Sunday, December 31, 2006

Gandhi Was a Good Man, but . . .

Many Young Indians Are Fat; More Are Famished
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
While India's health officials confront rising levels of
childhood obesity, gnawing destitution continues to plague
millions of its youngest citizens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/world/asia/31india.html?th&emc=th

...........................

Gandhi was a good man and his tactical use of 'non violent' civil disobedience -- the Indians were not violent but apparently their leaders were fully aware that their crowd tactics could goad British troops into overreaction much as civil rights activists did with Southern segregationist police. The resulting massacres played in the British press and stimulated the liberation move.

The other criticism that can be made of Gandhi is really not fair under the conditions of India of his time. As India was a more or less destitute nation under the British, Gandhi urged that people strive individually to better their situations (self help). But his resistance to state aid for those in need unhappily became the heritage that he left behind. Planning in India has all too often devastated communities (e.g. with a dam or some such project in the larger interest). The suffering of individuals is given second place to larger community interests as perceived by governments in charge. Presumably some of the cultural attitudes of the caste system were carried over towards the untouchables much along the lines of U.S. racism. See Arundhati Roy on such things:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arundhati_Roy

http://website.lineone.net/~jon.simmons/roy/

--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Of the Holocaust Generation

[I take the liberty of sending on a note to the Israel_Palestine list by Dorothy Naor. We are of the same era, both having been born in the U.S. within a year of each other, which means that we shared many of the same experiences.

My own awakening really required some time out of the U.S. as a British public school student which broke the 'group think' patterns of being an American. Among other things, I hiked as a teen with young Germans in a peace-making effort, lived briefly with my French pen pal family, worked with fellow teens in the poorest section of London as well as flying high with the British upper bourgeoises of that era. What I share particularly with Dorothy is concern for decent treatment of those over whom we may have the power to abuse. Ed Kent]

Dear Neal,

I'll be 75 in March. In other words, I am of the Holocaust generation, as is my spouse (who will be 79 in a month). The difference being that he escaped from Vienna and the Nazis with his parents and younger brother at the 0 hour and came to Palestine, I grew up in the US (during a time when there was a quota system for Jews, restricted neighborhoods, and the like). My spouse was fortunate that his father had the money to pay for the certificate to come to Palestine, because no other country in the world (including the US) wanted the refugees. He was 11 at the time. The remainder of his large extended family all perished in the Camps. No wonder that he believed that the Jews needed a homeland. In the US we also were impacted on by the pictures of the Camps, by stories of refugees who the US began to let in, and so on. My spouse came to the States to study, we met, married and returned to Israel to raise our children as Israelis, as Jews in a Jewish country.

I'm relating all this to you so that you realize that from then till where I am politically now was a very long and painful process. I now realize that a Jewish country is in itself undesirable for reasons that I won't expand on here (read Ed's report on his own experience in growing up with prejudice, and how he managed to finally avoid being racist; it contains much of my thinking on the issue). Moreover, since 2000 and the 2nd intifada my spouse (his name is Israel) and I have learned much from experience--experience from reading early Zionist texts, and experience from finally after so many years meeting Palestinians, working with them to stop the injustice done them, and forming close friendships with quite a large number of them.

What right did the UN have to give the Jewish people 55% of historic Palestine, when Jews owned actually but 6%? And, moreover, when Palestine was largely rural and Muslims were 70% rural while Jews were barely 20% rural. There is more than a tinge of racism in the UN act. After all, why build a Jewish state at the expense of a people who never did anything to deserve being exiled and deprived of their lands, to a people who did not deserve being dispossed? If indeed the Jews needed a country of their own, why was it not established in places where Jews had been mistreated--in Europe or the US?

True, the Palestinians (Jews, Muslims, and Christians) had lived under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and after the British Mandate, but neither the Turks nor the Brits colonized Palestine, nor exiled Palestinians, nor demolished 400 of their villages so that there would be no place for the exiled to return to.

Finally (to make this story short), the notion that the Jews need a country of their own for their safety is a myth. Had the Nazis completed their plans, the Jews would have been no more safe in Palestine than they were anywhere else in the world. Palestinians were lucky that Rommel did not succeed. If the US stops supporting Israel with $2.5 billion in military aid and $10 billion in credit guarantees, Israel will cease to be. And that will undoubtedly happen some day. Israel, even with all that military aid (great for war profiteers, but not for most of us) cannot even protect its own population much less others. More Jews have been killed in battle and by violence in Israel than any place else in the world since WWII. Israel has gone through 10 wars since 1948! No wonder most Jews prefer to live abroad.

We (spouse and I) also began in the belief that the Jews need a country of their own. Today I dispute that. Much healthier to live as Jews, Christians, and Muslims did in peace and cooperation in Palestine for some 9 centuries prior to the onset of Zionism. Much healthier to live in a mixed society as the US and most of Europe than in an ethnographic state, so fearful of negative demographics that it is doing everything to prevent any other people from living here--be they Philippines, Rumanians, and certainly Palestinians. Israel has taken over the West Bank as it took over what is properly Israel today, and will probably commit genocide in Gaza, because fewer immigrants are coming, and the Palestinian population (in contrast to Jabotinsky's belief that the iron wall would bring them to their knees) refuse to give up. Even with 11,000 prisoners--mostly male between the ages of 18-45--kept from their families, families continue to grow.

Not until the Palestinians have peace, have freedom, have justice, will Jews feel safe here again. They will wisely continue to emigrate (did you see the stats on Canadians yesterday? since 1948 some 7,000 Canadian Jews immigrated to Israel, but today 30,000 ex-Israelis live in Canada; need to checkout the stats for the US).

I don't agree with you that Fisk is one-sided. My personal experience has taught me to see things much as he describes them. And the fact that he does not complain about other countries does not lessen Israel's evils, does not make him one-sided. That's another tactic that people who want to defend Israel at all costs use. Two wrongs do not make one right. And 10 wrongs do not make one right. Sure, there are lots of wrongs in the world. But the fact that Fisk concentrates on one instead of on all does not make him one-sided. The same goes for me. Except that I have a personal interest at stake--my children, grandchildren, future great-grandchildren, neighbors, etc. I want them to have security and I want my Palestinian friends to have security. That will not come about via the Greater Israel and the continued use of force.

As you might have gathered, I am no longer Zionist. Knowledge has brought me to realize that Zionism was a crime--born in Europe, nurtured mainly in Eastern Europe, where the Jews suffered at Christian (not Muslim) hands, it came to build a country on the backs of a people who had done nothing to deserve the fate of the Zionist dream come true (as far as concerns the establishment of a state; as far as concerns the idea of a refuge, Israel never became that). In fact, after the Inquisition, those Jews who left Spain for Arab countries lived quite well. They did not suffer pogroms and the iniquities suffered by Jews in Europe.

I can't continue now. Have important things to do. I will close only by saying that I am a firm believer in the principle of 'don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.'
Dorothy
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Embedded Prejudices?

I am in the process of reading two class sections' sets of exams for a course on ethics and society. I realized in retrospect that the 3 questions to which I had asked the students to respond on the basis of the methods of analysis and ethical exploration that we had developed during the semester -- on racism, immigration, and mental illness -- each related to one or another form of embedded prejudice, i.e. prejudice that tends to take root even before one has reached school age, depending upon accidental experiences that one may have had, comments overheard, etc.

Children are little geniuses not only at learning language at an early age, but also at picking up the prejudices that infect their cultures. I can remember instances of such learning myself -- both in very early childhood and in the school yards that I attended thereafter before I left home to study both in this country and abroad.

I recall vividly the first time that I encountered an African American and the body language of my mother that somehow signaled to me that this person was somehow different than other people. We were riding on a bus in Hartford, Connecticut, probably at the completion of a shopping trip when an older African American woman got on the bus -- there were no seats left and I had been taught among other things that little boys stood up to let older women sit down. So I popped up and offered the seat next to my mother to this good lady. I don't recall exactly what happened then, but I sensed immediately that my mother (not racist to my knowledge) was somehow discomforted by this happening. Something was going on here? I never asked my mother, but some sort of signal had been sent that African Americans were somehow 'different'.

