But if the Cold War died in the Communist collapse of 1989, what can the ruling conservative-liberal Establishment come up with to justify the policy of massive intervention by the U.S. everywhere on the globe? In short, what cloak can the Establishment now find to mask and vindicate the continuance of U.S. imperialism? With their perks and their power at stake, the Court apologists for imperialism have been quick to offer excuses and alternatives, even if they don’t always hang together. Perhaps the feeling is that one of them may stick.
The argument for imperialism has always been two-edged, what the great Old Rightist Garet Garrett called (in his classic The People’s Pottage) “a complex of fear and vaunting.” Fear means alleged threats to American interests and the American people. To replace the Soviet-international Communist threat, three candidates have been offered by various Establishment pundits. (…) [Rothbard here offers international narco-terrorism and reunified Germany as the first two potential bogeymen.]
A third threat has been raised in the Wall Street Journal by that old fox, the godfather of the neocons, Irving Kristol. Kristol, in a rambling account of the post-Cold War world, leaps on the “Islamic fundamentalist” threat, and even suggests that the U.S. and the Soviet Union should discreetly cooperate in putting down this looming world period. Here we see a hint of a new conservative-liberal concept: a benign rule of the world by the United States, joined by the Soviet Union as a sort of condominium-junior partner, along with Western Europe and Japan. In short, an expanded Trilateral concept. Of course, pinpointing Islamic fundamentalism comes as no surprise from the neocons, to whom defense of the State of Israel is always the overriding goal.
But in addition to the negative there is the positive. The vaunting along with the fear. The positive carrot is the old Wilsonian dream of the U.S. as global imposer of “democracy.” Since very few countries can pass the “democracy” test, or have ever done so, this poses an objective that suits the Establishment interventionists fine: for here is a goal that can never possibly be achieved.
A goal that can never be reached but can always be kept shimmering on the distant horizon is perfectly tooled for an endless policy of massive expenditure of money, arms, blood, and manpower in one foreign adventure after another: what the great Charles A. Beard brilliantly termed “perpetual war for perpetual peace.”
Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK leader languishing in a Turkish jail, declared war on Erdogan (open link to the last post on the subject: http://different-traditions.com/?p=1978), after the latter’s refusal to intervene on the Syrian Kurdish side against ISIS in Kobani (apart from welcoming all refugees and supplying truckloads of bottled water and milk cartons to those trapped in the town, that is).
The result was PKK activity within Turkey and a decisive aerial bombing campaign against them by the Turks on Monday the 13th October (open link: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/10/turkish-jets-bomb-pkk-targets-southeast-2014101492853176434.html). So Erdogan didn’t bomb ISIS, but he bombed the PKK. So what is Erdogan actually doing?
Western media is full of heart-rending stories about ISIS’s atrocities, but the US has supported the beheading, hand-cutting, women-hating, church and synagogue-banning regressive Saudi regime for decades, totally contrary to any possible policy of support for human rights and democracy. The Saudi regime we all know was behind the Afghan jihadis, 9/11, funding the Taliban, threatening Tony Blair with a terrorist attack in London over the Serious Fraud Office investigation of the Yamama arms deal (on this open link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/15/bae.armstrade), and most recently the funding of daily terrorist attacks against the Shia in Iraq, as well as funding of the Syria rebels.
If the US is now trying to consolidate a distinctly odd alliance against what is essentially a group of heavily-armed madmen in Toyota pick-up trucks, if they are so armed, this is also thanks to Saudi Arabia, therefore ultimately to US nods and winks of acceptance. But ISIS has got out of control, and this is to a large extent due to the machinations of Assad and Iran, who have given this extremist group room to manoeuvre for their own ends. So effectively the US is doing a mopping-up operation of its own mess and that of Saudi Arabia’s, with its new coalition of the unwilling.
Or rather, it is trying to make Turkey do the mopping up operation – i.e. to do its dirty work – because pulling in the odd aeroplane from the UAE, and Qatar, and the odd couple of aeroplanes from the UK, is meaningless, just as bombing people in the desert in Toyota pick-up trucks, who are able to vanish into thin air as quickly as they appear, means nothing and is pointless. The whole thing was in fact supposed to embarrass Turkey into putting troops on the ground, and merely a show of smoke and mirrors.
