Category Uncategorized

The Zionist Gang that Bankrupted General Motors

Christopher Bollyn
Thursday, 18 June 2009
http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/money/the_zionist_gang_that_bankrupted_general_motors/

General Motors did not fall due to natural forces. Like the twin towers on 9-11, GM was taken down. Like 9-11, GM was sabotaged from the inside. The corporate raiders who took down GM are part of the same network of Jewish Zionists who brought down the World Trade Center.

The bankruptcy of General Motors (GM) is very similar to the collapse of the twin towers of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Both catastrophic events are described in the controlled media as having occurred due to natural forces, while actually they are both the results of sabotage carried out by insiders. In both cases, the people who brought down the operation were Trojan Horses, people who had bought their way into positions of control in order to destroy them. The people behind the destruction of GM and the WTC are corporate raiders of the worst kind.

General Motors did not simply collapse as a result of market forces; it was bankrupted by corporate raiders who had infiltrated the company and taken control of its finances. Likewise, the evidence indicates that the twin towers of the World Trade Center did not collapse due to the stresses associated with the plane crashes; they were prepared in advance to be demolished using extremely powerful explosives, including tons of nano-thermite, or super-thermite. This was facilitated by the people who had obtained control of the towers shortly before 9-11, namely Larry Silverstein and the former Israeli commando Frank Lowy.

What is most remarkable is that these events are closely related. The same people are involved in the conspiracy to plunder and destroy both the World Trade Center and General Motors. This article identifies some of the key people and reveals the strategy behind the destruction of one of America’s oldest companies.

BANKRUPTING GENERAL MOTORS

General Motors Corp. filed for bankruptcy on June 2, 2009, as the Zionist-run Obama administration provided unprecedented federal funding and oversight. The bankruptcy filing by GM was the third-largest in American history and the largest ever in U.S. manufacturing. Now that GM is facing restructuring, its assets will be taken over for pennies on the dollar. The notorious corporate raider Carl C. Icahn, for example, is reportedly looking at taking over Delphi Chassis Systems.

So, how did GM go bankrupt? If one looks at the sales figures for GM, it simply does not make sense. In 2007, GM was the largest producer of vehicles in the world, manufacturing 13 percent of the total, and had the largest slice of the U.S. car and truck market with 23.4 percent of domestic sales.

In 2007, GM led in global production and U.S. market share. Graphics from Wikinvest.

Globally, GM sold 9.4 million cars and trucks in 2007, an increase of 3 percent over 2006. GM’s 2007 tally was, in fact, the second best global sales total in the company’s 100-year history and marked the third consecutive year the company had sold more than 9 million vehicles. That doesn’t sound like a company on the brink of collapse, does it? In its 100-year history GM had been through much worse downturns, such as the Great Depression and the Second World War, yet GM managed to survive and thrive. What is so different about the management at GM in the past few years that it caused America’s biggest auto manufacturer to go into bankruptcy despite three consecutive bumber years of global sales?

George Richard (Rick) Wagoner became president and chief executive officer of GM on June 1, 2000. The value of GM stock started the month of May 2000 at its peak of over $93 per share. The day Wagoner became CEO the stock finished at $69.81. By the end of the year it was worth less than $51 per share. GM stock had fallen to about $35 when Wagoner was elected chairman on May 1, 2003. Why promote a CEO who was clearly taking the company down the drain?

Despite the falling stock price, Wagoner remained CEO and chairman of GM until March 29, 2009. Under Wagoner’s leadership GM suffered more than $85 billion in losses — losing $82 billion in the last 4 years! Why wasn’t Wagoner replaced earlier? How was GM selling more cars than ever but losing more and more money? It simply doesn’t make sense.

Were his hands tied? Rick Wagoner (center) with Mark Neporent (left), COO of Cerberus, and Eric Feldstein (right), chief executive of GMAC and treasurer of General Motors Corp. This photo is from the 2006 announcement of the Cerberus deal for a majority stake in GMAC in which Bernard Madoff’s partner-in-crime, J. Ezra Merkin, became chairman of GMAC. Is Wagoner responsible for $85 billion in losses at GM – or was he just a useful idiot?

In 2008, GM sold 8.35 million cars and trucks globally under the following brands: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC, GM Daewoo, Holden, Hummer, Opel, Pontiac, Saab, Saturn, Vauxhall and Wuling. GM’s largest market is the U.S., followed by China, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia, and Germany. Despite three years of record sales, GM lost $18.8 billion during the first 6 months of 2008; by late October, its stock had dropped 76 percent, and it was considering a merger with Chrysler.

At the time the GM-Chrysler merger was being considered, Chrysler was primarily owned (80.1 percent) by the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., headed by Stephen A. Feinberg and Jacob Ezra Merkin. Cerberus is named after the mythological three-headed dog of Hell. It should be noted that Feinberg and Merkin also controlled General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC), the financial services branch of GM.

GM sold 51 percent of GMAC in 2006 to Feinberg’s private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP, and Jacob Ezra Merkin became chairman of GMAC. Had the merger gone through, Feinberg and Merkin would have probably become majority owners of both GM and Chrysler. This appears to have been the plan. Feinberg and Merkin, the owners of GMAC, had plundered and conspired to bring down GM so that they could take it over.

