governments, not politicians. Paying them first is top priority.

     

    People are slowing catching on. Short-term fixes don’t work and punish people struggling to make ends meet. The Western economic model doesn’t work. Too few benefit at the expense of most others.

     

    Radical alternatives are needed. Getting them requires major changes. Sentiment for them may accept whatever it takes.

     

    Already today’s stress is intolerable. Politicians are indifferent to public pain. Why else would they propose more? Do they expect people to grumble and go along? Do they think bankers can loot public funds forever? Do they doubt a threshold beyond which all hell will break loose?

     

    Policies today are destroying Western societies. Wealth’s more than ever concentrated than in modern times. Financial warfare is crushing people. Something has to give. It will, and when it does, watch out.

     

    The entire system has to be dismantled and rebuilt. A new model is needed, including returning money power to public hands where it belongs, ending capital’s divine right, and replacing governance by the privileged for their own kind with an alternative serving everyone equitably.

     

    Given how low Western societies have sunk, it may take revolution to get it. There may be no other way despite uncertainties about what’s next.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 26

    Bipartisan Deal to Slash Medicare and Medicaid

    By No Comments

    Bipartisan Deal to Slash Medicare and Medicaid – by Stephen Lendman

     

    It’s been planned for years. Republicans want them eliminated. Democrats agreed to incremental cuts to make ending core social contract programs look normal. Slashing Social Security comes later.

     

    On November 24, New York Times writer Robert Pear headlined, “Support Builds for a Plan to Rein in Medicare Costs,” saying:

     

    Congressional Supercommittee members “built a case for major structural changes in Medicare (and Medicaid) that would limit the government’s open-ended financial commitment….”

     

    Privatization is recommended. Republicans and some Democrats agree. Expect more to come on board. Methodology might be to provide beneficiaries fixed sums for private plans. They’ll cost more and deliver less.

     

    Proponents call the idea “premium support.” At issue is shifting government’s responsibility to beneficiaries. Washington would pay premiums in increasingly smaller amounts until they bear full responsibility.

     

    Doing so will leave seniors entirely on their own for healthcare when they most need it. Unaffordability won’t matter. Understating the problem, John Rother, National Coalition on Health Care president said:

     

    “The Supercommittee may have laid the groundwork for future reductions in the growth of Medicare.”

     

    In fact, “the gang of 12″ secretly agreed to major cuts on the way to eliminating government’s responsibility for healthcare entirely. After that, attack Social Security.

     

    Last year, Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRF) recommended deep Medicare cuts, higher Medicaid co-pays, and restrictions on filing malpractice suits, among other ways to end Washington’s responsibility for healthcare incrementally.

     

    The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) also recommended deep Medicare cuts, higher Part B premiums, big co-pays and outpatient fee increases, and establishing privately owned, lower-cost health insurance exchanges to gradually eliminate traditional Medicare. It also wants Medicaid funding cut.

     

    Congressional Democrats and Republicans agree on raising Medicare’s eligibility’s age. So does Obama. He also supports deep cuts. Expect his new Independent Payment Advisory Board to recommend them. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said current proposals will force seniors to pay more for coverage, much more.

     

    In 2012, bipartisan agreement on Medicare and Medicaid cuts are coming. Backloading will delay pain until after the November 2012 elections. Last June, Vice President Biden agreed to $500 billion in Medicare/Medicaid more cuts on top of previously imposed big ones. Republicans want $780 billion. Splitting the difference is likely. More reductions will come later. Both sides agree.

     

    By mid-decade, traditional Medicare will provide half of today’s benefits. Seniors will need private plans for full coverage. Those unable to afford them will be out of luck.

     

    Proponents falsely say Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are responsible for rising deficits and America’s national debt burden. They also bogusly claim Medicare and Social Security are going broke. When properly administered, in fact, both programs are sustainable long-term with modest adjustments and by curtailing escalating healthcare costs.

     

    Wall Street bailouts, other corporate handouts, excess military spending (including huge black budgets), and tax cuts for the rich caused today’s unsustainable debt problem. Price gouging by health insurance providers, drug companies and large hospital chains exacerbates it

     

    Over the past decade, Social Security-run surpluses went for debt reduction to make it appear the fund’s not sustainable. In fact, since 1986, it produced $2.4 trillion more than it spent.

     

    Much of the surplus came from increasing the payroll tax and indexing to inflation. Its share of total federal tax revenues rose from less than 30% to 44%. At the same time, corporate income tax amounts fell from around 20% to under 10%.

     

    In other words, for a generation, Social Security revenues subsidized corporate handouts, tax cuts for the rich, and America’s wars. Its surplus could be sustainable well into the future if government policies stopped draining it irresponsibly.

     

    Moreover, if the full payroll tax is restored and annual $108,600 income cap lifted to make America’s wealthy pay the same percentage cost as others, potential Social Security shortfalls could be eliminated for generations. If draining the trust fund also stopped, surpluses could be generated in perpetuity.

     

    In addition, if capital gains were taxed like income, huge amounts would be raised for traditional Medicare, prescription drugs under Part D, Medicaid, and other social programs on the chopping block for big cuts or elimination.

     

    Medicare would be just as sustainable with real healthcare reform under a universal single-payer system. By eliminating private insurer middlemen, costs would be drastically cut.

     

    In its September 2007 report to Congress, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) compared 2004 US healthcare spending with other OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries.

     

    It found America spent $6,102 per person, well over double the $2,560 average for other OECD countries. Much of the difference comes from insurer administrative costs providing no care. Other OECD countries deliver better services overall at less than half what Americans spend.

     

    Draining Social Security’s trust fund and perpetuating outlandishly high healthcare costs makes it appear that entitlements seniors rely on are going broke.