This sort of experience happened again sometime early in WW2 when we were waiting together in line to purchase some then rationed item of food when a lady pressed ahead of us. Again I don't remember words, but it came clear that this person was Jewish -- possibly newly arrived in this country and another message had been sent. Where we had moved in Farmington, an outer suburb of Hartford, only one Jewish family lived in a poor community, Oakland Gardens -- the owner of a grocery/liquor store -- he became the major entrepreneur there, buying up houses to rent out and such and his son went to Noah Wallace public school in Farmington -- not welcomed into our separate ethnic/religious groupings there which were also divided along lines of prejudice.

Catholics (Irish and Italian) lived below the Main St. towards the Farmington River and socialized together as did Wasps who either lived up the hill from Main St. or in the country on farms or homes newly constructed, as was ours. One Italian American, Peter T., was quite bright and joined with us WASPS -- but I remember really offending him by casually suggesting that since his complexion was darker, he probably had some African roots? Where I got that idea, I do not know.

Needless to say in the course of time these prejudices were rooted out -- at least from my conscious awareness. Some of our best friends went on to become most of our best friends and some of our relatives by marriage fit in all of the above domains and a few others as well.

Living closely with people was really the best way to eradicate the instinctive types of prejudices -- particularly those most deeply embedded. My wife and I lived for 3 years in a housing project on W. 125th St. in Harlem as grad students (as part of a program to desegregate it -- we were the first non African or Latino). Ours is an exogamous family (we marry out) and so we have developed close family ties to virtually any and all possible ethnic groups one encounters in America -- apart from the newest arrivals from the Middle East.

And, of course, there are the other barriers -- mental illness and the imprisonment of mentally disabled people in our jails was another exam question. Children may be frightened off by the mumbling homeless person. Many Americans are still horrendously prejudiced against people with such disabilities.

A number of my students have chosen to write their papers on gay rights. And I am relieved to find that all of my students thus far are supporting the right of Latinos to migrate to the U.S. and live and work here -- a favorite sister-in-law of mine is a Latina and I struggled late in life to learn Spanish so that I would not be cut off from my students by clumsy use of Spanish -- their names at the very least.

A half century ago when I worked with African American teens as an intern in lower West Harlem, I had high hopes for helping them towards better futures. All but 3 of my particular little gang of a dozen died violently decades ago. Things are possibly almost as bad or worse now in our lingering NYC racial ghettos. But things are progressing a bit and my students look to be open-minded at Brooklyn College. I hope their generation is moving along a bit faster now that we have many more role models and examples than the drug dealers which my gang of kids had back then.

Here's hoping for a better America -- one truly open to any and all.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

But What About the Others Who Have Killed in Iraq?

Robert Fisk: http://www.robert-fisk.com/home_page.htm offers perhaps the best informed and certainly most penetrating and honest reportage out of the Middle East where he has lived for a number of years. His column today on Hussein: "A dictator created then destroyed by America" http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2112555.ece tells it as it is. While the Iraqi dictator killed and tortured many thousands, those who chose to go to war against him, particularly Bush and Blair, have done in not many fewer Iraqis as well as their own citizens through their mad, illegal crusade against a figure partially created by some of the very Americans who have chosen to war against him.

Read Fisk who puts things better than I can.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Execution News -- Good and Bad

The good news (according to the latest issue of Death Row U.S.A. put out by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Educational Fund) is that only 3 juveniles still remain on our U.S. death rows, the Supreme Court finally having voted 5-4 against executing juveniles last spring.

The bad news is that of October 1, 2006, 3,344 people still remained on U.S. death rows and that the latest news reports are that we shall have Saddam Hussein executed by the end of the weekend. I say 'we', as it is manifest that our government wants to get rid of Hussein ASAP -- further trials would presumably disclose the complicity of our current and recently replaced U.S. government officials with Hussein's worst atrocities when these characters were giving him their blessings in his combat with Iran and the notorious gassing of the Kurds that took place during that period.

Back to the Death Penalty U.S.A. report -- needless to say in racist America the primary victims of our legalized murder regime are minorities. Whites are 45.22% of those on death row. Minorities (black and Latino) constitute the majority. It is nearly impossible for a white to get the death penalty for murdering a black, but the stats on the reverse order of victim/perp identities tell the whole story. One may go the Death Penalty Information Center for the grim details:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/

[Note. I don't like black and white, as applied to fellow humans, but these are the terms used in the report.]

Back to the Hussein execution, I would recommend that the entire Bush clan take heed. Retaliation is the name of the game most likely. Not only will the world at large (which has mainly abolished the death penalty) have some strong things to say about our involvement in this particular event, but one would imagine that there will be those who will seek revenge. How stupid! But I suppose that they figure this will distract people for the weekend news reports from the fiascoes occurring in the Middle East.

Texas as usual leads the nation in scheduled executions. During one of Bush's years as governor there, it did in half (37) of all executed that year in Amerika (74) -- including an African American juvenile about whose guilt there was considerable doubt, as several African American witnesses said he was not the one, but whose judgment was over-ridden by a stubborn white lady whose point of view on the murder was a considerable distance away across a dark parking lot.

And so it goes -- here and over there.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Let the Arabs Rescue Iraq!

One need not read the NY Times article (below) to get the message. The military and police forces that the Bush administration is pretending will support Iraqi democracy are in fact the militia bases that are tearing it apart with a murderous, brutal, escalating civil war. There is absolutely no evidence that the frail and stumbling Iraqi government can do anything to halt this mayhem -- and less that our U.S. military can play policeman -- short of sending in hundreds of thousands more troops to patrol the streets and to repair the ever deteriorating Iraqi infrastructure. But in truth there is no way that WE can put Humpty Dumpty together again! And there is no point in kidding ourselves or the rest of the world. Perhaps others who are not hated occupiers can assist -- preferably fellow Arabs and not just more interfering Westerners.

Perhaps there is still time to help Afghanistan? We and the Russians owe them. But that may be a lost venture now as well?

...........................................

Sectarian Ties Weaken Duty's Call for Iraq Forces
By MARC SANTORA
U.S. forces are struggling with the task of trying to build
up Iraqi security forces that are being used as proxies in
a spreading sectarian war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/28/world/middleeast/28sectarian.html?th&emc=th


--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Columbia University Gentrifies the Neigbhorhood!

The following is taken from a comment to Columbia University area email lists on the gentrification of lower West Harlem (Manhattanville) where Columbia is threatening the use of eminent domain to grab 17 crucial acres for the construction of a new -- mainly profit-oriented -- biotech campus.

Those who drive or take the #4 or bus up Broadway will notice to the west on the south side of 135th St. a massive housing complex (with a connected basketball area between it and Broadway). This is 3333 Broadway which has completed its Mitchell Lama 20 years after which owners are free to sell or raise rents. I hear that evictions are now taking place monthly there -- I don't have all the specifics. But Columbia's move would make this a highly attractive place to house faculty, staff, and students connected with a new campus. Presumably the stores and residences running north from there would undergo rapid 'upgrading', i.e. replacement with far more expensive stores, removal of tenants and/or new construction. All the attractions of Riverside Park are also there. One would expect to see the Upper West Side extended northward and the removal of small businesses, jobs, affordable housing, etc. by upscale replacements -- not quite the dramatic type of urban removal that occurred under Robert Moses, but a more insidious kind such as that impacting Morningside Heights currently and moving in on the Manhattan Valley which will be converted to Central Park North luxury housing in the next decade or so.