When Cerberus gained control of GMAC, they hurt GM’s domestic sales by raising the credit requirements for car loans. Feinberg and Merkin reportedly raised the credit requirements so high that they caused a very sizable chunk of sales to be lost due to customers’ inability to secure financing. Cerberus reportedly used this tactic to pressure GM into selling or trading their remaining stake in GMAC.

Ezra Merkin became a controlling owner of Israel’s Bank Leumi shortly before he got his hands on GMAC in 2006. Here he shakes the hand of the notorious war criminal Ariel Sharon as he hands him a check for $500 million. Ehud Olmert (center) held secret meetings in New York City on September 10, 2001. Merkin’s private Israeli bank has a branch in Switzerland that contains billions of stolen dollars held in secret numbered accounts.

Merkin is clearly a criminal. He is one of the key players of the multi-billion dollar criminal fraud carried out by Bernard Madoff. Merkin secretly diverted untold billions to Madoff’s fraudulent investment fund. One of Merkin’s funds lost $1.8 billion of investor cash with Madoff. Merkin was seen as “the Golden Boy controlling the Golden Goose.”

Feinberg and Merkin were also controlling co-owners of Israel’s Bank Leumi, which had been privatized in 2005 under finance minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Bank Leumi also has off-shore banks and a branch in Switzerland in which billions of dollars are held in secret numbered accounts.

It was reported on December 30, 2008, that the U.S. Treasury would provide $6 billion more for GMAC, headed by Merkin and the extremely secretive Feinberg. Feinberg is so secretive his Who’s Who biography says he is deceased!

Stephen A. Feinberg, Ezra Merkin’s partner-in-crime.

The U.S. Trea
sury was reportedly buying a $5 billion stake in GMAC and lending $1 billion to GM. This “loan” was in addition to $13.4 billion of taxpayer dollars the Treasury had already lent to GM and Chrysler LLC. Once again, a plundered and bankrupted company was being “bailed-out” with taxpayer funds.

Merkin had been chairman of GMAC since November 2006. GMAC reportedly lost nearly $8 billion while Merkin was in charge. Despite Merkin’s huge losses at GMAC and his involvement in the Madoff criminal scam, the U.S. government evidently had no problem providing billions of taxpayer dollars to Merkin, whose Ariel Fund was one of the largest funds feeding billions to Bernie Madoff’s financial black hole. Madoff reportedly “lost” some $50 billion, or more.

Jacob Ezra Merkin, orthodox Jew and devoted Zionist, finally resigned as chairman of GMAC on January 9, 2009. How was Merkin allowed to remain in control of the privately-held GMAC operation for so long despite his history of financial fraud?

WHO RAN GMAC?

GMAC is a very interesting operation. A wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors since 1919, GMAC provided customers with more than $1.4 trillion in credit to finance more than 162 million vehicles. Originally designed to provide financing for people buying GM vehicles, it branched out into other fields, such as real estate. GMAC Commercial Mortgage (GMACCM), for example, provided the funds for Larry Silverstein and the former Israeli commando Frank Lowy to take over the World Trade Center in July 2001. The towers served as the collateral. GMAC Commercial Mortgage sold $563 million in bonds backed by a loan to Silverstein Properties for its purchase of the towers. If Silverstein and Lowy were part of the conspiracy to destroy the World Trade Center, the people controlling GMACCM would probably also be. Who was controlling the purse strings at GMAC in 2001 when Silverstein was negotiating to obtain control of the World Trade Center?

Larry Silverstein, here with his daughter Lisa, made billions of dollars from the destruction of the World Trade Center. He is the former chairman of the UJA-Federation of New York, the largest Zionist fund-raising organization in the world.

At GMAC, the person in charge of the money was Eric A. Feldstein, born in Brookline, Mass. in 1959. Feldstein had worked in the office of the treasurer at GM Corp. from 1981-91 and was regional treasurer in Europe from 1991-93. In 1993, he returned to New York as assistant treasurer. In March 1996, he was named executive vice president and chief financial officer of GMAC and chairman of the GMAC Mortgage Group, where he oversaw corporate activities responsible for general finance, audit, and worldwide borrowings.

Feldstein became treasurer of General Motors in November 1997, and was elected vice president the following month. In June 2001, Feldstein was named General Motors’ vice president, finance, and corporate treasurer. When GM and GMAC failed in 2008, Feldstein went to work for Feinberg and Merkin at Cerberus, joining the team named after the three-headed dog of Hell. At Cerberus, Feldstein was made executive vice president.

Eric Feldstein, the treasurer of GM, laughs with Rick Wagoner and Mark Neporent, COO of Cerberus, as the Zionist-run fund took majority control of GMAC. By this point, GM was well on its way to losing $85 billion – all during Feldstein’s term as GM corporate treasurer and vice president in charge of finance.