     

    In other words, crisis conditions were artificially created. Congressional cassandras claim Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable. Bipartisan chicanery wants big cuts in both programs before privatizing them on route to eliminating them altogether.

     

    Political Washington hypes the problem. So do media scoundrels, Obama’s Simpson/Bowles deficit cutting commission, and the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC). Their solution is slash, then end America’s social contract to transfer maximum wealth to corporate favorites and the nation’s super-rich.

     

    A Final Comment

     

    When responsibly run, Social Security and Medicare are sustainable long-term with plenty left over for Medicaid and other vital programs for America’s needy. Moreover, if corporations and rich elites paid their fair share, the possibilities are limitless.

     

    If the business of America became peace, less militarism, no wars, making friends, not enemies, retaining high-paying/good benefit jobs at home, letting unions bargain collectively with management on equal terms, making universal free education and single-payer healthcare priorities, ending destructive trade deals, and guaranteeing living wage security, imagine how different things could be.

     

    In addition, if money power returned to public hands and direct democracy serving everyone responsibly replaced duopoly power, near utopian conditions might be realized.

     

    Anything is possible when committed people work long-term for them. If that’s not incentive enough, what is?

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    Nov 26

    US Higher Education in Crisis

    By No Comments

    US Higher Education in Crisis – by Stephen Lendman

     

    Diogenes called education “the foundation of every state.” Education reformer Horace Mann said the “common (public) school (is) the greatest discovery ever made by man.”

     

    Education reform under Bush and Obama want public education made another business profit center. Doing so places bottom line priorities above teaching. At issue also is creating a two-tiered system for haves and have-nots, defined by race, ethnicity, social status and family income.

     

    Separate and unequal education produces illiterate poor inner city kids. The American dream for growing millions is a sick joke, including at the higher education level.

     

    College education once was affordable, even at America’s top schools. No longer. A recent Complete College America report on college completion rates shows most students don’t get degrees because of obstacles older generations didn’t face.

     

    Issues include secondary school preparation, cost, and juggling of family, jobs and school for commuters. Only one-fourth of students live at school. Forty percent attend part-time.

     

    Growing numbers seek two-year degrees. Over 60% of baccalaureate graduates complete course work in eight years. Over half seeking associate degrees require remedial courses. Over 20% in four-year programs need it. Those getting it are less likely to graduate.

     

    Student needs are secondary to bottom line priorities. A key report theme is that “Time is the Enemy” of college completion. “The longer it takes, the more life gets in the way of success. Student’s lives fill up with jobs, relationships, marriages, children, and mortgages. Not surprisingly, college often gets left behind.”

     

    Millions give up on higher education because of cost, making ends meet, onerous student loan obligations, and poor job prospects for graduates. Federal and state governments as well as school administrations aren’t helping.

     

    Cost alone for many is too great to bear. States slashing higher education budgets compound the problem. In 2011, three dozen or more announced cuts exceeding $5 billion nationwide on top of others since 2008. In addition, sharp tuition and fee hikes are imposed in the face of less federal and state student aid.

     

    As a result, growing thousands are entirely priced out, and millions face future debt bondage, often onerously for many years or life.

     

    In 2011, California’s legislature cut 23% from higher education – a whopping $650 million, the most in state history. At the same time, double-digit tuition and fee increases were imposed. Two years ago, the University of California raised tuition costs 32%.

     

    On November 16, California State University trustees approved a 9% tuition and fee hike. Student rage forced them to another site to avoid confrontation. Across the state, sharp increases are common. In 2012, more are planned.

     

    University of California (UC) president Mark Yudof proposed 8 – 16% increases annually for the next four years. Tuition costs in 2011 jumped 18% over 2010. Instead of refunding education, state legislators and Governor Jerry Brown plan more cuts. No wonder student rage intensifies for good reason.

     

    On November 18, police assaulted protesting UC Davis students, sitting peacefully on the ground, arms linked. One or more officers pepper-sprayed dozens in the face. Two or more students were hospitalized. Onlookers expressed outrage for the incident.

     

    Responsibility falls on school chancellor Linda Katehi. Police acted on her orders. She warned students to back off so others on campus “could learn and work in a safe, secure environment without disruption.”

     

    Earlier, police used truncheons against peacefully protesting UC Berkeley students. OWS ones are attacked nationwide with tear gas, pepper spray, mace, rubber bullets, batons, and other brutal methods. Thousands of arrests were made.

     

    In full riot gear, dozens of police terrorized UC Davis students, threatening them with truncheons and paintball guns after pepper-spraying them directly in the face twice.

     

    On November 17, about 100 students set up 40 tents to camp out on campus overnight. The next day, chancellor Katehi ordered them out or face removal. By mid-afternoon, police goons moved in, throwing protesters to the ground violently. Injuries resulted. Arrests followed. Students vowed to continue protesting for justice.

     

    On November 21, thousands joined them supportively. On November 28, UC Regents will approve more draconian increases, putting higher education out of reach for many more California students. As a result, class boycotts were called.

     

    UC Davis students also demanded Katehi resign. She refused, saying she feels “horrible” about what happened, then dismissively called for “all of the community to come together.”

     

    OWS protests across America turned streets, parks, and other public areas into war zones. Social justice protesters on campus face similar challenges. Federal, state, local and school administrations are hostile and dismissive. Cops are unleashed to commit violence.

     

    Wealth and power alone in America matter. Democracy never had a chance. The mother of all struggles continues for what students, working households, and others can only achieve by staying the course long-term and not backing off, despite brutal cops on the wrong side confronting them.

     

    At issue is fighting for what’s right until it’s won, including affordable higher education for qualified students wanting it.

     

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

     

    Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

     

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

    < Older
    Blue Taste Theme created by Jabox