Uganda: Obama Attacks Tribal Politics

Henry Ochieng & Angelo Izama

12 July 2009

Kampala — President Barack Obama who late on Saturday made a major speech in Accra, Ghana in which he outlined his administration's view of Africa hinted that he will not be tolerating undemocratic behavior, a position that has ramifications for Uganda.

"I do want to make the broader point that a government that is stable, that is not engaging in tribal conflicts, that can give people confidence and security that their work will be rewarded," he told journalists at a news conference on Friday after the G8 summit ahead of his Ghana trip.

This will have sounded like music to President Yoweri Museveni's political opponents and other critics who accuse him of presiding over an ethnicity-based strong-arm government in all its nefarious forms.

Ms Salaamu Musumba, vice president of the opposition Forum for Democratic Change told Sunday Monitor yesterday that Mr Obama "made the right choice in focusing on good governance and not just because it makes for a good buzzword for the media".

"President Obama has understood what the problem is in Africa, he is not imposing his views on us; he has presented a 'stimulus package' to Africa's political leadership and it is up to us to respond. He has made what he stands for clear and done so with humility," she said.

Her optimism were, however, tempered by the cold realization that the continent is led by what she called "tired, haggard old men like [Libya's Mummar] Gadaffi, who unlike Obama, need brutal force to remain in power".

Expounding on President Obama's promise of co-operation in fostering development in Africa, Ms Musumba was again disappointed in noting that the continent has been let down by its leaders who are "allowing us to be re-colonized by the likes of China through the scramble for our resources".

"They are even worse than our grandfathers," she said, "who have had the benefit of hindsight [but are still] making the same mistakes," she said.

President Obama, whose father is from Kenya, had midweek dropped several hints that his speech would be focusing on good governance. He repeated at the news conference that governments that invest in their people succeed "regardless of their history".

President Obama's focus on governance suggests that Washington will have less and not more in common with Uganda during his tenure.

But any tough talk will likely be taken alongside the realities of working in Africa where many of America's allies are countries like Uganda, with political establishments that are largely considered repressive and corrupt -- and yet they still remain of strategic interest to the US either because of the natural resources or geographical location.

Walking the talk deepening democracy and good governance for the Obama administration will therefore have to be taken in light of this reality.

There are also commercial and trade interests to pursue in a continental landscape complicated recently by a new scramble for Africa's vast mineral resources.

Specifically, relations between Kampala (with Uganda having recently discovered considerable deposits of oil) and Washington will still be affected by the view, held at least by the man leading his Africa desk, that Uganda has slipped off the democratic railings and is no longer the potential success story it once was.

Ambassador Johnnie Carson, the new Assistant Secretary of State for Africa has served in Uganda, Kenya and Zimbabwe as US envoy. Today, all three are considered to be at various stages of regression in respect to good governance with Zimbabwe being the extreme.

Mr Carson, now US assistant secretary of state for African affairs, is not well liked. Zimbabwe's Mugabe called him "an idiot" who wanted to dictate what Zimbabwe did [in terms of reforms].

"I hope he was not speaking for Obama" the Zimbabwean strongman was quoted as saying after meeting Carson at the African Union summit in Sirte in Libya this month.

In 2005, three years to Obama's historic election, Carson stirred a storm in Kampala after he wrote a critical article in the Boston Globe newspaper titled "Uganda: A success story past its prime?"

In the article, Mr Carson, while praising President Museveni's achievements in security, the economy and in fighting HIV/Aids, said a new "dark chapter" in Uganda's history would be ushered if Museveni insisted on hanging on to power.

Speaking to an academic audience debating Uganda in Washington, Mr Carson repeated that Uganda's "Uganda's march toward full democracy is on the threshold of becoming unglued".

He also suggested that his continued stay in power was motivated by a desire to protect among others Gen. Salim Saleh, his younger brother from prosecution for corruption.

Sharing the podium with him that day in 2005 was East African scholar, Prof. Joel Barkan and Dr Ruhakana Rugunda, who together with Museveni's political adviser Moses Byaruhanga had flown to Washington to defend the President.

U.S. President Barack Obama (C) and first lady Michelle Obama (R) greet Ghana's President John Atta Mills and his wife Ernestina Naadu Mills (L) upon Obama's arrival in Accra, Ghana on Friday.

"After an extended period of political liberalization... Uganda has slipped back into a period of neo-patrimonial, or 'big man' rule," said Prof. Barkan, a consultant who that year had completed a study for the World Bank which concluded that corruption in Uganda was the oil that fueled politics of "patronage" in the country.

He noted that it was so bad that the Auditor General's reports read like chapters in "Ali Baba and the forty thieves". The Carson attack and ensuing debate which came in the middle of the Ekisanja or 'Third Term' campaign drew a strong reaction from the President's supporters including from his wife, Janet, who controversially said her husband was on a messianic mission to liberate Uganda.