Eric Feldstein is the son of Donald Feldstein, a high-ranking member of a number of Zionist organizations in New York and New Jersey. The elder Feldstein is one year older than Larry Silverstein and has a long history of leadership in the same Zionist organization as Silverstein. Donald Feldstein was an executive director of the United Jewish Appeal-Federation Jewish Philanthropies in New York City from 1976-81. This is the huge Zionist fund-raising organization that Larry Silverstein headed as the chairman of the board and where he is an honorary board member. The connection between Donald Feldstein and Larry Silverstein at this Zionist organization certainly played a role in Eric Feldstein’s decision to use GMAC money to back Silverstein’s bid for the World Trade Center. It is through such Zionist organizations like the UJA-Federation and the secretive order of B’nai B’rith, an international organization of Jewish Freemasons, that the Zionist network functions. In this way actions and decisions that affect whole nations can be made without anyone outside the “community” being aware.

GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corp., under the leadership of Donald Feldstein’s son, provided an $800 million loan to fellow Zionists Silverstein and Lowy to back their bid for the soon-to-be privatized World Trade Center in the summer of 2001. This privatization deal, initiated by the Zionist Ronald Lauder and managed by Lewis Eisenberg of the Port Authority, was finalized at the end of July 2001. The WTC complex was finally put into private hands – Zionist hands – only 6 weeks before it was demolished and pulverized with super-thermite.

FELDSTEIN JOINS ETON

After being fired from GMAC, Eric Feldstein went to work for Cerberus in March 2008. Three months later he became CFO at Eton Park Capital Management. Eton Park is a hedge fund run by 42-year-old Eric M. Mindich, formerly with Goldman Sachs, and Alan R. Batkin, the vice chairman of the fund. Batkin, 64, is the senior partner at Eton Park. Although Feldstein lost billions as the head of GMAC and was fired because he had destroyed the 90-year-old company, Mindich and Batkin made him chief financial officer at Eton Park. Feldstein’s colossal failure at GMAC evidently did not bother them. He was clearly being rewarded for a job well done.

Alan Batkin, the vice chairman at Eton Park, is very highly connected. Batkin was, for example, vice chairman of Kissinger Associates Inc. from 1990 through 2006. It is, however, his executive positions at some of the biggest companies of Israel, such as Israel Discount Bank (IDB) and Discount Investment Corporation, Ltd., that reveal the intense Israeli character of Eton Park. (The IDB has been privatized and is also closely tied to the Madoff scam.)

Alan R. Batkin is a member of the board of governors of Tel Aviv University and is treasurer of PEC Israel Economic Corp. (part of Discount Investment Corporation, Ltd.) where he has served as CEO, president, and director. He also served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of Orama Ltd. (a venture capital firm founded in 1999 to support companies in the Israeli technology sector; a subsidiary of IDB Group, Ltd.)

From 1972 to 1990, Batkin was an investment banker at Lehman Brothers, where he a Managing Director for 14 years. Batkin has been, since 1999, a director of Overseas Shipholding Group Inc. (OSG), which owns and manages a large fleet of transatlantic oil tankers. As a director of OSG, Batkin works with Solomon Merkin, the brother of Jacob Ezra Merkin. Their father, Hermann Merkin, was one of the owners of the company along with the Recanati family of Israel Discount Bank. Batkin is also vice chairman and a director of Hasbro Inc. since 1992.

Solomon Merkin

Batkin was a director of Infinity Broadcasting Corp. since April 1992. Infinity provided popular talk radio with a distinctly pro-Israel point of view. Foremost among Infinity’s talk show staff was Howard Stern, a vulgar and controversial radio personality. Other national radio performers employed by Infinity included Don Imus, Larry King, G. Gordon Liddy and Rush Limbaugh. Infinity merged with CBS Radio in 1997.

Alan Batkin is a scion of the intensely Zionist Batkin and Tenzer families and the son of Stanley Irving Batkin, a leading Zionist figure since the 1930s. Stanley Batkin is a recipient of Israel’s Prime Minister’s Medallion (1974) and the City of Jerusalem Medal (1976). These awards are given to Zionists for extraordinary service to Israel. The elder Batkin has served,
since the founding of the state of Israel, as an executive of the following organizations (among many others): the Zionist Organization of America; the State of Israel Bond Committee; the Jewish Theological Seminary; State of Israel Bonds; Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science; Friends of Bezalel Academy of Arts & Design, Inc.; and Yeshiva University Museum.

Recommended Reading:

Bollyn, Christopher, “The Israeli Who Will Run the Obama White House,” November 6, 2008
Bollyn, Christopher, “Update on Madoff’s Guilty Plea,” March 12, 2009
Bollyn, Christopher, “Who is Bernard Madoff, the man behind the $50 billion fraud?” updated March 24, 2009
General Motors Data, Wikinvest
General Motors’ U.S. Sales History, Domestic Brands, 1908-2008, Automotive News, June 1, 2009
General Motors’ Top Ten Markets in Europe, 2008
“Obama gambles on reviving GM from bankruptcy,” Reuters, June 2, 2009
Source: Christopher Bollyn

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

WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

The language that absolves Israel
A special political vocabulary prevents us from being able to recognize what’s going on in the Middle East.
By Saree Makdisi
June 19, 2009

On Sunday night, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech that — by categorically ruling out the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state — ought to have been seen as a mortal blow to the quest for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Monday morning, however, newspaper headlines across the United States announced that Netanyahu had endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, and the White House welcomed the speech as “an important step forward.”