Why should Turkey help at all?
(1) Turkey supported the democratically elected government of Egypt which the US helped to overthrow, putting in its place a bloodthirsty regime, which only yesterday killed students demonstrating at Alexandria University – the killing of students now becoming a daily event in the morass that Egypt has become (on this open link: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/16/egypts-u-s-backed-military-regime-brutalizing-student-protestors/).
(2) The US is stonewalling against Palestinian President Abbas’ demand at the UN, backed by Turkey, that a resolution be passed at the UNSC in regarding to Israel withdrawing to 1967 borders as per UNSC resolution 242. Furthermore, Turkey was not elected in the recent round of elections for non-permanent members of the UNSC, as a result of US pressure. This was to ensure that Turkey couldn’t filibuster on other matters at the UNSC if the Palestinians didn’t get their way (no matter that Abbas expects a US veto, and is planning to follow the veto with a signing of the ICC Rome charter
On this open link : http://different-traditions.com/?p=1941
Also see latest news on the Palestinian approach to the UNSC on: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/14716-abbas-we-reject-kerrys-requested-delay-for-un-security-council-plan)
(3) The Syrian Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) in Kobani and elsewhere is clearly a resource, as well as a source of fighters, for the PKK. Furthermore, the PKK is also still, according to NATO, a terrorist organisation, and bombing their formations in South-East Turkey must be in line with NATO official policy. Öcalan’s declaration of war against Turkey must be based on an idea that Turkey must be under pressure from its NATO allies, given the apparent media uproar over ISIS and the grand announcements surrounding the coalition of the essentially unwilling. Don’t forget on this matter that the PKK’s demand is for Turkey to actually cede land to a new Kurdish state, despite the fact that Erdogan since coming to power has recognised the Turkish Kurds as a separate community within Turkey, with equal rights and the right to use their own language within their community. Honestly, how realistic do you think the PKK demand is? Turkey will never give up land.
(4) Öcalan, however, is not only unrealistic, he is also behind the times, for NATO needs Turkey right now more than Turkey needs NATO. In Obama’s long 40 minute UN “crossroads between war and peace” speech, Russia took up some 15% of the total time of the speech.
Obama here considers that “Russian aggression aggression in Europe recalled the days when large nations trampled small nations in pursuit of territorial ambition”, and while the threat of actual military action is downplayed, the fact is that the US now considers that it is in confrontation with Russia on all other levels, up to the quasi-military level. Troops and missile batteries are newly being stationed in the Baltic States and Poland. If advances such as these are being made on Russia’s eastern flank, then Turkey’s position on the south-eastern flank, with the largest army in NATO other than that of the US, is surely crucial.
Turkey is furthermore a vital trading post between Europe and Asia, and the US is seriously concerned about its close relations with China, as can be seen by the current flap over Turkey’s potential contract with China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp. (CPMIEC) to construct the country’s first long-range air and anti-missile defense system.
So it is clear that Erdogan feels he is on solid ground and that he intends to negotiate a high price for anything that Turkey may concede to its NATO allies. Look at what the Turks did when the US objected to the potential CPMIEC contract: they simply asked the Western competitors bidding against it (US Raytheon and the Eurosam Consortium) to improve their offers if they wanted the deal (on this open link: http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsturkey-again-extends-bidding-deadline-for-loramids-tender-4354754).
Finally, we have the regional political picture to consider. Above all, the Turks know that Baghdad doesn’t care about the loss of Anbar province to ISIS. The Shia government there honestly doesn’t want the trouble of incorporating what are the poorest provinces of Iraq into an Iraqi state, since 90% of the oil reserves of the country lie in Basra (100bb). Whatever you think of such a policy – and in fact Abadi, the new PM, is no different on this matter than Maliki was – they are only playing to the gallery when they chant that they want a ‘united Iraq’. The Iraqi army isn’t that bad, that it couldn’t, if it really tried, retake Mosul (Iraq’s second largest city). But all they really want is to hang on to Baghdad, and the Shia militias that have long terrorised the Sunnis in Baghdad (created under the aegis of the US during its occupation) are capable of doing that even without the Iraqi army.