When we returned to Morningside Heights in 1966 after a brief stint teaching out of town, we moved into 440 Riverside Drive. It was an affordable building and we particularly appreciated the mix in our neighborhood and building of people from diverse backgrounds. There was even housing for those who would otherwise have been homeless in several SROs who now live in the rail tunnel under Riverside Park or wherever else they can grab some sleep -- the B'way Presbyterian church steps, the far end of our subway platforms, etc.

When the co-op boom hit in 1979 (an earlier one had been aborted by the Depression and had made co-ops dubious ventures), we watched the neighborhood rapidly begin changing. We were fortunate to be able to buy our apartment for virtually nothing -- now only millionaires need apply to purchase apartments in our lovely building. We still have some tenants left as we converted on a non-eviction basis. But the neighborhood is firmly moving luxury. All our stores are increasingly either upscale (i.e. much more expensive than their equivalents in other 'hoods -- even when part of the same operation, e.g. University Market) or chain operations. I venture that few not earning upwards to 6 figures can even afford to rent in Morningside Heights now? I fully expect to see a new luxury housing tower replace even the remnant of bargain shopping at Rite Aid facing the Columbia equivalent across B'way. All the low story buildings in our neighborhood are known as "tax payers" -- expect these blocks to be replaced by high rises as leases expire.

As I had an early connection with Manhattanville, having interned in the Manhattanville Community Center many years ago while a student, I am saddened at the prospect of people living in that general area being forced out by the heavy footprint of Columbia moving in. I see no quid pro quos of any serious kind being offered by Columbia -- a math and science school will presumably serve its own employees, not those currently living in the area. CCNY provides such things for bright kids living in that neighborhood now. Columbia puts its own into public space, e.g. the recent dispute about the move of an older set of Columbia faculty children into P.S. 36.

The on-going question is why did not Columbia respect the highly professional plan offered by CB#9 which would benefit a mixed community living in the Manhattanville and locate its expanded campus outside of NYC somewhere that could be reached by university transportation much as its two existing campuses are now connected? The Columbia alternative will obviously force the people now living in the area to make the move out. Seems terribly unkind as well as greedy. Is this the morality of a major university -- corporatized? What are those upper university management salaries and perks again? When I was at Oxford, my college had only a bursar who collected tuitions and paid bills -- and also tutored Greek.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Monday, December 25, 2006

The Attack on American Liberalism?

The right wing attack on liberalism is no accident. The irony is, as many have noted, that it is constituted by two wings of U.S. conservatism with radically conflicting roots and objectives.

One branch of this attack is the Scrooge appeal of libertarianism that claims the absolute right of individuals to own what they can garner -- devoid of any obligations to assist their fellow humans. Our recently deceased Harvard philosopher, Robert Nozick, was the intellectual spear carrier of this branch of conservatism who argued uses of 'Lockean' principles in his Anarchy, State, and Utopia: http: //www.igreens.org.uk/anarchy_state_and_utopia.htm His offering was twined with John Rawls' liberal counterpart, A theory of Justice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice in the college texts presented to several generations of students during their formative years. It is saddening to learn that Nozick may have won this competition with reports that our current college student generation is now more interested in getting rich than assisting fellow human beings?

Libertarians needless to say lobby for maximum personal freedoms as well and one of the most noted ones in my field, John Hospers, driven out of the Brooklyn College philosophy department because he was gay, later ran as the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hospers

The other wing of conservatism, the right wing evangelicals and comparable religious groups, are united in their obsessive homophobia, embedded anti-Semitism, and disparagement of women (attack on abortion rights, etc.). These religionists are radically opposed to any intellectual challenge to their primitive religious assertions. Richard Hofstadter's classic study, Anti-intellectualism in American Life, captured their mindlessly hostile attacks on liberal religious views of reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-intellectualism


Needless to say this unholy alliance of conservatives coming from such disparate foundations is unstable. But it is also extremely dangerous in that its attack on liberalism disguises and defeats realistic appraisals of the problems to be solved out there. Bob Woodward's State of Denial told it as it is!

What we have seen from the Bush administration at home has been a series of attacks on basic scientific facts. The most deadly of which I am personally aware through one of my my students, Kojo Davis, was the refusal of either Christy Todd Whitman or Rudy Giuliani to take responsibility for the deadly impact of the debris of the World Trade Center upon the lungs and psyches of the 40,000 workers subsequently gravely injured by the deadly substances they had inhaled there during their cleanup operation. There have been a few media reports on their suffering and some efforts to pry loose even the pay still due to them for their sacrifice, but to little avail thus far beyond an extension of possible workmen's compensation and/or possible disability status for those who have remained in NY:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B1FF83E550C778DDDAB0994DE404482

Even more immediately threatening than such denials of basic scientific facts at home -- blocking uses of stem cells for finding means of healing major human illnesses and injuries, the irreparable damage being done to our environment by under regulated uses and abuses of dangerous substances, and a host of 're-written' reports of our scientists by federal 'censors' -- is the on-going and escalating disaster in the Middle East. All reports indicate that any who can escape from Iraq are doing so by the millions -- its businessmen, its teachers, doctors and other professionals. One cannot construct a democracy on the back of warring militias! And meanwhile Afghanistan is slipping back into the hands of the Taliban, lurking in nuclear Pakistan only temporarily held at bay by a general who carried out a military coup there and who is only a bullet away from assassination!

One hopes that the unholy alliance of the two conservative groups that have brought Bush to power will collapse, allowing liberal America to return to our proper business of building a better democracy at home and supporting international human rights and law abroad. But the information void and our diversion into such as 'Survivor' games by our corporate media may not dissipate the denial fog in time to save us from ourselves.

Other great powers have committed collective suicide in the past and national suicide may be the road that we Americans are on today.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is
legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Sunday, December 24, 2006

The U.S. Was NOT Founded by Christians

A number of erroneous myths pervade the typical American's understanding of our history -- from our early educations and through the repeated assertions in our media.

Among the more cruel of these was that the U.S. was first settled by Europeans from England -- the Puritans and the Mayflower and all that at Plymouth Rock in 1620. Nice try (and apparently even my earliest great, greats were a young couple that arrived, met, married and moved on westward at some point where our immediate family recollections were of a farm boy born and raised in Palmyra, NY.).

In fact, as the arrival date of Columbus in 1492 indicates, the Spanish first settled large portions of the U.S. -- Florida to California and much in between more than a century earlier -- as the original Spanish place names indicate. The Anglos in charge grabbed many of these territories from the Spanish by devious means -- e.g. trumped up wars, such as the U.S. Mexican War of 1846-48: http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/index_flash.html

If justice were to be done, we should be assisting Mexican immigrants in returning to their own lands which we stole rather than barring them as illegal immigrants.

Another tall tale and the one to which the subject heading refers is the false notion that the U.S. was founded by Christians. In fact our founding fathers were for the most part either atheists or deists (who believed in an ordered universe, but not the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Another of my possible collateral relatives on my mother's side, Ethan Allen, not only fought the battle of Ticonderoga, but also wrote one of our earliest atheist tracts:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0043-5597(199710)3%3A54%3A4%3C835%3ANRADIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J

I am really indebted to the fine course that I took with Robert T. Handy on American church history for a fuller understanding of the twists and turns of our religious traditions. On the strength of the Puritan originals, such Ivies as Yale and Harvard were first started to educate Protestant clergy. But by the time of the revolution the great bulk of our American intellectuals had departed theistic beliefs for a deistic sense of the order of nature (theist derives from the Greek word for god -- theos -- and deist, from the Roman -- deus). Ben Franklin was archetypal among these folks with his kite experiments amidst thunder storms to elicit lightening strikes. By the time of the revolution in 1776 and the writing of the Constitution the vast majority of students at Yale and Harvard proclaimed themselves to be deists heading for other pursuits than theists serving the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

The rest of the American religious story is not exactly something for Christians to be boastful about. The Civil War divided denominations between North and South -- the former sometimes for abolition and the latter defending the horrendous institution of slavery -- thus the latter day Christian-based racism which was still setting up private 'Christian' academies to avoid the strictures against segregation of the Brown decision in 1954.