"Museveni does not need a job. It is Uganda that needs liberation" she wrote in response to Mr Carson. Defending the removal of presidential term limits, Dr Rugunda now Uganda's permanent representative at the United Nations, told the audience that was stuffed with US foreign policy types in Washington, that ultimately voters, through elections, were the most effective limit to one man rule.

"There are those who worry that a dictator like Idi Amin might emerge in the absence of term limitations. First of all, dictators do not follow the rule of law and constitutionalism. So, if a dictator were to emerge, no term limitation would stop him," he said.

Yesterday, Mr Byaruhanga described US-Uganda relations as being "good". Asked what he thought of the past criticism of the Museveni regime by Mr Carson, he said the top diplomat had written them in his personal capacity.

"Am not sure those views were those of the US government," Mr Byaruhanga said adding that Uganda's "vision" for good governance and the fight against corruption was in fact more democracy which he expected will go well with the Obama administration.

"Ensuring that an empowered population can periodically through elections throw out the corrupt is the most important thing. [Regular] elections are the institutionalization of the fight against corruption. Other capacities like investigations can then come in," he added.

As Obama made his speech little has changed. President Museveni is widely expected to seek a fourth term in office and corruption and abuse of power most observers note is now so widespread.

But it may not matter whether the US administration consider Uganda's leader, once labeled a 'beacon of hope' a less than appropriate force for good governance since he remains an American ally in the Great Lakes Region which Washington's policy must address broadly.

Uganda is central to the response of the US Africa Command in Somalia and also important to the continued stability of Southern Sudan, which holds a referendum in a year's time where the decision to secede or not from Khartoum will be made and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Even if Obama priorities governance issues, emergencies like the fighting in Somalia, attempts to diffuse the Lord's Resistance Army operating in DRC and ensuring Sudan's neighbors can see it through a referendum on self-rule for the South in 2011 cannot be ignored.

Mr David Mafabi, a political assistant to president, on Friday evening told this paper that he "does not see any particular matter that should cause alarm for the Uganda government with the new US administration".

Emphasizing that he was speaking from a Pan-Africanist perspective and not as the government spokesman, Mr Mafabi said, "we value all our allies and the US is an important player that we have related very well with and will continue but at the end of the day we make our decisions."

President Museveni shot his way to power in 1986 after a five-year guerrilla war against the elected government of Dr Apollo Milton Obote and short-lived military junta of Gen. Tito Okello.

He promised not just a mere change of guards but a fundamental change in the way government would now conduct business the highlight of which was to propel Uganda into a law abiding country with an integrated, self-sustaining economy.

The early Museveni years also saw a lean and frugal approach being brought to public administration which, however, has today given way to a bloated more than 70-member Cabinet with a support cast of hundreds of political appointees both at the centre and local governments whose combined demands are placing the economy under distressing financial strain.

Against that background, Transparency International ranked Uganda as the third most corrupt country in the world in its 'Corruption Barometer' report released two months ago. Meanwhile, critics and diverse civil society organizations have increasingly denounced the suspected widespread use of taxpayer's money to fund partisan political activity geared towards entrenching the current government.

President Museveni also promised political reforms, which reached their highest point with promulgation of a new Constitution in 1995. That Constitution has, however, since been amended so many times with the most prominent change being the deletion of Article 105(2) that previously limited the holding of presidential office by anyone to two terms. Critics say this cleared the way for President Museveni to realize his dream of life presidency - a charge he vigorously denies though.

In the interim, while elections right from the village level have consistently been held since the late 1980s, credible accusations of rigging and other electoral malpractice as confirmed by various court rulings (not least the Supreme Court declarations in 2001 and 2005 following petitions against Museveni's election) have besmirched whatever claims to democratic intent this government has had.

This has been compounded by the harassment, outright disenfranchisement of the opposition at election time and in extreme cases extrajudicial killing of supporters of political opponents by elements of the security services.

The security services, like most other departments of government have increasingly seen their leadership drawn from western Uganda where the President comes from - a state of affairs that critics says cements the fear that Uganda has fallen victim to the divisive tribal politics of the past.

The sum effect of these blotches have cast a pall over President Museveni's legacy that now appears to retain the accolade of his personal dedication to the fight against HIV/Aids as the main positive thing to say about his presidency.

Source: allAfrica.
Link: http://allafrica.com/stories/200907120009.html.

Hamas security detains two Islamic Jihad militants in eastern Gaza

Gaza City - Two militants preparing to fire mortars into Israel were detained Saturday by interior security officials of the Islamic Hamas movement, reported a group to which the militants claim membership. The statement, from the Saraya al-Quds Brigades, the armed wing of Islamic Jihad, announced the arrest of their members Saturday, reporting that the two men had been arrested as they engaged an Israeli army force along the border of Israel and the eastern Gaza Strip.