So if the Iraqi army doesn’t really want to fight ISIS, why should the Turks take the brunt? In fact, it is counter-productive for them to do so, because the Sunnis in Anbar support ISIS – which is why they rule there – both from personal interest when it comes to Baathist leaders, or from fear when it comes to the general population. However, bear in mind that the general population Sunnis fear the Baghdad government of Abadi actually more than they do ISIS, given what has happened in the past seven years of its rule.
So If the Turks bombed ISIS, then they would be bombing the Sunnis, who, in the long-term will become a separate statelet in one form or another within Iraq and Syria, whether under ISIS or not, and ultimately therefore clients of the Turkish state and its fast-growing economy.
Iraq is a broken humpty-dumpty – broken in 2003 when the largest military machine in the world attacked it with overwhelming force, killed anywhere between 400,000 and 1 million Iraqis (open link for the third and final Lancet report: http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf). In fact, we can say that the entire Iraqi population has post-traumatic stress, and psychologically can no longer trust “grand ideas” of an “inclusive” Iraqi state. The situation is now “every man for himself”.
If Turkey and Iran will benefit by having new client statelets gravitating towards their areas of influence, breaking away from from Syria and Iraq, we can say that those two latter countries are finished as cohesive wholes. Meanwhile Turkey and Iran gain power. Whilst Erdogan is asking the impossible (no fly zone, and a policy of removing the Assad regime in Syria etc..) for Turkey’s co-operation with its NATO allies in the fight against ISIS, it seems he is asking this in the knowledge that he won’t get his way. Israel now prefers Assad in Damascus to any other potential Islamic government, which anyway is unlikely to be democratic (not that that matters to Israel), and the US is thus now balking at Erdogan’s new demands irrespective of its previous forceful declarations on the removal of Assad, because of Israel’s attitude.
This suits Erdogan, who now prefers to do nothing. If he were to go for Assad’s jugular, he will have to contend with Iran’s current commitment to Assad. Iran and Assad can support the YPG and the PKK and easily foment trouble in Turkey, just as Turkey is on good terms with the Iraqi Kurds and can foment trouble through them in Iran, within Iranian Kurdish communities. So the two main powers in the region are simply playing a waiting game, which Iran is clearly expert at doing, if their negotiations over the nuclear problem are anything to go by. While the US/UK/France dominant foreign power in the region continue to try to shape Iraq and Syria’s future, there is no clear plan, and both Turkey and Iran knowing that advantage can simply fall into their respective laps if they just do as little as possible.
After Sweden announced its intention to recognise the State of Palestine (on this open link: http://different-traditions.com/?p=1975), France announced that it is considering doing the same (open link: http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/47081-141013-israeli-official-uk-parliament-bid-on-recognizing-the-state-of-palestine-likely-to-pass).
Then suddenly the British Parliament voted 274 in favour vs. 12 against to recognise the State of Palestine on October 13th:
None of this is exciting in the global context because actually, after the 2012 UN vote, 130 countries have already come to recognise Palestine as a state. The whole matter thus relates purely to European countries slowly and belatedly breaking out of their long time pro-Zionist positions.
The Commons motion in the UK Parliament was tabled by the Labour MP Grahame Morris, and backed by Ed Miliband. Note that Ed and David Miliband’s mother, Marion Kozak, is a signatory to (and apparently a leading force in) Jews for Justice for Palestine (see this on their website at: http://jfjfp.com/?page_id=9).
But a large number of Labour MPs were given permission to stay away from Westminster for the vote, making it impossible for Miliband to enforce a party whip on the vote. Chief among the Labour rebels on this issue was Ed Balls, who is big within the Labour Friends of Israel. The vote has, in the context of the large number of absentees from the vote, been called by David Cameron a “symbolic vote”, once which will not necessarily change Foreign Office policy.
Nevertheless, the vote has happened. So what drove it – essentially – given that people like Richard Ottaway, Conservative chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee, voted in favour of the motion? First there was Baroness Warsi’s devastating attack on Conservative/Coalition policy towards Gaza (on this open link: http://different-traditions.com/?p=1771). But secondly – according to Ottoway- there was, equally importantly, the general revulsion at Israel’s latest and brazen land grab of 950 acres of West Bank Palestinian farmland to build new settlements, something that not only the UK, France, Italy, and New Zealand all forcefully complained officially about to the Israeli government, but also the US!