And the current right wing make-it-up-as-you-go-along hate stuff emerged from nineteenth century middle America's anti-intellectual religious hucksters who traveled from town to town preaching hellfire and damnation and passing the hat to frightened sinners before heading on to the next unsuspecting community. See Richard Hofstader's classic Anti-Intellectualism in American Life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hofstadter

The sad outcome of this phenomenon is the hate stuff now directed by the right wingers against gays, their anti-Semitism which proclaims the imminent destruction of Israel and most of the Jews with it, and their denigration of women through their attack on abortion rights. None of the above have anything to do with the gospel (good news) preached by Jesus of Nazareth.

It is too bad that our media don't know history. They could do much to enlighten us as to whence we have come to give better insights into where we should be going. Thank G-d for the First Amendment which reined in the religious frauds and nuts with its no establishment clause. I served for several decades on the ACLU's church/state committee which dealt with such matters and which was all too enlightening as to the fraudulent religious pack rats running about loose in the land.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

The Little Bush Has Blown U.S. Global Authority

It is becoming ever more clear as the snippet below from the NY Times article ("Across Africa, a Sense That U.S. Power Isn’t So Super") all too clearly indicates -- that Bush's "war on terror" has not only failed miserably. It has blown American authority -- moral, political, and even military -- in the wider world.

Who now trembles at the threat of American military attacks or calls for sanctions? Scarcely Iran, North Korea, Sudan, the Taliban, or any others who in an earlier era showed restraint when we either appealed or barked. Bush and Co. have clearly blown it. Perhaps it will be a healthier world for all now that it is not dominated by a super power that is manifesting not a few problems at home -- no universal medical coverage, jobs heading overseas, affordable housing not in sight, millions (33 or 34) going hungry, and a social fabric which has our younger generation trying to figure out how to get rich rather than contributing public service to their communities?

No model democracy are we anymore. Racism is on the rise. We are insulting our Latinos and by extension most of those living south of our borders. Smart Americans will soon be moving out -- perhaps to Canada which may turn out to offer the best possible future for those of us left in this continent?

How sad to have lost it all in six short years.

.............................

Across Africa, a Sense That U.S. Power Isn’t So Super

Article Tools Sponsored By
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN
Published: December 24, 2006

Skip to next paragraph
Readers’ Opinions
Forum: African Politics

MOGADISHU, Somalia

THE rally was supposed to be against Ethiopia, Somalia’s neighbor and historic archenemy, which in the past few weeks had sent troops streaming across the border in an attempt to check the power of the increasingly powerful Islamists who rule Mogadishu.

But the cheers that shook the stadium (which had no roof, by the way, and was riddled with bullet holes) were about another country, far, far away.

“Down, down U.S.A.!” thousands of Somalis yelled, many of them waving cocked Kalashnikovs. “Slit the throats of the Americans!”

Not exactly soothing words, especially when the passport in your pocket has one of those golden eagles on it. [snip]
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Who Was Jesus of Nazareth?

The answer is that we really don't know.

When I studied theology some years ago (at Union Theological Seminary in NYC and Mansfield College, Oxford), I was startled to discover that the Gospels written several generations after the lynching of Jesus as a suspected terrorist by a brutal Roman governor simply did not accord with each other on even the most basic details. Matthew was obviously directed to Jewish readers with a slant in that direction. Mark was the most pristine and probably trustworthy. Luke set up an elaborate parallel with the events in the life of Moses and offered (uniquely) probably what was an invented birth narrative which was linked by fourth century Christians with its current date as a substitute for the worship then in Rome of the sun god reborn each year with the lengthening of days in the Northern hemisphere. The Gospel of John was shaped by Hellenic themes and probably was the most suspect of all. The only contemporary external reference to Jesus was a brief note on the execution of a rebel in Israel by the Jewish historian, Josephus: http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm#what

The letters of Saint Paul were written earlier and have tended to dominate subsequent interpretations of Jesus and what he stood for. IMHO he got it entirely wrong and injected into Christianity some vicious hate elements -- anti-Semitism, homophobia, denigration of women and synchophancy towards even the most corrupt political authorities -- all of which are manifest in his Letter to the Romans -- read it! He was more proud Roman citizen that follower of a man whom he had never met!

Many during the twentieth century tried to reconstruct the real Jesus from the remnant debris -- both the authorized texts and others that were rejected by authorities who variously sanctioned or rejected particular scriptures later on.

Personally I came to see Jesus as probably one of our caring empathetic human geniuses who spoke out on behalf of the poor and the rejected ones and called for assistance towards the former and tolerance of the latter, whatever their wrong doings may have been. I leave it to others to cull their own versions from the Gospels -- which most Christians have never read through, I venture. We had to protest the way the New Testament was being taught to us by a professor at UTS who, unlike our powerful Old Testament scholar, did not ask us to read the originals but only interpretations after the fact. Certainly Jesus was not the sponsor of the numerous wars that have been launched over the millennia by Christians in his name -- including the current fiascoes in the Middle East!
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Another Sad Tale of the Occupation

[What follows is a post that I just sent to a peace list focused on Israel/Palestine --

Each morning I read the papers over there. These report incident after incident such as the following. Imagine the feelings of Palestinians who are constantly being targeted in such ways. I sent to C____ the Bishop Tutu ("Apartheid in the Holy Land") piece which also hits hard the conditions that he found in the West Bank. I think it is a mistake to attack those distressed by such happenings which are inevitable when a people is occupied by a hostile force. Also the Uri Avnery: "Sorry, Wrong Continent" was illuminating as it helped to explain the competing narratives. I leave it to C____ to post what she pleases, but I think those who care must inform themselves in far greater detail and with more imaginative outreach than I see here in the U.S. where the right wing Israeli propaganda machine is dominating news reports. Where else have you seen such as Tutu or Avnery reported in our media?
Best to all, Ed

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804922.html

Last update - 14:47 24/12/2006
West Bank platoon commander dismissed over killing of girl, 14
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

The IDF dismissed a platoon commander from his post on Sunday, five days after a soldier in his unit mistakenly shot dead a 14-year-old girl, Doaa Abd al-Qadr, near the West Bank city of Tul Karm.

The case had received particular attention because the girl's father, Nasser Abd al-Qadr, was in custody in Israel at the time of the shooting, and a court refused to allow him to attend his daughter's funeral or be at home in Tul Karm for the mourning period.

On Sunday, overall West Bank commander Major-General Yair Naveh conducted an investigation into the incident. The probe was carried out at the site of the shooting, beside the separation fence by the Tul Karm-area village of Faroun. A parallel investigation by Military Police detectives is continuing.

The Naveh investigation ordered the dismissal of the platoon commander. It also instructructed that the commander of his company, a part of the Nahshon infantry battalion, receive an official reprimand. The soldier who shot the girl has been suspended from duty until further notice.

Nasser Abd al-Qadr was freed on bail on Friday, two months after he was arrested on suspicion of being in Israel illegally and of stealing a vehicle.

On Saturday, Abd al-Qadr visited his daughter's grave and met his three other children, whom he last saw two months ago. "I wanted to see her for the last time, to kiss her for the last time," he said of his dead daughter.

Nasser Abd al-Qadr will return to the lock-up on Tuesday morning and will remain there until his trial begins. He said he has no intention of trying to flee, and that he was merely seeking work in Israel.

"I hope that Israel will look at my family. I had four children, and now I have three. I hope they will set me free," he said.

An initial investigation into the Tuesday incident showed that the girl and a 12-year-old friend were in the area of the fence when they were spotted by a force of soldiers, who reported two "suspicious figures" west of the barrier. The force' platoon commander then fired into the air. As the two girls tried to flee, a soldier who served as a marksman fired two bullets, hitting the 14-year-old Doaa.