Hamas, which had had de facto control of the Gaza Strip since June 2007, has stopped rocket attacks on Israel, in an unofficial, unannounced and fragile ceasefire with Israel that was reached January 18 at the end of the last Israeli military offensive into Gaza.

Since the end of the Israeli war on Gaza, Hamas has arrested several militants from other factions trying to launch homemade rockets from Gaza at southern Israel.

The group added one of the two men is wanted to Israel and had been previously injured in an Israeli aerial attack on Islamic Jihad militants several months ago. The other is a brother of a suicide bomber who was killed near the Gaza-Israel border in 2004.

Egypt is mediating a long-term truce between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and working to finalize a prisoners' swap with the Islamic movement in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been in captivity in Gaza since June 2006.

President Gul Urges China To Find And Prosecute Perpetrators Of Massacre In Xinjiang

ANKARA - President Abdullah Gul expressed concern over the recent ethnic strife in Xinjiang, Uighur Autonomous Region of China, urging the Chinese authorities to find and prosecute the perpetrators of the massacre.

Speaking to reporters on the matter, Gul referred to his recent visit to Urumchi prior to the strife and said he realized how strong ties of kinship between Uighurs and Turks were in actuality, during the visit.

Gul said he hoped the Chinese authorities will assess the situation in a transparent and unbiased manner.

"This is what is expected of a great country like China: To find and prosecute the perpetrators of the massacre in a transparent way, protect the rights of our Uighur brothers in the best way. As their kindred, it is our right to expect these incidents (atrocities) to end, and the perpetrators to be tried openly," said President Gul.

Gaza's children struggle with memories of war

by Patrick Moser

Fri Jul 10

GAZA CITY (AFP) – Fourteen-year-old Ghasan Matar won't talk about the explosion that cost him his legs and killed his brother. In fact, six months after the end of the Israeli war on Gaza, he still barely talks at all.

He spends most of his time staring at the walls and a huge poster depicting his older brother against a bloody background of war featuring a Kalashnikov assault rifle and dead Israeli soldiers.

He says he never thinks about the day when the house was hit during heavy shelling of Gaza City's Zeitun neighbourhood. He insists he has no nightmares. "I'm doing fine," he says, and then clams up.

"He's very traumatised. He doesn't speak, tries to act like nothing happened," says social worker Nisrin Ramadan during a visit to the boy's crumbling brick home.

"There are many cases like this of deep shock and loss of hope," says Ramadan, who works with the Society for the Physically Handicapped.

More than 300 children were among the 1,400 Palestinians killed and many more were wounded during the 22-day Israeli offensive that ended on January 18, according to Palestinian figures.

And experts say a vast majority of the children who make up more than half of Gaza's 1.5 million population, will bear the psychological scars for years to come.

"Children here have lost joy in life. They can laugh but there is no joy. They are unable to maintain hope," says psychiatrist Eyad Sarraj, who heads the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme.

Seven-year-old Ahmed Salah al-Samuni smiles timidly as he is tossed a green plastic ball but quickly loses interest, instead digging his nails into a couch in a brightly coloured room used for psycho-social counselling sessions.

"I remember that Israelis came and ordered us out. Shells were fired," he says when asked what he remembers of the war.

"Grandmother and grandfather are dead," he says, going on to list about 10 others who died when his house was bombed. In all, 29 were killed in the attack, 18 of them from his direct family.

"I love Azza and want her back," he says of his two-and-a-half year-old sister who was among the dead.

After the attack, he lay in a pool of blood. It's only when he cried out for his mother that she realised he was still alive.

A large scar runs across his face, another along his hip. His nose is still deformed from the shrapnel wounds.

Just a few months ago he had regular fits of rage, when he'd beat his brothers and break whatever was in his path.

"He'd scream out at night: 'The Jews are coming to kill me'," his father says.

His psychological scars are also starting to heal. "But it's a long process. He has seen so many dead bodies," says counsellor Sabri Abu Nadi.

A huge number of children went through "horrible situations" during the war, says Saji Elmughanni, the Gaza spokesman for the UN children's agency UNICEF. "Nowhere was safe" in the overcrowded sliver of land wedged between Israel, the Mediterranean and Egypt.

"All children here went through some degree of exposure to violence."

Many bury their feelings deep inside.

Njood Basal, 14, who suffered serious shrapnel wounds to the head, spends much of her time sitting on her bed in a room where light filters through holes in the tin roof.

She chats on the Internet with friends "in other countries, mainly the West Bank."