Recognising the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel has always been the political centrepiece of the “two-state solution”, but the Israeli incursions with their illegal settlements outside 1967 borders, has made this solution almost irrelevant. European countries had so far held off recognising Palestinian rights on the basis that a peace deal between Israel and Palestine must be reached first, but they have stubbornly refused to concede that Israel has never negotiated peace in good faith. Now that they are beginning to do what they should have done years ago, it is too late.
It is also too late for those Israeli politicians who want to see a “pure Jewish” state in the long-term, and who are spending the vast majority of their country’s resources on subsidising Zionist extremists to settle on Palestinian land. The only conceivable long term outcome is now a “one-state” solution which, if to avoid the ultimate status of international pariah as an apartheid state, will have to become fully democratic: democratic here meaning recognising the full Palestinian right of return. So Israeli obduracy will have ultimately undermined their stupidly blinkered goals.
While riots by Kurds erupt in Turkey and all over Europe, in regard to apparent Turkish indifference to the plight of Kobani, the Turkish government is unmoved.
The Iraqi Kurds had created a “crisis that wasn’t”, from of the Yazidi situation, and managed to swing Western public opinion enough to create an unlikely alliance against ISIS, albeit restricted to a (potentially ineffective) air war. The US/Israeli/UK ties with the Kurds irritates the Turkish government. Should such ties be so important to the US, then according to the Turks, it is for the US to put armed forces on the ground to supplement air strikes and deal with ISIS.
There is also the question that the Syrian Kurdish rebel group, the PKK, is still listed as a terrorist organisation by NATO which is why Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK’s leader still languishes in a Turkish jail.
More generally, the Turkish government feels let down over the US volte-face over the question of the removal of Assad, as well as in regard to US backing for the coup in Egypt, which latter set of events Erdogan feels particularly aggrieved about. In fact, Turkey’s support for the Arab Spring across the board, has been almost totally upended by the Obama administration. Is it surprising then that Turkey is both insisting on dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s before agreeing to move in any direction, as well as extracting a large price for any prospective involvement on its part, given everything that has happened?
“The Palestinian diplomatic institution in Stockholm has already been upgraded to a status that is as close to an embassy as you can get without a formal recognition,” said Ulf Bjereld, a political science professor at Gothenburg University, to Sverige Radio. “So, I think this is a powerful symbolic policy but it will not mean much in practice,” he continued. Listen on
Prime Minister Stefan Löfven’s announcement of the recognition of the State of Israel, which came as part of his inaugural speech as prime minister, was strongly criticised by Israel and the United States, who argue that an independent Palestinian state should only emerge through negotiations [presumably indefinite negotiations (ed.)].
Foreign Minister Wallström said in this respect in another radio interview that: “it was expected that we would be criticised. We will continue a constructive dialogue and talks with the USA to explain our motive for this… This has been going on for so long now. We have to get to a point where there are two states that can live next to one another. Of course a lot has to be done down there for it to become a peaceful co-existence. But our view has been clear for a long time, and cannot come as a surprise to anyone”. Listen on
Despite the venality and sheer obtuseness of US politicians [open previous post http://different-traditions.com/?p=1959], on Egypt, the New York Times is clear: in its editorial it says that Sisi is a ruthless and bloody dictator.
For the NYT editorial open link: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/05/opinion/sunday/reining-in-egypts-military-aid.html?_r=0
Here is its text:
“Egyptian leaders have come to see the annual $1.3 billion American military aid package as an entitlement they are due in perpetuity for having signed a peace agreement with Israel in 1979. The United States has done little to disabuse them of that notion. It’s time it does. Failing to make significant cuts to the program later this year, when the Obama administration will confront tough choices regarding Egypt’s future, would be indefensible. Since Abdel Fattah el-Sisi took control in Egypt though a military coup in July 2013, the country has returned to its authoritarian moorings by jailing political opponents, silencing critics and vilifying peaceful Islamists.