The investigation further showed that the marksman had acted on his own, had received no permission to open fire, and had ignored the presence of the officer, who was a meter away from him. The marksman said that he believed that the figure was a terrorist, mistaking the girl's backpack for a combat vest. He admitted that he saw no weapon, and was unable to explain why he opened fire on people escaping away from the fence and toward the village. He said that he had shot at their legs, although in fact he hit the girl's forearm.

Father first denied bail
The Tel Aviv District Court last week had refused the father bail on the grounds that the law did not provide for this, after the prosecution objected to his release. On Thursday evening, his lawyer petitioned the High Court of Justice, but Justice Asher Grunis postponed the hearing until Monday, which would have been after the mourning period concluded.

On Friday morning, however, the state prosecution changed its mind about the father's release. His attorney, Rami Othman, received an offer from the prosecution to release him. The Justice Ministry explained the change of heart by saying the petitioner had originally approached the wrong court, and that the matter had been reconsidered after the petition was submitted to the High Court.

Abd al-Qadr was ordered to post NIS 5,000 bail and to bring two people to sign a guarantee of his return. The money was transferred by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. Othman found one person to sign but spent many hours searching fruitlessly for a second. On Friday afternoon, MKs Ahmed Tibi (Ta'al) and Zahava Gal-On (Meretz) announced they would serve as the guarantors. Tibi then drove with Othman to the Abu Kabir lockup and signed.

The police refused to set Abd al-Qadr free at Abu Kabir, where the media was waiting, and insisted on driving him in a police van to the Taibeh roadblock, saying otherwise he would again be in Israel illegally.

"The judicial system displayed a total lack of sensitivity, and the girl was killed a second time when her father was not allowed to participate in the funeral," Tibi said.

Abd al-Qadr was set free at the roadblock but his waiting relatives on the other side were dispersed by soldiers who said they feared a crowd would gather.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Is Carter an Anti-Semite?

[One of the offensive tactics of the right wing Israel defenders is the personal attack on critics of Israel. Many of us who desperately care about the well-being both of Israel and the Palestinians under the horrors of occupation by them have had the canard of anti-Semite tossed at us. I personally can respond that I was the student editor who blew the cover on the Yale anti-Semitism of my day and later fought it again in my first teaching job at Vassar. But not all are as fortunate to have established such a record so early in life. One could snarl and point out that the personal lying attack repeated over and over again was the propaganda weapon pioneered by the Nazis to lay the ground work for the Holocaust and murders of millions of others -- the "inferior races," gays, mentally disabled, and a host of others in the line of fire. It is time that we called such propaganda what it is -- by all of us, Jews and others -- who despise such tactics and see the ultimate risk in them for Israel, itself! Ed Kent]

..........................

Posted: December 20, 2006 (Anti Defamation League from Haaretz, Dec. 21)

Is Carter an anti-Semite?

Notes and thoughts on the question that's being pondered all around the American Jewish world: well, is he?

1.

First, about the question: What I chose to ask at the top of this piece is not merely a provocative headline meant to draw the attention of angry talk-backers. It is a question that is now being discussed around every corner and in the halls of every gathering of the American Jewish community. I keep hearing about people who debate this question, and was a witness to more than one such occasion. Is it a legitimate question? Does it make the Jews look paranoid? Should one even ponder the idea of a former President as an anti-Semite? While I'm not sure what the answers to all those questions are, I am sure that they are already out there.

2.

The Anti Defamation League was the most visible organization to argue publicly that Carter was getting to a point in which one could call him an anti-Semite. Abe Foxman, always first to recognize the issue of the day among his fellow Jews, wrote to Carter that "In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff."

3.

But Foxman is not the only one that thinks Carter was getting there. Last Friday, at the reception for Natan Sharanski in the Israeli Embassy, I was surprised to hear the same argument from some people - Americans - who attended and debated Carter's motivations. One of them said that he "never thought Carter was anti-Semitic," but that now he feels that Carter is "trying to rally Christians against Jews." Somebody else told me that he thought "the true Carter is coming out now" and explained this by hinting that people "when they get older, tend to reveal what they really think."

4.

In his widely publicized and highly criticized letter to 'Jewish citizens of America' Carter denied allegations that he blamed American Jews for the media bias against the Palestinians. Carter wrote that the overwhelming bias for Israel comes from the Christian community. Do you believe that this is what he really meant? One is indeed justified if one chooses to be somewhat suspicious. Look at the things he wrote in the L.A Times: "It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine...What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint...Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations...?

5.

When Carter was on C-span to talk about the book, a caller accused him of being an anti-Semite (you can join the many who watched their exchange on U-Tube here) and was quickly stopped by the host (Hey, where's this Jewish guy who controls the media when we really need him?). However, Carter wanted to answer the caller, and what he basically said is this: All I've been doing for last 20 years is to try and bring peace to Israel.

6.

I called Kenneth Stein today to ask about Carter. Stein is the Emory University Professor who resigned from the Carter Center after being a member for many years, following the publication of the book. Is he an anti-Semite, I asked about Carter whom stein knows well. "I've never encountered an anti-Semitic word coming from his mouth in the many hours we spent together," he said. He has no proof with which to justify such claims about Carter.

7.

And what makes a person an anti-Semite anyway? This is the question that no one is able to answer in a coherent way, especially when it comes to the more modern phenomenon of channeling anti-Semitism through criticism of Israel. In The fine line between hatred of Jews and political opposition to Israel, the State Department's first envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, Gregg Rickman, talked about the problematic nature of such definitions: "Where does the line fall between hatred of Jews and political opposition to, or even hatred of, Israel? Rickman knows that in Israeli eyes, the difference is minimal. Everyone is particularly sensitive when they are the ones being criticized, Rickman said, adding that some people consider anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism to be the same thing. He will need to come up with criteria to determine what is permissible and what is forbidden, what is anti-Semitic and what is just political when it comes to Israel."

8.

Marty Peretz of the New Republic wrote about Carter that "he will go down in history: as a Jew hater." The reason: "He almost never has a sympathetic or empathetic word to say about the Jewish state. O.K., he doesn't say that the Jews killed Jesus. But if anybody else is killed in the area it is the fault of the Israelis." So what makes Carter anti-Semitic: The more subtle allegations of an American Jewish conspiracy that's preventing criticism (the ADL line)? Or his insistence to blame Israel for all that's wrong in the Middle East? (the Peretz line)

9.

It's interesting to compare the case of Carter to the one of Walt and Mersheimer. When Eliot Cohen explained in the Post why he thought those two were anti-Semitic, he argued that "If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information -- why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic."

10.

Apply the Eliot Cohen test to Carter and the results are mixed:

A. Obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews: About Israelis - most of them Jews - yes, but does it count?
B. Accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery: Not in Carter's book or appearances.
C. Having occult powers and participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments: As Foxman noted, Carter came close, but wasn't as detailed and as blatant as Walt-Mersheimer.
D. Systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group: If you count Israel as a "group" of (mostly) Jews - then, yes, Carter might be blamed for that.
E. Suppresses any exculpatory information: Oh, yes he does.

11.

Can we conclude by saying that Carter is not as anti-Semitic as Walt-Mersheimer? (He is a former President, though, so any trace of anti-Semitism in his case is much more important).
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Beware the Money Lenders!

[Every place one turns these days one discovers offers of loans with horrendous hidden or even obvious clauses, e.g. transfer your credit card balance and pay 3.99% interest (unless you are late with a payment which will jump your interest rate to 31.99%). Our Republicans over recent decades have virtually stripped borrowers of even minimal exploitation protections -- often precisely at times when people are most vulnerable. Such a low interest offer may not mention that a sizable repayment of principal is required each month which can jump the payment levels much higher than the borrower anticipated. Credit cards may jump interest rates two or three times for no reason at all -- no late payment whatever -- because as one put it to us, your credit rating justifies our doing so. We had ironically just closed out two credit cards only days before this notice came. Needless to say we have no credit rating problem. Beware the crooks coming at one daily -- and these include the major names in the game such as American Express and others. Ed Kent]

P.S. A living wage would be at least $10.00 per hour -- not the $7.15 that Bush and Congress may allow in two years! Only in Amerika of the industrialized nations is the gap between extreme wealth and poverty so wide - and growing daily.