Reality can be so easily stood on its head when it comes to Israel because the misreading of Israeli declarations is a long-established practice among commentators and journalists in the United States.

In fact, a special vocabulary has been developed for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States. It filters and structures the way in which developing stories are misread here, making it difficult for readers to fully grasp the nature of those stories — and maybe even for journalists to think critically about what they write.

The ultimate effect of this special vocabulary is to make it possible for Americans to accept and even endorse in Israel what they would reject out of hand in any other country.

Let me give a classic example.

In the U.S., discussion of Palestinian politicians and political movements often relies on a spectrum running from “extreme” to “moderate.” The latter sounds appealing; the former clearly applies to those who must be — must they not? — beyond the pale. But hardly anyone relying on such terms pauses to ask what they mean. According to whose standard are these manifestly subjective labels assigned?

Meanwhile, Israeli politicians are labeled according to an altogether different standard: They are “doves” or “hawks.” Unlike the terms reserved for Palestinians, there’s nothing inherently negative about either of those avian terms.

So why is no Palestinian leader referred to here as a “hawk”? Why are Israeli politicians rarely labeled “extremists”? Or, for that matter, “militants”?

There are countless other examples of these linguistic double standards. American media outlets routinely use the deracinating and deliberately obfuscating term “Israeli Arabs” to refer to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, despite the fact that they call themselves — and are — Palestinian.

Similarly, Israeli housing units built in the occupied territories in contravention of international law are always called “settlements” or even “neighborhoods” rather than what they are: “colonies.” That word may be harsh on the ears, but it’s far more accurate (“a body of people who settle in a new locality, forming a community subject to or connected with their parent state”).

These subtle distinctions make a huge difference. Unconsciously absorbed, such terms frame the way people and events are viewed. When it comes to Israel, we seem to reach for a dictionary that applies to no one else, to give a pass to actions or statements that would be condemned in any other quarter.

That’s what allowed Netanyahu to be congratulated for endorsing a Palestinian “state,” even though the kind of entity he said Palestinians might — possibly — be allowed to have would be nothing of the kind.

Look up the word “state” in the dictionary. You’ll probably see references to territorial integrity, power and sovereignty. The entity that Netanyahu was talking about on Sunday would lack all of those constitutive features. A “state” without a defined territory that is not allowed to control its own borders or airspace and cannot enter into treaties with other states is not a state, any more than an apple is an orange or a car an airplane. So how can leading American newspapers say “Israeli Premier Backs State for Palestinians,” as the New York Times had it? Or “Netanyahu relents on goal of two states,” as this paper put it?

Because a different vocabulary applies.

Which is also what kept Netanyahu’s most extraordinary demand in Sunday night’s speech from raising eyebrows here.

“The truth,” he said, “is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians.”

In other words, as Netanyahu repeatedly said, there is a Jewish people; it has a homeland and hence a state. As for the Palestinians, they are a collection — not even a group — of trespassers on Jewish land. Netanyahu, of course, dismisses the fact that they have a centuries-old competing narrative of home attached to the same land, a narrative worthy of recognition by Israel.

On the contrary: The Palestinians must, he said, accept that Israel is the state of the Jewish people (this is a relatively new Israeli demand, incidentally), and they must do so on the understanding that they are not entitled to the same rights. “We” are a people, Netanyahu was saying; “they” are merely a “population.” “We” have a right to a state — a real state. “They” do not.

And the spokesman for our African American president calls this “an important step forward”?

In any other situation — including our own country — such a brutally naked contrast between those who are taken to have inherent rights and those who do not would immediately be labeled as racist. Netanyahu, though, is given a pass, not because most Americans would knowingly endorse racism but because, in this case, a special political vocabulary kicks in that prevents them from being able to recognize it for exactly what it is.

Saree Makdisi is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA. He is the author of, among other books, “Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation.”