[The New York Times had on July 3rd 2013, called the coup by its real name - open link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/world/middleeast/egypt.html?pagewanted=all]
Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, which became the leading political movement in the wake of Egypt’s 2011 popular uprising, are languishing in prison , unfairly branded as terrorists. That has left a large generation of Brotherhood supporters rudderless, raising the possibility that some will be drawn to militancy. Just when the United States is battling Sunni extremists in Iraq and Syria, seeking to isolate the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, Egypt’s crushing authoritarianism could well persuade a significant number of its citizens that violence is the only tool they have for fighting back.
In the coming months, however, the administration will have two opportunities to correct its course and signal that it can no longer condone brutality.
First, Washington must stop allowing Egypt to place military hardware orders under a preferential system called cash flow finance. Available only to Israel and Egypt, the mechanism works much like a credit card, permitting the countries to place orders under the assumption that Congress will eventually appropriate enough funds to cover them. It will take years to wean Egypt off cash flow finance, since orders can take years to process, but doing so now will help untangle contractual and legislative knots in the future.
Second, Secretary of State John Kerry has to certify to Congress that Egypt is on a path to democracy as a condition for delivering several items of military aid that are in the pipeline. Congress insisted on such certification when it appropriated Egypt’s military aid package last year. Failing to do so by the end of the year would halt the delivery of roughly $650 million worth of American tanks and fighter planes. The only reasonable answer from Mr. Kerry is no.
Egypt values American military hardware, and continued cooperation is in the interest of both countries. The onus is on Cairo to earn it.
Egypt today is in many ways more repressive than it was during the darkest periods of the reign of deposed strongman Hosni Mubarak. Mr. Sisi’s government has cracked down on demonstrations, tightened control of state media and prosecuted journalists. A new, vaguely worded law will soon stiffen penalties for individuals who receive foreign funding, making it a crime punishable by life in prison. The measure, ostensibly intended to fight terrorism, is similar to policies the state has used to suppress the work of pro-democracy organisations.
In Sinai, as its fight against militants has moved into populated areas, the Egyptian army has reportedly used American-made tanks to shell civilian areas. When Human Rights Watch tried to release a report in Egypt about last year’s brutal crackdown on a Cairo demonstration camp, during which more than 900 protesters were killed, the group’s representatives were barred from entering the country.
Mr. Sisi, who came to power in a rigged election, seems to think the rest of the world has not noticed.
[The New York Times had, on May 6 2014, once again called a spade a spade on Sisi's ridiculous election - open link http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/27/world/middleeast/election-in-egypt.html]
Addressing the General Assembly last week, Sisi claimed, astonishingly, that he was building a new Egypt that “respects rights and freedoms” and “ensures the coexistence of all citizens without exclusion or discrimination.”
American officials have been measured in their criticism, calculating that they are better off with Egypt as an ally, however despotic. Historically, they have valued expedited passage through the Suez Canal for American Navy ships and unfettered access to the country’s airspace.”
A considered academic position which accords with Greenwald in its conclusions is that of Jason Brownlee, a leading scholar of Middle East politics at the University of Texas at Austin in his book: Democracy Prevention: The Politics of the U.S.-Egyptian Alliance. To view a summary of the book open link:
Despite the mixed signals kicked up by Israel’s denials and manoeuvrings since Abbas’ UN speech, the momentum is going Abbas’ way.
Makarim Wibisono, UN Special rapporteur on Palestine, says in his press release on Gaza 29/09/2014 that Israeli actions in Gaza “raise serious questions about possible violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.”
On this open link: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=15118&LangID=E
Meanwhile, the US State department takes issue with Netanyahu’s UN speech, in particular in regard to his attack on UNHRC, and the questioning at the press conference went as follows:
“QUESTION: Hold on. I’ve just got one more. The other thing is that he (Netanyahu) was quite critical of the UN system in general, but in particular of the UN Human Rights Commission. You have also been critical of the UN Human Rights Commission, but he went so far as to call it – say that what it’s doing is akin to – it should be – it might as well be called the “UN Terrorist Commission.” Would you agree with that?
MS. PSAKI: We would not agree with that. We have obviously voiced concerns when we have them about actions that are taken, but no, we would certainly not agree with that characterization”.