"I don't tell them what happened ... they ask, but I always change the subject. I feel upset when I talk about the situation."

Outside her house, a poster depicts her cousin Talat Basal. Her family says he was a "martyr," a member the Ezzedine Al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Islamist Hamas movement that rules Gaza.

Psychiatrist Sarraj says the exposure to extraordinary levels of violence is certain to turn many of today's children into tomorrow's extremists.

"I'm sure there will be a new breed of militants, they'll want a more militant group than Hamas to feel protected," he says.

Reminders of the war that Israel launched to halt rockets fired by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups are everywhere: buildings reduced to rubble, shell-scarred facades, charred car wrecks.

At night, firing can be heard from the Israeli naval ships that ensure fishermen don't venture more than a few kilometers (miles) from shore.

Mental health experts say many children in the tiny coastal enclave still live in fear of renewed military attack.

"Whether consciously or unconsciously, the fear of another war is always there," says Sarraj.

Awad Sultan, 12, lives in one of dozens of tents set up north of Gaza City to house families who lost their homes in the war.

He says he still has nightmares. "Israeli soldiers try to catch my dad and destroy houses."

What was once his family home is now just rubble.

The bicycle he loved riding is a charred piece of wreckage. Now he plays with other kids from the camp in a large tent set up by social workers.

"We have fun, but what's the use. We come back and think about the war."

GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK

Irish4Palestine

July 10, 2009

Egypt is to burn up all the accumulated aid for Gaza that has sat at the border to rot because Israel won't allow it to be delivered to the people who need it.The way I see it, Israel and Egypt owe every single person who donated money, food, clothing or any type of aid. Some one should take a worldwide class action law suit against the two countries for the cost of the aid they will now destroy! If they can't deliver, they should give the world our money back.

Egyptian authorities on Friday said they planned to destroy a large amount of accumulated humanitarian aid bound for Palestinians in Gaza.

The aid expired at the Al-Ouja border crossing between Israel and Egypt while authorities awaited Israel's permission to transfer it through, they said.

The type of aid being transferred is regulated for certain crossing points, and the one for the expired shipment of 680 kg of peanuts, agricultural pesticides and medicine, was designated through one of the Israeli crossings into Gaza.

However Israel never allowed the aid to enter its country and it expired. Authorities said they would set it ablaze in the city of Al-Sheikh Zayed to dispose of it.

“Reckless” to sail in international waters - official

Stuart Littlewood

July 11, 2009

I thought I would share this with you.

Britain’s foreign secretary David Miliband - or rather, a henchman on his behalf – has written to me about the government’s response to Israel’s hijacking of the mercy ship Spirit of Humanity on the high seas and the outrageous treatment of six peace-loving British citizens (including the skipper), en route to Gaza not Israel, who had their gear stolen or damaged and were thrown into Israeli jails. The letter contains the usual wet and meaningless expressions like deplore and press and raise the issue, which are the familiar hallmark of Foreign Office mentality.

And I’m told it is "reckless" to travel in international waters. It should, of course, be safe – and would be if the high and mighty Western allies, always talking big against terror, were to enforce maritime law and rid the Eastern Mediterranean of marauding Israeli pirates.

Miliband’s spokesman says: "The Israeli Navy took control of the Spirit of Humanity on 30 June, diverting it to Ashdod port in Israel. All those on board, including six British nationals, were handed over to Israeli immigration officials. British consular officials had good access to the British detainees and established that they were treated well. The Israeli authorities deported the detainees on 6 July."

Treated well? That’s not what the peaceful seafarers say. They were assaulted, put in fear of their lives and deprived of their liberty for fully a week - a long time in a stinking Israeli jail.

Miliband’s spokesman: "The Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons on 30 June that it was 'vital that all states respect international law, including the law of the sea. It is also important to say that we deplore the interference by the Israeli navy in the activities of Gazan fishermen'."

Such fine words. Where is the action to back them up? Gaza’s fishermen suffer increasingly unjust restrictions and are still fired on.

Miliband’s spokesman: "When the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, on 1 July he raised the issue with him and asked for clarification about whether or not the Spirit of Humanity had been intercepted in international waters. We will continue to press the Israeli authorities for clarification."

It's well over a week and Lieberman hasn't clarified anything. There’s a surprise! Was the Israeli ambassador in London summoned and given a dressing down? Has London demanded compensation for the Britishers’ losses and damage? Has the boat and its cargo been returned? Have arrangements been made for the aid to be delivered? Our Zionist-leaning government apparently takes pleasure in Britain’s repeated humiliation. Not long ago the British consul-general in Tel Aviv (a woman) was strip-searched by Israeli security perverts.

Miliband’s spokesman: "We regularly remind the Israeli government of its obligations under international law on a variety of issues, including with respect to humanitarian access to Gaza as well as Israel's control of Gazan waters and the effect this has on Gaza's fishing industry."