Last update – 10:55 19/06/2009

Israeli troops humiliate Palestinians – and put it on YouTube

By Uri Blau

Tags: Border Police, Palestinians

Forty-three seconds: that’s the duration of a video clip uploaded to YouTube less than a year ago under the category of “Comedy.” For the “hero” of the clip, an unidentified young Arab, they were probably eternally long seconds and far from amusing. He was forced to slap himself and sing to the jubilant shouts of the photographer and his buddies – all of them members of Israel’s Border Police. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EsVsHvKRac&hl=en&fs=1&] This clip, which has been viewed more than 2,800 times, shows the unknown Palestinian standing in a desert setting while a disembodied voice orders him in Hebrew to hit himself: “Yallah, start, do it hard!” The viewers hear the chuckles of the other policemen and a clear voice telling the Arab: “Say ‘Ana behibak Mishmar Hagvul’ [“I love the Border Police? in a mix of Arabic and Hebrew]. Say it!” They see him obey in a subdued voice and with a frightened look, even as he goes on slapping himself. They hear the “director” laughing and the faceless voice shouting: “Again! Ana behibak Mishmar Hagvul.” After a little more than 30 seconds, the voice says, “Say ‘Wahad hummus wahad ful'” – and the Arab man obeys and then is told to complete the rhyme: “Ana behibak Mishmar Hagvul.” After 40 seconds, the abusers appear to have had enough and the voice impatiently orders the victim: “Yallah, rukh, rukh, rukh” (“go”). The camera turns and for a fraction of a second a Border Police Jeep is visible. A few dozen viewers sent comments. “Hahahaha, it was great the way he excruciated himself.” Another added: “That’s how it should be!!!!! Stinking Arab.” And a third pointed out, “He should have been shot!! Sons of bitches.” A few viewers took pity on the victim, though with reservations. One person remarked, “Mercy on the guy, even if he’s an Arab. What’s it in aid of? He didn?’t do anything.” Old City lions The clip just described is not the only one that has been circulated among members of the Border Police and found its way onto the Web. Haaretz found several others like it, in which Palestinians are seen being abused and humiliated by Border Police troops. The faces of the tormenters are rarely seen, and it’s also not clear where the clips were filmed – but what is clear is the atmosphere in which this cruel theater is played out. For example, one 53-second clip that was uploaded in the past year and has had about 1,800 hits opens with the caption, “And a little poison – C Company, the lions of the Old City.” This clip, during which the caption “Respect” appears, consists mainly of stills of Border Policemen and is accompanied by an original soundtrack: “Let every Arab mother know that the fate of her children is in the hands of the Company, C Company in the Old City; with protective vests and clubs we break apart gun clips on Arab mothers; hours in the alleys, in every corner, at every moment, a police patrol with green beret is on the prowl and the others are plenty scared; C Company’s in the Old City, so let every Arab mother know.” (This is a play on a famous quote by David Ben-Gurion, who said that every Jewish mother should know that her son is in good hands in the army.) Another clip is accompanied by the following explanation: “They were bored (my buddies) so they grabbed one guy and laughed with him and he did it serious.? The visuals show a mustachioed Palestinian wearing a blue shirt and a green hat, sitting in what is probably a police vehicle. He raises his hands and asks “Now?” and gets an affirmative reply. Then, to the sounds of “One, two, three” and rhythmic clapping, he declaims, “Wahad hummus, wahad ful, ana behibak Mishmar Hagvul.” After a few rounds of this he asks, “Yallah, enough?” The policemen, who are seen for a split second, reply, “More! More!” And he continues. This clip has had more than 2,500 hits, with similar reactions. ?Hahaha, what a dumb Arab,” one viewer writes, and another chimes in, “You gonna see me there in too weeks and then we shute Arabs to the death.” (The English written here reflects the level of the Hebrew.) One clip clearly shows the face of a Border Policeman as he speaks into the camera: “Shalom. I am now at [checkpoint] 51,” he says. Behind him, in the background, a Palestinian is seen crossing the road at a distance. The photographer urges the policeman on: “Run to him quick.” “Hey, there’s an illegal − I want to show how I catch an illegal,” the policeman says, and starts to chase the Palestinian. The photographer is heard chortling and sniggering as he documents the event. The clip ends as the policeman returns to the Jeep with the youngster he has caught and says, “A Hamas terrorist has just been captured. Wow!” Standing behind him, the Palestinian, obviously fearful, intones, ?No, I am not Hamas, I am not Hamas.” Yet another clip, entitled “Magavnikim” ?(Border Police, in the Hebrew acronym?), features an old, apparently ailing man. He is asked what he thinks about the “blue police” and replies, “Ass-fuckers.” “So the blue police are fuckers, eh? And the Magavnikim?” he is asked. “What are Magavnikim – soldiers?” the elderly man asks, and gets a positive reply. “Ah, kapara [absolution] on them,” he says in a raspy voice. Another video, which, according to its captions, was filmed by soldiers from the Lavi battalion in November 2007, features stills describing the unit’s daily routine. A series of photos depicts Palestinians crouching on the floor of a room in which an Israeli flag i s displayed, blindfolded and with their hands bound. In one photo, an Israeli soldier appears smiling next to one of the bound men. Via the Internet, Haaretz tried to contact everyone who uploaded the clips to YouTube, no responses were received, with one exception − and that person refused to comment substantively. Border Police spokesman Moshe Pintzi stated in response: “In recent years there has been a decrease of tens of percent in complaints filed against Border Policemen, both over the unauthorized use of force and inappropriate behavior. One can attribute this trend to educational efforts in cooperation with human rights organizations and a policy of zero tolerance. The Border Police has vowed to maintain values, first and foremost, human dignity and human rights, and the fighters are taught to respect these values.” According to Pintzi, the high command of the Border Police has known about the YouTube videos since 2008. “The Border Police is trying to find those who took the videos and if they are still in the force, they are being called in for clarification. From our experience, the videos are mostly uploaded to the Web after they are discharged because they understand our policy of zero tolerance. If we find evidence of a possible criminal offense we at the Border Police command transfer it to the internal investigation department. As for the song by Company C, following Haaretz’s request, the Border Police has begun to deal with the matter through our educational and disciplinary frameworks. The content of the song is contrary to the values in which we educate our fighters. We condemn the cynical use of David Ben-Gurion?s words by the creator of the song, and the Border Police intends to see this matter through.” Unofficial anthem Forcing Palestinians to sing songs of praise to the Border Police is not a new phenomenon. In May 2007, for example, a field worker for B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, took testimony from Mohammed Abu Mohsen, a 15-year-old boy from the village of Abu Dis, which abuts East Jerusalem. He described abuse he had suffered at the hands of Border Policemen close to his home. One of the policemen, he said, ordered him to chant, “Ful hummus ful, I love Mishmar Hagvul.” “Again and again [he] wanted me to say that, but I wouldn’t do it,” the boy testified. This unofficial Border Police anthem has been cited in indictments filed against abusive members of the corps. In 2005, two Border Policemen, Yaniv Aharoni and Assad Bader, went on trial in Tel Aviv Magistrate’s Court on charges of attacking and abusing Palestinians who had entered Israel illegally. According to the indictment, Bader “demanded that the complainants sing ‘Hummus ful, I love Mishmar Hagvul’ – saying that anyone who did not sing would be hit on the head.? Aharoni and Bader were convicted of aggravated assault, abusing helpless victims and making threats, and were sentenced to prison terms. Worse than singing From conversations with Border Policemen who recently completed their service, it turns out that the “Wahad hummus, wahad ful” chant remains very popular. A. is an officer who served in the Border Police for 10 years, mainly in the Jerusalem area and along the separation fence. Asked whether this is a widespread phenomenon, he replies, “Yes, because the Arabs also know this song and, you know, laugh.” Sometimes, A. notes, when Border Policemen detain a Palestinian for a check, “until he [the policeman] records his ID number, [in order] to amuse the guys they bring in a new recruit to run the show – They line them up in a row and udrub” ?