On this open link: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/09/232247.htm#ISRAEL
Statement by academics at the University of Cambridge
This statement comes from academics at the University of Cambridge, from a range of
disciplines, and from a range of political, religious and cultural backgrounds. We believe that we
have a responsibility – whether as practitioners of our various subjects, as employees of this
University, as academics, or just as human beings – to speak out against the recent actions and
posture of the Israeli state.
After more than a month of bombardment by Israel, over 2,000 Palestinians are dead, the overwhelming majority of them civilians. This includes 514 children by the last count, a figure which is almost certain to rise as survivors sift through the wreckage. Entire families have been wiped out. Five Israeli civilians, including one child, and 64 soldiers have died. Gazans have seen their cities reduced to rubble yet again, their infrastructure devastated, with many hospitals, schools, factories and electric plants targeted and destroyed. Israel has destroyed at least 17,000 residential buildings, leaving a significant proportion of Gaza’s 1.8 million Palestinians homeless. These events occur against the background of decades of Israeli occupation and illegal expansion – and we note that in the last few weeks, with the world’s attention temporarily focused on Gaza, the West Bank has seen a surge of settlement-building. It is this context, as well as the unmistakeable asymmetry of power between the two sides in this ‘conflict’, which makes it so disingenuous to accuse critics of ‘singling Israel out’. As many have persuasively argued over the last few weeks, it is Israel that singles itself out: through its claims to moral impeccability, its celebrated status as a democracy, through its receipt of massive support from the US and other nations, and through its abuse of the memory of the holocaust in order to deflect criticism and to discredit the Palestinian struggle – on this point, we wish to express our solidarity with the more than 300 holocaust survivors and their descendants who have recently called on the world to take action to stop Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.
In our professional capacities as academics, we may emphasise different aspects of the history and current situation between Israel and Palestine. The lawyers among us may point out that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is illegal under international law; that despite the 2005 withdrawal of troops from the Gaza strip, the area is still recognised by the UN as occupied territory, due to Israel’s control of the borders and surrounding land, sea and air space; and that there is no legal right of ‘self-defence’ by an occupying power against the people under its occupation. Philosophers and political theorists among us may emphasise the moral hypocrisy in the apologism for Israel’s crimes, and the distortions involved in the attempt to discredit or silence criticism. Historians may insist that the recent events in Gaza can only be properly understood and evaluated as part of a long trajectory of colonial occupation: the building and continual expansion of settlements (and the theft of land and resources that this entails); the expulsion of Palestinian inhabitants of historic Palestine (beginning with the displacement of hundreds of thousands in the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, and culminating in the current situation in which millions of Palestinian refugees and their immediate descendants are scattered around the globe); and the increasingly violent and discriminatory treatment of those Palestinians who remain in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and in Israel itself.
We, the undersigned, differ not only in our fields of specialism, but no doubt also in our particular analyses of the history of Israel and Palestine, the significance of current and past events, and the most appropriate resolution of the situation. Such differences notwithstanding, we are united on several points: First, we wish to add our voices to those of the Palestinian resistance in appealing for an immediate lifting of the blockade on Gaza. Beyond this most urgent demand, we also believe that no satisfactory end to this on-going humanitarian crisis can be achieved without the realisation of a more far-reaching justice for the Palestinian people, including the displaced refugees, and at the same time the realisation of a situation in which the inhabitants of historic Palestine, whatever their ethnicity, religion, or culture, whether they now live as Palestinians or as Israelis, are able to coexist under conditions of meaningful freedom and equality – equality of civic status, of respect, and of access to land and resources. We believe that a radical change is needed in order to achieve this, and that whatever the substance of this change, it cannot happen without an end to the violence perpetrated by the state of Israel against Palestinians, an end to the siege of Gaza and to the occupation, and an end to the discriminatory and dehumanising treatment of Palestinian citizens within Israel. Finally, as academics, we are concerned by the recent instances of victimisation of students and lecturers, inside and outside of Israel, for speaking out on this issue. We demand an end to the persecution of critics of Israel within academia, and pledge to lend our support to those targeted.
Lift the blockade. End the killing. Justice for the Palestinian people.