Ever get the feeling they've switched off their collective hearing aid? What is the point of obligations if they never have to be met? Miliband and the rest should hang their heads in shame, particularly over the Gaza fishing scandal.

Miliband’s spokesman: "As I said on the phone, our Travel Advice makes clear that we advise against all travel to Gaza, including its offshore waters; that it is reckless to travel to Gaza at this time; and that medical and other essential specialist staff needing to travel to Gaza should coordinate their entry to Gaza with the major international humanitarian organisations already on the ground."

Why does London perpetuate the blockade of Gaza by colluding in Israel’s unlawful conduct? Where are the consequences and penalties for breaching international law and all codes of human decency?

On the other point, Gaza's Ministry of Health is surely best placed to know what's needed.

Miliband’s spokesman: "Our Embassy in Tel Aviv and our Consulate General in Jerusalem have also similarly advised those wishing to deliver humanitarian assistance to Gaza to do so through existing humanitarian organisations which can advise, particularly with regards to medicines, [and] which items if any are currently required."

Private suppliers should be free to deliver aid through whatever channels they wish.

Miliband’s spokesman: "The UK has been unequivocal in its calls for Israel to lessen restrictions at the Gaza crossings, allowing the legitimate flow of humanitarian aid, trade and reconstruction goods and the movement of people. This is essential not only for the people of Gaza, but also for the wider stability of the region."

"Unequivocal"? "Essential"? More splendid but empty words. The needs of the crushed and devastated and half-starved people of Gaza have been urgent for 3 years, ever since Britain ganged up with the Zionist axis to bring Gaza to its knees.

Miliband’s spokesman: "Recent events in Gaza are a tragic reminder of the importance of progress on the peace process."

No kidding....... They are also a tragic reminder of the West's perverse failure in its duty to enforce compliance with international law, human rights and UN resolutions.

Miliband’s spokesman: "The UK, with the support of our international allies, will continue to pursue vigorously a comprehensive peace based on a two-state solution, involving a secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state."

But never vigorously enough. The world is still waiting after sixty-one years. And let's change those worn-out words around. How does a secure Palestine alongside a viable Israel sound?

Britain and its allies need to try a new tack… like first establishing the rule of international law and forcibly breaking the siege. It’s so blindingly obvious.

Meanwhile, doesn’t the gut-churning, cowardly shambles that is Gaza make you proud to be British? Or American? Or European?


Stuart Littlewood
11 July 2009

Barack Obama or Cynthia McKinney -- Who Represents Black America Toward Palestine, Israel and the Middle East?

by BAR managing editor Bruce Dixon

July 10, 2009

Former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has just returned from an Israeli jail where she was briefly imprisoned, along with human rights activists from several nations, for her second attempt at publicly running the brutal US-Israeli blockade trying to bring coloring books, food and medical supplies. Why are the US and Israel imposing this collective punishment upon 1.5 million civilians. How does McKinney's stand match up against that of our first black president, the most powerful man in the world who calls it a "humantarian crisis" but will do nothing about it? And how do they both stack up against the legacy of Dr. King?

Barack Obama or Cynthia McKinney – Who Represents Black America Toward Palestine and Israel?

By BAR Managing Editor Bruce A. Dixon

"Both Obama and McKinney have traveled to the region more than once in the last several months."

It's almost an unfair question. Barack Obama's many apologists have explained their lips off telling us how he could not run and cannot govern as president of Black Americans, or the president of Americans neck-deep in consumer debt, or the president of Americans who want an everybody in-nobody out health care system. To get elected and to govern, they wisely assure us, Barack Obama has chosen to be and must be the "president of everybody," if by everybody you mean private health insurers, Wall Street banksters, Pentagon contractors and greedy chambers of commerce everywhere. The president is a grown man, and he gets to make those choices.

So do the rest of us, and on questions pertaining to the Middle East, a Euro-centric place name if ever there was one, every public opinion survey that bothers to differentiate white from black US opinion indicates that African Americans are, in the main, far more sympathetic to the cause of Palestinians than either their white neighbors or their first black president. Barack Obama then, is operating well outside the black consensus on Palestine and Israel, while former Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney swims confidently in the mainstream of black opinion and the prophetic tradition of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Both Obama and McKinney have traveled to the region more than once in the last several months. The president gave a speech in Cairo sternly advising Palestinians to give up violence in pursuit of justice, while seeming to ignore the grossly disproportionate violence, official and unofficial, of the Israeli settler state against them. Obama acknowledged what he called a humanitarian crisis in Gaza without facing his own and the American role in creating that crisis, let alone advancing any measures that would ameliorate it.