(get going?). Isn’t there anyone who says this behavior is wrong? “No, who would say that? They take it as clowning, you know.” Don’t you think it’s humiliating to make people do that? “From that point of view, yes, but it’s a relative thing, which is still at a higher level than the other things they do, which are more humiliating.” Such as what? “A lot of things. Blows, ‘sit on my knees,’ ‘lower your head,’ ‘pull down your pants,’ ‘strip.’ In my opinion, those are worse things than singing.” Why do you suppose they film it? “They film it so they can boast to the guys and show it to friends in civilian life.” V., a Border Policewoman who served in Jerusalem and Hebron, relates, “It’s a song that I would say has been rooted in the Border Police for years. When I got to the company I heard it from locals [Arabs] who sang it. It’s passed on to each new group.” Who films these things? “In my opinion, it’s isolated cases of fighters who want to leave their mark or somehow try to educate the residents, but it’s not something that every Border Policeman does.” Have you ever seen films like that? “I saw one or two. For example, a bus that was carrying people to East Jerusalem and they stopped it and made everyone get off and took their ID cards. That’s a check of probably a quarter of an hour and a delay, so they try to pass the time: they talk to them, sing with them. Something like that.” Y., another Border Policeman, tries to explain the phenomenon: “I got to know that song when I was drafted and was getting into the groove. Then, when I was in Hebron, the Arabs would say ‘Ana behibak Mishmar Hagvul.'” Why would an Arab sing that on his own initiative? “I have no idea. It depends on the guy that arrested him, what went on in his head.” Good for the group “What makes an ordinary Border Policeman humiliate others? What satisfaction does he get from it? Where does the need come from? Was it taught to them by someone?” These rhetorical questions are posed by Dr. Ruhama Marton, a psychiatrist who is the president of Physicians for Human Rights. “The answer is yes: his squad commander, his platoon commander and the silence of the higher commanders taught him. They get the practice from the small-fry and the approval from the big guys.” In an attempt to explain the behavior of Border Policemen, Marton cites the theory of the British psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion (1897-1979.) “Bion,” she says, “divided people into groups and argued that each group has basic assumptions, which are almost always unconscious, that dictate its behavior. An example is what he called a fighting group, which is characterized by a deep need for a leader to whom the fighters will delegate many demands and longings. The leader has to be the savior of the group, which resembles any typical battalion in Givati or Golani [IDF infantry brigades], and do the thinking for it. “The fighting group has a collective morality. In other words, the members of the group do not develop the personal areas of morality, conscience and personal distinction between good and bad, or they try to ignore them … A phenomenon of group morality results, which is characterized by the view that what is good for the group is good, right and just, and what serves the group is moral.” Is that reflected in the case of the Border Police? “If the spirit of the group says ‘the Arabs are not really human beings,’ that is the determining factor. And if they are not really human beings, then to humiliate them is not the same as humiliating me.” A humor thing How does the high command in the Border Police treat the phenomenon? All the policemen who were asked said they had never been reprimanded. Did your commanders ever talk to you about this? “No,” says Y. “Never. You don’t do anything that’s not all right.” So it’s all right to make someone sing? “I don’t know how to explain the phenomenon. As long as it doesn’t involve the use of force or violence, I don’t t hink it’s not all right. But I didn’t do things like that, because it’s making fun of people… The Palestinians are definitely afraid of your uniform, not of who you are, and there are some who take advantage of the power of their uniform … to hit someone here, hit someone there. You see it; you live it on the ground. But in my opinion, the people who do those things are miserable types who just want to show off. Some do it because they?re feeling down and there are another thousand and one reasons for doing those things.” How widespread is it? “It depends on the guy’s craziness.” V., the policewoman, says, “We were not specifically told ‘don’t do that’ or ‘do that.’ It’s not something that hurts their rights, it doesn’t cross the border of the resident?s rights. If they flow with the singing, it’s not that they are being ordered or [being threatened] with a pistol.” Can a Palestinian tell a Border Policeman “I don?t want to sing”? “In my opinion, yes – It’s a humor thing and if they flow with it, terrific, and if not they just move on.” Degrading and unacceptable Major General ?(ret.) David Zur, who was commander of the Border Police from 2002 to 2004, says he is not familiar with the ditty mentioned above or the phenomenon of forcing Palestinians to sing it. Of abusive treatment in general, he says, “Probably it happens more in groups of Border Police, because their point of friction at checkpoints and in dealing with illegals − which is the main occupation of the Border Police − is sharp. … We cannot ignore the fact that it happens once every so often, and it does not have the tacit agreement of the high command.” According to Zur, “The Border Police is a collection of fighters who come from many different cultures. People who might not integrate in the army’s combat units integrate in the Border Police. Some people might say that is a bad thing, but some might say it is even Zionist service. There is a very high percentage of new immigrants. I offer this background in order to explain that in the final analysis, to introduce these people into the combat formation in a very short time is no simple matter and a great deal is invested there … There is an effort to root out phenomena like that, and all the types of abuse or of despicable behavior are dealt with … The Border Police does amazing work in the realm of education.” Fighters I spoke with don’t even understand that it’s not right. They call it humor. “It is degrading and it is unacceptable, period.” How can it be that this basic understanding is nonexistent? “I can tell you that this phenomenon has decreased significantly, for many reasons. Because of education, greater supervision and also because of the women in Machsom Watch [who document the activity of soldiers and Border Policemen at checkpoints] who did work in this area, and some of their photographs reached us. At the time, I allowed the Red Cross and an international human-rights organization to enter Border Police bases and talk to the troops. There are results, but it’s quite hard and it takes time and I am not sure that immediate results are visible.” Do you think that lengthy service in the territories leads to insensitivity? “Yes, yes. The people rub up against them [the soldiers], some of them experience difficult things, but none of that justifies it. The expectation is that people will rise above the grinding duty and the frustration and behave accordingly.