To add your name send an email to email@example.com
1. Dr Maha Abdelrahman, Centre of Development Studies
2. Dr Anne Alexander, CRASSH
3. Prof Ash Amin, Department of Geography
4. Dr Alexander Anievas, Department of Politics and International Studies (POLIS)
5. Dr Nikos Bamiedakis, Engineering Department
6. Prof Zygmunt Baranski, Department of Italian (emeritus)
7. Dr Deborah Bowman, Gonville & Caius College / Faculty of English
8. Dr Adam Caulton, Faculty of Philosophy
9. Dr Hero Chalmers, Fitzwilliam College / Faculty of English
10. Jean Chothia, Selwyn College / Faculty of English
11. Mr Tim Cribb, Churchill College / Faculty of English (emeritus)
12. Prof Brad Epps, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
13. Dr Lorna Finlayson, King’s College / Faculty of Philosophy
14. Prof Raymond Geuss, Faculty of Philosophy (emeritus)
15. Dr Hadi Godazgar, King’s College / Dept of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
16. Dr Mahdi Godazgar, King’s College / Dept of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
17. Mr Martin Golding, Peterhouse College / Faculty of English
18. Prof Raymond E. Goldstein, Dept of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
19. Dr Priyamvada Gopal, Faculty of English
20. Dr Mia Gray, Department of Geography
21. Dr Boris Groisman, Sidney Sussex College / Dept of Applied Math. and Theoretical Physics
22. Dr Rachael Harris, Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies
23. Dr Adam Higazi, King’s College / Centre of African Studies
24. Dr Edward Holberton, Girton College / Faculty of English
25. Dr Michael Hrebeniak, Wolfson College / Faculty of English
26. Prof Mary Jacobus, Faculty of English (emerita)
27. Dr Ian James, Department of French
28. Mr Aylmer Johnson, Department of Engineering
29. Dr Dominic Keown, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
30. Dr Malachi McIntosh, Faculty of English
31. Prof Clément Mouhot, Centre for Mathematical Sciences
32. Dr Simon Hendeles Layton, Faculty of History
33. Dr Subha Mukherji, Faculty of English
34. Dr Kamal Munir, Judge Business School
35. Dr Basim Musallam, King’s College
36. Dr David Nally, Department of Geography
37. Dr Eva Nanopoulos, King’s College / Faculty of Law
38. Dr Rory O’Bryen, Department of Spanish and Portuguese
39. Dr Ian Patterson, Queens’ College / Faculty of English
40. Dr Adriana I. Pesci, Downing College / Dept of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
41. Dr Surabhi Ranganathan, King’s College / Faculty of Law
42. Prof James Russell, Department of Psychology
43. Peter Sparks, Girton College / Department of Architecture (emeritus)
44. Dr Suchitra Sebastian, King’s College / Department of Physics
45. Dr Jason Scott-Warren, Faculty of English
46. Dr Deborah Thom, Robinson College / Department of History and HSPS
47. Ms Isobel Urquhart, Homerton College
48. Dr Bert Vaux, Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics
49. Dr Jennifer Wallace, Peterhouse College / Faculty of English
50. Dr Chris Warnes, Faculty of English / Centre of African Studies
51. Dr Jessica Wheeler, Department of Psychiatry
52. Dr Ian Willis, Department of Geography
53. Dr Ross Wilson, Trinity College / Faculty of English
54. Dr Waseem Yaqoob, Pembroke College / PPSIS
55. Dr Andrew Zurcher, Queens’ College / Faculty of English
…. let this sink in: Washington managed, without the use of violence, to manipulate the Japanese political system into discarding a reformist cabinet. The party that had intended to begin clearing up dysfunctional political habits that had evolved over half a century of one-party rule lost its balance and bearings, and never recovered. Hatoyama’s successor, Kan Naoto, did not want the same thing happening to him, and distantiated himself from the foreign policy reformists, and his successor in turn, Yoshihiko Noda, helped realign Japan’s bureaucracy precisely to that of the United States where roughly it had been for half a century. By calling for an unnecessary election, which everyone knew the DPJ would lose, he brought the American-blessed LDP back to power to have Japan slide back into its normal client state condition..
Read Karel Van Wolferen’s spectacular piece by opening link