""My suitcase," McKinney told BAR, "was full of crayons. Somebody in authority should explain why crayons and coloring books for Palestinian children are a threat..."

What President Obama calls Gaza's humanitarian crisis is actually a medieval siege, in which Israel, with the full diplomatic and military backing of the US, its principal armorer and banker, has sealed 1.5 million people off from the outside world. For more than two years practically no Palestinians have been permitted to enter Gaza, either from the Israeli-occupied West Bank or elsewhere. Electricity has been cut to a few hours per day and water to a fraction of needed quantities while the Israeli armed forces prohibit Palestinians from purchasing or receiving parts to build, repair or expand capacity. Hundreds of ordinary items needed to carry on civilized life are also banned, including cement, soap, toothpaste, foodstuffs, medical supplies, books, paper clothing and crayons.

In December 2008, and June 2009 Cynthia McKinney, traveled to Cyprus and in the company of human rights activists from many countries attempted to sail to Gaza with a cargo of cement, coloring books, building, medical and humanitarian supplies in order to illustrate the inhumanity and absurdity of the blockade. Both times, the boats were intercepted by the Israeli navy, their GPS units destroyed, and the craft boarded. This time, twenty-one persons including the Irish Nobel Laureate Mairead Maguire were arrested and imprisoned for several days before being deported.

"My suitcase," McKinney told BAR, "was full of crayons. Somebody in authority should explain why crayons and coloring books for Palestinian children are a threat. Somebody should tear down this wall." McKinney took pains to point out that the blockade, as well as the murderous assault that occurred in December, were carried on with arms and fuel supplied by the US, and with its full diplomatic backing. The blockade of Gaza is causing widespread malnutrition among Palestinians, including children, and is doubtless costing lives daily. "All of us need to ask," McKinney said, "why our government, through the Israelis, is pursuing this barbaric policy toward the Palestinians, and we must demand that it end right now."

"Why are Israel and the US, with the help of Egypt, imposing this brutal siege upon Gaza? "

McKinney also brought with her insights on the racial composition of Israeli prisons. She said she met women in the Israeli prison from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Coite D'Ivoire and other African countries. She observed that a huge number of prisoners, aside from Palestinians, were black Africans and Asians. Where Israel formerly depended upon Arab labor to do many of its everyday tasks, since the beginning of its policy of siege it has recruited large amounts of foreigh labor from non-Muslim parts of Africa and Asia to do all the jobs on the low end of the pay and social status scales. Foreigners, of course, have few if any rights in Israel, and can find themselves locked up for extended periods for the most minor of status offenses.

Why are Israel and the US, with the help of Egypt, imposing this brutal siege upon Gaza? After the death of Yasir Arafat in 2006, Palestinians held elections, closely supervised by observers from many nations, and certified by them to be free and fair. But the Palestinians had the poor judgment to elect a political party --- Hamas --- not favored by Israel and the US. Cutting off their trade and travel, what remained of their opportunity to seek work in Israel or visit their Palestinian relatives in the West Bank, only a few miles distant, curtailing their electricity, water, building, medical and other supplies was, according to US and Israeli policymakers, supposed to make them come to their senses. It hasn't worked. Outside pressure has, if anything, made the Palestinians of Gaza stick tighter together, and rally round the government that the US and Israel so disapprove of. It was the Bush policy for nearly two years, and now it has been the Obama policy for all of six months.

While Obama was the president-in-waiting, conducting daily news conferences on his plan for the economy, denouncing the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, and browbeating members of his own party in congress into voting trillions of public dollars for Wall Street, Israel launched a full-scale military attack against Gaza, throwing hundreds of thousands of rounds of artillery, including cluster munitions and white phosphorus along with strikes from helicopters and jet aircraft, killing more than a thousand civilians. Barack Obama declined to comment publicly, noting that his inauguration was still a few days distant, and that the US had "only one president at a time." In a similar legalistic vein, during Obama's Cairo speech he pointedly said that the US did not recognize the legitimacy of "continuing Israeli settlements." But the Israeli government has, with US government funding been planting armed colonies of Israelis on strategic hilltops and ridges throughout the Palestinian West Bank for more than twenty years now, connecting them with a network of roads which Palestinians are forbidden to travel upon or even to cross under pain of arrest. Obama said nothing about these and other longstanding outrages.

"Next to Arab Americans, blacks are probably the nation's most skeptical group about the fundamental justice of an Israeli settler state"

Almost a year ago, when Barack Obama received the Democratic nomination, the air was thick with

comparisons and connections between his career and that of Dr. Martin Luther King a generation earlier. In the heady moments of Obama's historic nomination and inauguration it was easy for many to confuse and conflate one with the other. But the air is clearer now. The president's selective moralizing on violence and nonviolence, his legalistic evasions of responsibility, his lawyerly distancing from the consequences of his own actions and inactions are more the stuff of Boss Daley than they are the prophetic witness to injustice of Dr. King. Six months into the Obama presidency, the man whose career many saw as the culmination of the work of the apostle of nonviolence has killed more than 700 Afghans, many of them civilians, with airborne robot drones.