Photo by an extraordinary photographer, who kept his cool even in his last moments of life and took this photo. Hats off to him!!!
LET ALL DEPARTED SOUL REST IN PEACE

 The world saw the disappearance of an A330 Air Frane during a trans Atlantic flight between Rio to Paris. Very ironic that a day before I got a mail of the photos taken a a passenger on a flight mins after a mid air collision, and mins before the crash of the said aircraft

Two shots taken inside the plane before it crashed. Unbelievable! Photos taken inside the GOL B 737 aircraft that was involved in a mid air collision and crashed…..

A B737 had a mid air collision with the Embraer Legacy while cruising at 35,000 feet over South America. The Embraer Legacy, though seriously damaged with the  winglet ripped off, managed to make a landing at a nearby airstrip in the midst of the Amazon jungle. The crew and passengers of the Embraer Legacy had no idea what they had hit. The B737
however crashed, killing all crew and passengers on board.

The two photos attached were apparently taken by one of the passengers in the B737, just after the collision and before the aircraft crashed. The photos were retrieved from the camera’s memory stick. You will never get to see photos like this. In the first photo, there is a gaping hole in the fuselage through which you can see the tailplane and vertical fin of the aircraft. In the second photo, one of the passengers is being sucked out of the gaping hole.

These photos were found in a digital Casio Z750, amidst the remains in Serra do Cachimbo.. Although the camera was destroyed, the Memory Stick was recovered. Investigating the serial number of the camera, the owner was identified as Paulo G. Muller, an actor of a theatre for children known in the outskirts of Porto  Alegre. It can be imagined that he was standing during the impact with the Embraer Legacy and during the turbulence, he managed to take these photos, just seconds after the tail loss the aircraft plunged. So the camera was found near the cockpit. The structural stress probably ripped the engines away, diminishing the falling speed, protecting the electronic equipment but not unfortunately the victims. Paulo Muller leaves behind two daughters, Bruna and Beatriz.

Judge: Christian group can’t walk with literature at Arab festival in Michigan – San Jose Mercury News

Judge: Christian group can’t walk with literature at Arab festival in Michigan

By David N. Goodman

Associated Press
Posted: 06/18/2009 02:16:55 PM PDT
Updated: 06/18/2009 02:16:55 PM PDT

DETROIT — A federal judge today denied an evangelical Christian group’s request for permission to hand out literature on sidewalks at an Arab festival in the heart of the Detroit area’s Middle Eastern community.