........................................................

Seductively Easy, Payday Loans Often Snowball
Rick Scibelli Jr. for The New York Times

Earl Milford, at home with his granddaughter, pays $1,500 a month just to cover the interest on what he had intended to be short-term loans.

By ERIK ECKHOLM
Published: December 23, 2006

GALLUP, N.M., Dec. 20 — Earl Milford put up an artificial Christmas tree in the wooden house on the Navajo reservation near here that he shares with a son and daughter-in-law and their two little girls.

Mr. Milford, who is on a fixed income, with a ledger of his loans.

But money is scarce and so are presents. “It’s all right,” he said, “they know I love them.”

Mr. Milford is chronically broke because each month, in what he calls “my ritual,” he travels 30 miles to Gallup and visits 16 storefront money-lending shops. Mr. Milford, who is 59 and receives a civil service pension and veteran’s disability benefits, doles out some $1,500 monthly to the lenders just to cover the interest on what he had intended several years ago to be short-term “payday loans.”

Mr. Milford said he had stopped taking out new loans, but many other residents of the Gallup area and countless more people across the country are visiting payday lenders this month, places with names like Cash Cow, Payday Plus and Fast Buck, to get advances of a few hundred dollars to help with holiday expenses.

While such lending is effectively banned in 11 states, including New York, through usury or other laws, it is flourishing in the other 39. The practice is unusually rampant and unregulated in New Mexico, where the Center for Responsible Lending, a private consumer group, calculates that nationally payday loans totaled at least $28 billion in 2005, doubling in five years.

The loans are quick and easy. Customers are usually required to leave a predated personal check that the lender can cash on the next payday, two or four weeks later. They must show a pay stub or proof of regular income, like Social Security, but there is no credit check, which leads to some defaults but, more often, continued extension of the loan, with repeated fees.

In many states, including New Mexico, lenders also make no effort to see if customers have borrowed elsewhere, which is how Mr. Milford could take out so many loans at once. If they repay on time, borrowers pay fees ranging from $15 per $100 borrowed in some states to, in New Mexico, often $20 or more per $100, which translates into an annualized interest rate, for a two-week loan, of 520 percent or more.

In September, Congress, responding to complaints that military personnel were the targets of “predatory lenders,” imposed a limit of 36 percent annual interest on loans to military families. The law will take effect next October and is expected to choke off payday lending to this group because, lenders say, the fees they could charge for a two-week loan would be negligible, little more than 10 cents per day, said Don Gayhardt, president of the Dollar Financial Corporation, which owns a national chain of lenders called Money Marts.

The new law will have little impact on the larger practice because military families account for only a tiny share of payday lending, which lenders defend as meeting a need of low-income workers.

Mr. Gayhardt said the industry had prospered because more people worked in modestly paying service-sector jobs, and in a pinch they found payday loans cheaper and more convenient than bouncing checks, paying late fees on credit cards or having their utilities cut off.

Mr. Gayhardt, who is also a board member of the Community Financial Services Association of America, a trade group that represents about 60 percent of payday lenders, said the frequency of extended rollovers and huge payments was exaggerated by critics.

He said the association supported “fair regulations,” including a cap on two-week fees in the range of $15 to $17 per $100, a level now mandated in several states, including Florida, Illinois and Minnesota. This translates into effective fees of about a dollar a day for those who repay on time, which he said was reasonable given the risks and costs of business.

“We want to treat customers well so they’ll come back,” Mr. Gayhardt said in a telephone interview from his headquarters near Philadelphia.

Even so, higher fees and sorry stories are not hard to find. Payday lenders have proliferated over the last 15 years, including here in Gallup, a scenic but impoverished town of 22,000 with a mix of Indian, Hispanic and white residents and a striking density of storefront lenders.

At least 40 lending shops have sprung up, scattered among touristy “trading posts,” venerable pawn shops and restaurants along the main street (old Route 66) and with as many as three crowding into every surrounding strip mall.

The payday loan practice is rampant and unregulated in New Mexico. Gallup, a town of 22,000, is the site of at least 40 lending shops.

“Payday lending just keeps growing, and it just keeps sucking our community dry,” said Ralph Richards, a co-owner of Earl’s, Gallup’s largest and busiest restaurant.

Mr. Richards sees the impact among his 120 employees, mainly Navajo, some of whom become trapped by payday loans they cannot repay and, he said, “develop a sense of hopelessness.”

In one indication of how common the problems are, his restaurant alone gets 10 to 15 calls each day from payday lenders trying to collect overdue fees from his workers, Mr. Richards said. At any one time, under court order, he must garnishee the wages of about a dozen of his workers to repay such lenders.

The biggest problem, consumer advocates say, and the biggest source of profits to lenders, is that too many customers find, like Mr. Milford, that they must “roll over” the loans, repaying the same fee each month until they can muster the original loan amount.

Over several months, they can easily spend far more on fees than they ever received in cash and may end up by borrowing from multiple sites to pay off others.

One restaurant cashier here, Pat T., a 39-year-old mother of five who did not want to embarrass her family by giving her full name, said she had borrowed $200 last year when she could not pay an electric bill because “it was so easy to do.” It took her six months to repay the $200, and by then, she had paid $510 in fees.

Efforts to regulate the industry in New Mexico bogged down this year. Lenders hired lobbyists to push for mild rules, and consumer advocates were split between those who wanted to virtually shut down the industry and others, including Gov. Bill Richardson, who promoted rules like mandatory reporting of loans, limits on fees and rollovers, and an option for borrowers to convert loans to longer-term installment plans.

Last summer, after legislation failed, Mr. Richardson issued regulations along those lines, but a court declared them illegal. The state has appealed.

The issue will be raised again in January’s legislative session. Lt. Gov. Diane D. Denish, who described payday loans as “stripping the wealth out of the low-income community,” said she feared that the same political stalemate would prevail. In the meantime, Ms. Denish and many others say, efforts are needed to develop private alternatives to payday loans.

In an initiative that has attracted wide attention here, the First Financial Credit Union will offer an alternative payday loan plan, with a fee of $12 per $100 borrowed and a novel chance for customers to start building assets.

Customers who attend classes in financial planning and agree not to seek loans elsewhere will have 80 percent of their loan fees returned to them and put into their own personal savings account, said Ben Heyward, chief executive of the credit union.

“We’ll lick the payday lending problem when people learn how to save,” Mr. Heyward said. “When they kick the short-term loan addiction.”

In the meantime, there is no shortage of borrowers.

Debbie Tang, a single mother of two, took out three $200 loans, with total fees of $180 per month, when her child support payments did not arrive last month or this month. Without a credit history to get a bank loan, Ms. Tang said she felt she had little choice but to visit payday lenders to pay the electric and gas bills until her grants for her nursing studies arrive in January.

Like Mr. Milford, Ms. Tang has put up a Christmas tree but has no presents underneath. She recently broke the hard news to her 10-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son: “We’ll just put Christmas off for a month,” she said.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Friday, December 22, 2006

Phone Companies Exploit Prisoner Families

[NY is particularly cruel in its treatment of prisoners. A good numbers of ours are persons targeted in 7 of our poorer communities in NYC and convicted of drug possession. The bulk of our prisons in contrast are located in upstate NY -- many near the Canadian border and hundreds of miles away from families left behind. Children with imprisoned parents supported by a remaining single parent are fortunate to see the missing one even rarely. The additional horror is the exploitation by some of our major phone companies (particularly MCI) of even phone contact with excessive collect call rates -- the only way prisoners can call out from prison. Shame! Ed Kent]

The Bankrupt-Your-Family Calling Plan

Published: December 22, 2006 [NY Times editorial]

Studies of prison inmates clearly show that keeping them in contact with friends and family is vital to giving them a chance to create an honest life after jail instead of committing new crimes that land them right back behind bars. Yet the simple act of picking up the phone to call home can be bankrupting for inmates and their families.