Next to Arab Americans, blacks are probably the nation's most skeptical group about the fundamental justice of an Israeli settler state which imparts rights of residence, citizenship, and more on the basis of Jewish identity, while denying these rights to people whose ancestors have lived there for thousands of years. To African Americans who bother to educate themselves at all on the matter, Israel's identity-pass system, its Jewish-only roads, its separate license plates that allow Israeli Arabs and other non-jews to be profiled at a distance, the ongoing settlement policy cited by President Obama, and the raw, unpunished racist violence of Israeli settlers toward Palestinians have all the hallmarks of a modern, twenty-first century apartheid state. Thanks to Cynthia McKinney and others, more of us are becoming educated on the real nature of the Israeli state, and the consequences of American support of it. We expect to see that work continue, and be taken up by an ever wider section of African American churches, student and civic organizations who believe, as did Dr. King that a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

We said at the beginning that the comparison was almost unfair. Almost. It's really not unfair at all. Neither Barack Obama nor Cynthia McKinney are being forced or compelled to make the choices they do. They are both grown, well educated, sober, sensible parents and US citizens. But between President Obama and former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, it's easy to see who is following in the prophetic footsteps of Dr. King, and increasingly, who is Black America's real representative to Palestinians, Israelis, and the Middle East.

Netanyahu turns to Nazi language

The Israeli prime minister's use of the word 'Judenrein' is a cynical attempt to skew the fight over West Bank settlements
Peter Beaumont

July 11, 2009

There are words with meanings corrosive as acid. Heavy with the stench of historic crimes. Words that damn those who use them. One such word is "Judenrein", the Nazi-era word that means "cleansed of Jews". It is a surprise, then, to learn that it is a word that has been appropriated by Binyamin Netanyahu to describe the Palestinian demand for the dismantling of the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. More shocking still, according to reports yesterday, it was used in talks between Netanyahu and Germany's Frank-Walter Steinmeier, foreign minister of a country still haunted by the guilt of its Nazi past – who was compelled to nod in embarrassed silence.

Netanyahu has not been alone in using "Judenrein" in recent months to describe the prospect of the removal of Israeli settlements in a future peace deal to create a Palestinian state .

As frustration among Israeli rightists has been mounting against the new policies of President Obama, the word has been creeping into the discourse, first in the rightwing blogosphere and now penetrating the mainstream media in Israel.

It is not the word "Judenfrei" – equally offensive – that Netanyahu used but its even stronger and more despicable companion. A word, under the Nazi race laws, that meant all trace of Jewish ancestry had been removed. The justification for its employment has been somewhat historically self-serving, arguing two things.

First, it contends that because Jewish communities historically lived on the West Bank and in Jerusalem before 1967 (over 3,000 years except for 19 years of Jordanian occupation between 1948 and 1967, according to this argument) any insistence on the removal of the settlements would amount to a de facto ethnic cleansing.

Secondly it argues – as Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi did on 2 July in Yediot Ahronoth – that the international community has accepted an unequal proposition, "that the Palestinians should be allowed to establish a country based on the religion of the majority of its citizens" while denying that same right to Israel. By that logic, he concludes, "international politics will no longer have to deal with the 'Palestinian problem' but rather with the 'Jewish problem' in Palestine".

It is an argument born of desperation that is as stunning for its sophistry as it is for its denial of what the settlement programme post-1967 represented. For while it is true that Jewish communities existed on the West Bank before the six-day war, the settlement programme that followed the occupation is regarded by most international bodies as a serious violation of international law. That view is based on the interpretation of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention as well as a series of UN security council resolutions that have deemed aspects of the settlements to be illegal.

Indeed, according to a report acquired by the Peace Now group in 2006, which it claimed it had acquired from the Israeli government's civil administration, as much as 32% of the land on which settlements are built is, in reality, privately owned by Palestinians.

The reality is that this is not about truth or the justness of Israel's historical argument for the existence of communities in territories it calls by the biblical names of Judea and Samaria. The evocation of Judenrein by Netanyahu and by other commentators is the most cynical of ploys in a negotiation that his government feels that is going against it. Under pressure from Obama to freeze settlement building completely – including the construction that Israel likes to label as "natural growth" – it is being forced into ever more extreme language to defend the continued existence of the settlers in the occupied Palestinian territories in language, like that used with Steinmeier, to embarrass and cajole.