The cruel and counterproductive system now in place around the country charges them as much as six times the going rate for collect calls placed from inside state prisons. The collect-call service providers keep a stranglehold on the business by paying the state prisons a legalized kickback called a “commission.”

These costs are borne by spouses, parents and other collect-call recipients who typically come from the country’s poorest families. Worse still, these families can be barred from receiving a prisoner’s collect call at all until they open costly accounts with the same companies that provide the prison phone service.

With bills that sometimes reach into the hundreds of dollars a month, families must often choose between talking to a jailed loved one and paying the rent. The lost contact is especially crushing for imprisoned parents, who make up more than half the national prison population and are often held in prisons hundreds of miles away from their children.

A bill that went nowhere in Congress this year would have mandated fair rates for interstate calls made from prison. The bill, introduced by Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Illinois, would also have required prisons to use both the collect-calling system and the less expensive debit-calling system. Used in federal prisons, debit calling lets inmates use computer-controlled accounts to pay for easily monitored calls to specified phone numbers.

The collect-call-only system is being challenged in court in a number of states, including New York, where a closely watched case is scheduled to be argued before the state’s highest court in early January. The suit rightly argues that the telephone markup is a hidden levy on families who already support the prison system through their taxes.

State prison officials say the money is used to pay for programs that benefit inmates. But it also gouges the poorest citizens — driving them deeper into poverty — to pay for prison services that the state is obligated to provide. It might be legal, but it is also counterproductive and morally indefensible.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Thursday, December 21, 2006

The Impact of Religion on Students?

[My concern here is not with the choice to be a religious believer which is entirely understandable in this era of anxiety and stress, but rather that innocents be snared by crooked or destructive 'religious' individuals and cultic movements. Needless to say in an era of WMD we do not need to engage once more in religious wars of any kind. Having studied theology formally, I am all too aware of the destructiveness of religion in past eras as well as now being skeptical about the decline of religion as an intellectually based institution. We had best get to know and understand our major world religions -- their strengths and their hazards. Ed Kent]

Op-Ed Contributor NY Times
The Devoted Student

By MARK C. TAYLOR
Published: December 21, 2006

MORE college students seem to be practicing traditional forms of religion today than at any time in my 30 years of teaching.

At first glance, the flourishing of religion on campuses seems to reverse trends long criticized by conservatives under the rubric of “political correctness.” But, in truth, something else is occurring. Once again, right and left have become mirror images of each other; religious correctness is simply the latest version of political correctness. Indeed, it seems the more religious students become, the less willing they are to engage in critical reflection about faith.

The chilling effect of these attitudes was brought home to me two years ago when an administrator at a university where I was then teaching called me into his office. A student had claimed that I had attacked his faith because I had urged him to consider whether Nietzsche’s analysis of religion undermines belief in absolutes. The administrator insisted that I apologize to the student. (I refused.)

My experience was not unique. Today, professors invite harassment or worse by including “unacceptable” books on their syllabuses or by studying religious ideas and practices in ways deemed improper by religiously correct students.

Distinguished scholars at several major universities in the United States have been condemned, even subjected to death threats, for proposing psychological, sociological or anthropological interpretations of religious texts in their classes and published writings. In the most egregious cases, defenders of the faith insist that only true believers are qualified to teach their religious tradition.

At a time when colleges and universities engage in huge capital campaigns and are obsessed with public relations, faculty members can no longer be confident they will remain free to pose the questions that urgently need to be asked.

For years, I have begun my classes by telling students that if they are not more confused and uncertain at the end of the course than they were at the beginning, I will have failed. A growing number of religiously correct students consider this challenge a direct assault on their faith. Yet the task of thinking and teaching, especially in an age of emergent fundamentalisms, is to cultivate a faith in doubt that calls into question every certainty.

Any responsible curriculum for the study of religion in the 21st century must be guided by two basic principles: first, a clear distinction between the study and the practice of religion, and second, an expansive understanding of what religion is and of the manifold roles it plays in life. The aim of critical analysis is not to pass judgment on religious beliefs and practices — though some secular dogmatists wrongly cross that line — but to examine the conditions necessary for their formation and to consider the many functions they serve.

It is also important to explore the similarities and differences between and among various religions. Religious traditions are not fixed and monolithic; they are networks of symbols, myths and rituals, which evolve over time by adapting to changing circumstances. If we fail to appreciate the complexity and diversity within, and among, religious traditions, we will overlook the fact that people from different traditions often share more with one another than they do with many members of their own tradition.

If chauvinistic believers develop deeper analyses of religion, they might begin to see in themselves what they criticize in others. In an era that thrives on both religious and political polarization, this is an important lesson to learn — one that extends well beyond the academy.

Since religion is often most influential where it is least obvious, it is imperative to examine both its manifest and latent dimensions. As defenders of a faith become more reflective about their own beliefs, they begin to understand that religion can serve not only to provide answers that render life more secure but also to prepare them for life’s unavoidable complexities and uncertainties.

Until recently, many influential analysts argued that religion, a vestige of an earlier stage of human development, would wither away as people became more sophisticated and rational. Obviously, things have not turned out that way. Indeed, the 21st century will be dominated by religion in ways that were inconceivable just a few years ago. Religious conflict will be less a matter of struggles between belief and unbelief than of clashes between believers who make room for doubt and those who do not.

The warning signs are clear: unless we establish a genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.

Mark C. Taylor, a religion and humanities professor at Williams College, is the author of “Mystic Bones.”
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Saturday, December 16, 2006

America's Gulags?!

Those of us who remember vividly the Nazi death camps and Stalin's gulags are appalled by the Bush violations of both our U.S. Constitution and International Law as exemplified by the creation of such brutal places of imprisonment of uncharged individuals -- the vast majority not picked up on any battle field -- as Guantanamo now reported to be reverting to its previous brutal abuses in the following NY Times article. An accounting is called for by Bush, his Attorney General, his military advisors and all others implicated in this egregious desecration of basic American values.

Military Taking a Tougher Line With Detainees
By TIM GOLDEN
Authorities at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility have
clamped down decisively in recent months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/washington/16gitmo.html?th&emc=th

--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Muslim Leader Critiques Holocaust Denial by the President of Iran

[The sad fact is that Islam is no more a monolithic religion than are Christianity and Judaism. In fact there is no central Islamic authority as there is in Roman Catholicism. Individual Muslims select the Imam whom they find most persuasive. Some of these, as with some Christian leaders (e.g. Jim Jones who slaughtered his flock in Guyana) are nut cases. Others are responsible and responsive religious leaders. Our current Bush led 'war on terrorism' risks blurring these distinctions and certainly has led to horrendous injustices (secret imprisonments) in the U.S. let alone the wars and abuses of people over there. Ed Kent]


Subject:

From:
"Tikkun"
Date:
Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:25:34 -0500
To:


Tikkun to heal, repair, and transform the world


Muslim Leader Critiques Holocaust Denial by the President of Iran




How many times have you heard claims that Muslims never speak out to denounce the extremism in their community, while Jews and Christians do? It's a lie that is part of the larger assault on Muslims that has replaced anti-communism as the primary way that reactionary forces in the U.S. deflect attention from their own extremism, militarism and ongoing war in Iraq. We are pleased to present to you one of the many voices in the Muslim world raised in opposition to the disgusting and outrageus Holocaust denial sponsored by the President of Iran. Here is a statement from the Muslim American Society.