There are words with particular meanings. Bloody with the worst offenses. To use "Judenrein" so cheaply to score a political point dishonors the memory of history and its victims. It shames Israel's prime minister.

British prime minister defends Afghan mission

By DANICA KIRKA, Associated Press Writer

LONDON – The deaths of eight British soldiers in Afghanistan within 24 hours triggered a debate in Britain on Saturday that could undercut public support for the war just as the U.S. is ramping up its own participation in the conflict.

With pictures of hearses and anguished relatives splashed across Britain's influential media, the government is under pressure to explain the reason for the soldiers' sacrifice and to defend the quality of its support for combat troops.

The deaths, on Thursday and Friday, pushed Britain's overall toll in Afghanistan to 184 — five more than the total British deaths in the Iraq war. The number is less than a third of the 657 American forces' deaths since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, according to U.S. figures.

But to a country that has not suffered significant casualties in years, the images of flag-draped British coffins are haunting.

Increasing British unease could have severe consequences for the Americans. With other European nations unwilling to send in more troops — and Afghan forces not ready to take up overall security — Britain's support is crucial to any American effort.

The high number of recent battle deaths has brought into focus the problems and inconsistencies of a war that started with a limited objective — find Osama bin Laden and defend Britain from terrorism — but which has now embraced broader goals.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown defended his country's course Saturday after the spike in combat deaths. In a letter to a senior parliamentary committee, he said that despite recent casualties, commanders in Afghanistan believed that they were succeeding in their objectives.

"This is a fight to clear terrorist networks from Afghanistan and Pakistan, to support the elected governments in both countries against the Taliban, to tackle the heroin trade which funds terrorism and the insurgency, and to build longer term stability," he wrote.

Britain moved into Afghanistan with the United States shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as part of a coalition hoping to root out terrorism and build a stable government able to extinguish the Taliban.

President Barack Obama has said he wants to make Afghanistan — not Iraq — the main focus of the war against Islamic extremism and has ordered 21,000 additional U.S. troops there this year. There are about 57,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and the number is expected to rise to at least 68,000 by the end of this year.

Obama said Saturday the British contribution to the war was critical.

"This is not an American mission," Obama told Sky News, noting European nations also have a great stake in its success. "The likelihood of a terrorist attack in London is at least as high, if not higher, than it is in the United States. And that's the reason why (former Prime Minister) Tony Blair, and now Gordon Brown, have made this commitment. It is not because they wish to put their young men and women in harm's way."

Britain's 8,000 troops are fighting in southern Helmand province with thousands of U.S. Marines in a major offensive intended to disrupt Taliban insurgents and cut their supply lines to Pakistan before Afghan elections planned for next month.

Much of the debate in Britain has focused on whether its troops are properly equipped to defend themselves, particularly whether they have enough helicopters and if Viking armored vehicles are effective.

Opposition Conservative Party leader David Cameron said the forces operating in Afghanistan need more helicopters and that it is a "scandal" they lack such equipment. Helicopters would allow the forces to avoid roadside bomb attacks like the one that killed Lt. Col. Rupert Thorneloe, the most senior British Army officer to die in combat since the 1982 Falkands War.

And opposition Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg shook the cross-party consensus on the mission in an opinion piece Friday in Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper. Clegg said he now wondered whether the British were "giving our troops the means to do their difficult job."

Britain is fighting in an area where there are few civilians, making it simpler for the militants to plant roadside bombs without fear of killing civilians. That contrasts with the Americans, who have had success in the fairly well populated Garmser region, where people can inform troops about militants in the area and where bombs have been planted.

The Americans, with strong air support, have an advantage, wrote veteran foreign correspondent Jason Burke, who has written extensively about Afghanistan and terrorism.

"A lot has been made of the Taliban's increasing use of 'asymmetric tactics,' such as booby traps, roadside bombs or suicide attacks," Burke wrote in an analysis for The Guardian newspaper. "A few hours on an operation with American troops, supported by attack helicopters, jets and unmanned heavily armed drones, makes it clear why: if the insurgents do not stay out of the way, they will be killed, as many thousands have been.

"But once coalition troops establish a presence, they become vulnerable. They need supplies, they need to patrol; they are perfect targets for the hit and run tactics of the Taliban. Those tactics have been particularly honed in ambushes."

Britain has had a difficult history in Afghanistan, having fought two wars there in the 19th century to protect British interests in India. Afghans still view Britain's intentions in their country with deep suspicion — more so than the Americans and other coalition members.

In November, an ICM poll conducted for the BBC asked if Britain should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan within the following 12 months. Of the 1,013 adults questioned, 68 percent said yes and less than a quarter, 24 percent, said they should stay. No margin of error was given.

Anti-war protesters have already called for a protest at the prime minister's Downing Street office on Monday. They are calling on him to bring troops home now.