***************************************************************************

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful

True Muslims Must Never Deny the European Holocaust

By Ibrahim Ramey

History will recall the tragedy of the genocide that slaughtered some six million European Jews between the rise of Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party in 1933 and the culmination of the Second World War in Europe in May, 1945.

The evidence of this crime, and the horrible magnitude of this killing, is irrefutable. From sources as varied as Nazi war records, film documentation, and most importantly, the testimony of survivors and witnesses, we know that the mass murder of European Jews was, indeed, the single greatest crime of genocide in the twentieth century.

Yet the world now witnesses yet another wave of historical revisionism and Holocaust denial, this time emerging not from European Anti-Semites, but from none other than the President of Iran. Indeed, this head of state has taken the unprecedented act of hosting an international conference of anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and even white racists like former Klan leader David Duke, to gather in Tehran to deny the magnitude, if not the very existence, of this barbaric act.

As a Muslim of African decent in the United States, whose ancestors were victimized by the enormous crime of slavery, I object. And I believe that all Muslims, like other human beings who value compassion and truth, must vigorously object to this gathering as well.

Like many in the global Muslim community, I regard the occupation of Palestinian land and the policies of the State of Israel as issues of extreme importance. I am certainly among those who believe that the occupation of Palestinian territory and the denial of full human rights to Palestinians, and even to Arab people regarded as Israeli citizens, is deplorable.

But I find it to be morally unconscionable to attempt to build political arguments and political movements on a platform of racial hatred and the denial of the suffering of the human beings who were victimized by the viciousness of Hitler's genocidal rampage through Europe.

President Ahmedinejad should recognize that the issue of the Palestinian people must not, and cannot, be transmogrified into the ugly and spiritually bankrupt context of racial hatred. The cause of freedom must never drink from the well of hatred and racism.

And indeed, as the Holy Qur'an compels Muslims to demand justice for the oppressed, we are also called to witness against ourselves when we are in error.

And in this case, the President of Iran most certainly is.
********************************


The writer is the Director of the Human and Civil Rights Division of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation
_____

web: http://www.tikkun.org
email: community@tikkun.org
unsubscribe: Click here


Copyright © 2005 Tikkun Magazine. Tikkun® is a registered trademark.
2342 Shattuck Avenue, #1200, Berkeley, CA 94704
510-644-1200 Fax 510-644-1255



--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Friday, December 15, 2006

A Confession of Faith

I suspect that my earliest direct experience with Protestant Christianity may have been as off-putting as that of many. We were loosely members of a Congregational Church in Farmington, Connecticut. Our main family connection with its minister was that my father was his investment counselor. Probably he learned thereby that my grandfather had been a leading biblical theologian at the turn of the century and had started an organization which had carried on his progressive concerns -- opening up graduate studies to Jews and African Americans who were pretty much excluded from many of our most prestigious institutions of higher education until well into the civil rights era.

This guy enlisted me in church activities and at some point I recall being asked to speak about something from his pulpit. Then reality hit. I learned of a special Protestant group working on poverty in East Harlem -- the East Harlem Protestant Parish -- Bill Stringfellow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stringfellow

and asked Rev. X how I could get in touch with them? His instant response still rings in my ears -- "You don't want to be involved with THOSE types of people." It took no great stretch of imagination to see that this character was a Christian in name only -- typically greedy and contemptuous of precisely those whom Jesus of Nazareth had called upon his followers to assist. So I left religion behind for a time.

Later I happened to attend a summer conference of the organization that my grandfather had founded, then called the National Council for Religion in Higher Education. There I met a number of his former students (he had died young and years before my birth). They were among the finest and most decent people that I had ever encountered. So I considered among other possible careers after college one in theology and started studies in that area at Union Theological Seminary in NYC with a middle exchange year at Mansfield, the free church college, at Oxford. At both places I again found the finest people that one could want to know.

However, there were several dark clouds that gave me pause so far as pursuing a career in theology:

1) I had learned from my studies that the history of the Christian Church down through the ages was nothing short of murderous -- religious wars, genocide in the name of Jesus (the New Israel thing in the U.S.), the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust which emerged directly out of the Christian anti-Semitism launched by 'Saint' Paul, the burnings of thousands of witches and abuses of women generally. Christianity had been the most murderous and destructive of all the Western religions (and possibly still is with the Bush/Blair incursions into the Middle East).

2) Also I learned that our religious institutions were degenerating into Billy Graham type feel good stuff focused on self-centered comfort rather than helping those in need. Again we see this phenomenon manifested in the mega right wing evangelical churches scattered around out there: 'Come and donate to our church and God will reward you with a raise and new car!'

So with the sad awareness that Christianity as it had been formulated by Jesus of Nazareth was on the wane, I left the institution as an intellectual agnostic, ready to welcome any signs of church renewal. Sadly just the reverse has been the case. We see now Roman Catholic pedophilia and abuses of women -- the thousands of women who have died of outlawed abortions in Catholic dominated nations -- mainly in Latin America. Right wing evangelical Protestants -- are bent on pursuing material comforts and killing -- Muslims, gays, abortion providers, African Americans, whomever.

Jesus of Nazareth joins the ranks of the heroes of humanity -- Socrates, some of the saints, and others -- who gave their lives on behalf of truth, beauty, and goodness, which alone can set people free from their own narrow disposition to do in their neighbors. I watched some of my fellow seminarians struggling out there against the anti Christians -- but they have been increasingly in the minority and some have been destroyed personally while trying to give their best by the cabals of bankers and such that have dominated their parishes.

And so Christianity went -- the way of the other world religions that tried to make sense of things for humanity, but which have failed abysmally in the hands of the cruel and greedy ones.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollegeConversation
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EndingPoverty
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/440neighborhood
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/StudentConcerns
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AcademicFreedom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrivacyRights
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Israel court backs targeted kills

[Needless to say tit-for-tat merely breeds more tit-for-tat and the killings continue until what sort of grim climax? There are too many weapons of mass destruction floating around and Israel is a small and, thus, terribly vulnerable country. Were I an Israeli, I would be lobbying for every sort of external peace-keeping instrumentality to calm things down and save both lives now and the state of Israel, itself, down the line. Ed Kent]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6178641.stm

Israel court backs targeted kills
Israeli strikes target suspected militants but civilians are also killed
Israel's Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to declare that the policy of targeted killings of Palestinian militants is illegal.

The court noted that not every killing complied with international law, but said the legality of operations should be assessed on a "case by case basis".

The ruling came in response to a petition from two human rights groups.

In recent years, Israeli operations have targeted many suspected militants and left dozens of civilians dead.

The practise of targeted killings dates back to the start of the Palestinian intifada in September 2000

Controversial tactic

The term is used by Israeli officials who argue that the tactic is a way of killing militants who are about to carry out an attack or are behind such attacks.

However, Israel has targeted political leaders, and civilians have often been killed in the attacks.

The tactic is seen by many human rights groups and by some members of the international community, including Britain and the European Union, as contrary to international law.

Key Palestinian figures, such as Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, have been killed in targeted killings.

The operations often involve air strikes, which use intelligence from agents on the ground to target houses or cars where suspects are believed to be.

Civilian casualties

The court rejected a total ban saying: "We cannot determine in advance that all targeted killings are contrary to international law."

"At the same time, it is not possible that all such liquidations are in line with international law. The legality of all targeted killings must be examined on a case by case basis."

According to human rights group B'Tselem, 339 Palestinians have died in targeted killings since September 2000, of whom 210 were suspected militants and 129 were bystanders.

The court said that caution was needed to prevent civilian casualties.

"Innocent civilians should not be targeted," it said. "Intelligence on the (targeted) person's identity must be carefully verified."

The court also allowed for the possibility of compensation claims from civilians.

The two human rights groups, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment, filed the suit in 2002 but a ruling has been repeatedly delayed.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy cited by Machiavelli)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel_Palestine
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net