U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds denied Anaheim, Calif.-based Arabic Christian Perspective’s request for a temporary restraining order.

The group describes itself in its court filing as “a national ministry established for the purpose of proclaiming the Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims … (that) travels around the country attending and distributing Christian literature at Muslim festivals and mosques.”

A lawyer for the group said it would seek a permanent injunction against the city of Dearborn.

“It’s not over,” said Robert J. Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor-based Christian rights advocacy group.

Another lawyer on the case said the Dearborn officials action could be part of what he described as a broader Muslim legal attack on critics of Islam in our “Judeo-Christian nation.”

“Muslims are using the courts in this country to stop our free speech rights,” said William J. Becker Jr., a Los Angeles attorney who has represented a number of prominent critics of Islam.

The 14th annual Dearborn Arab International Festival is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of visitors Friday through Sunday to the city that has the Detroit area’s greatest concentration of Arab-Americans.
Advertisement

Festival organizer Fay Beydoun said the evangelical group was being offered a good spot in an area with a number of other religious, nonprofit and political groups.

“You have to pass right in front of it to get anywhere,” said Beydoun, executive director of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce.

Southeastern Michigan has about 300,000 people with roots in the Arab world. It includes large numbers of both Muslims and Christians.

The group sued Dearborn after police told the Rev. George Saieg members would need to restrict literature distribution to a designated table-and-booth section of the festival site.

The city said safely accommodating the 150,000 daily festival-goers requires limits on where people can leaflet. It said other Christian and Muslim groups already have tables and booths for distributing material at the festival.

City officials say anyone is free to have conversations — but not leaflet — on sidewalks within the festival’s barricades.

“It appears to be a legitimate governmental interest for crowd control and safety,” Edmunds said in denying the request. “The festival area is more akin to a fair than a normal city street.”

Becker said the case is similar to one he handled in Los Angeles, in which Jews for Jesus member Cyril Gordon won about $250,000 after being arrested for trespassing in 2006 outside an Israel Independence Day event in a park.

“This is a case where your right, my right and anybody’s right to walk down the street and express their views is being disrupted by a police action,” he said.

An official of the Council of American-Islamic Relations said Arabic Christian Perspective was asking for special treatment.

“They should abide by the rules and purchase a booth like the other religious groups,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of the group’s Michigan chapter. “Christians can talk about Christianity and Muslims can promote Islam. This is the right we have as Americans.”

Money won’t stop south Thai violence, Muslims say
Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:30am EDT
By Martin Petty

BAN TALUBOH, Thailand, June 18 (Reuters) – In the rustic villages of Thailand’s Muslim south, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s promise of large-scale development aid to tackle a brutal insurgency sounds all too familiar.

“Money can’t change what’s happening, no one can buy an end to the problems here,” said Yousuf, referring to a shadowy five-year rebellion that has claimed nearly 3,500 lives in the southernmost provinces of Yala, Pattani and Narathiwat.

“It’s the policies of Thai governments that are to blame,” he said in a village tea shop in Pattani. “They have to understand that our way of life is different to other Thais and money won’t make a difference”.

Other villagers gave similar views on Abhisit’s three-year plan to win “hearts and minds” by pouring 54 billion baht ($1.58 billion) into the region bordering Malaysia. [ID:nBKK414765]

They are ethnic Malay Muslims who speak Thai as a second language, and dismiss the plan to boost fisheries, rubber and palm oil industries as another example of Buddhist Bangkok’s failure to understand a region more than 1,000 kms away.

“Corrupt officials will keep the money for themselves. This is a useless idea,” Arware said. “It could end up in the hands of the militant groups. Investment won’t stop the violence.”

Bearmah, a burly Muslim with teeth stained by sickly-sweet tea, said a better idea would be to withdraw the 30,000 soldiers deployed in the region and scrap an emergency decree that grants them broad powers of arrest with immunity from prosecution.

“The rebels are fighting the military. We don’t need them here because we can protect ourselves,” he said, smoking a hand-rolled cigarette.

“The emergency laws let them arrest innocent people, jail them for a month, and sometimes they torture them — how can this win hearts and minds?,” he said.

MOSQUE ATTACK

The three provinces were part of an independent Malay Muslim sultanate annexed by Buddhist Thailand a century ago, and its people have long resisted Bangkok’s attempts to assimilate them.

A separatist insurgency from the 1970s and 1980s resurfaced in 2004, and attempts by successive Thai governments to quell the unrest with military force, investment and even free cable television have all failed.

The violence has intensified in the last two weeks, with Buddhists and Muslims among the 31 people killed and more than 50 wounded in the all too familiar gun and bomb attacks, for which no credible group has claimed responsibility.

The unrest has heaped more pressure on Abhisit’s coalition government as it struggles to revive an economy hit by a global downturn and protracted political strife since a 2006 coup removed ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra.

Nestled in the jungles of Pattani, villages like Ban Taluboh have been traditional strongholds of Abhisit’s Democrat Party. But few here believe his government, or any other, is capable of ending the violence.

“Each government is the same,” said Abdulloh, who like many southern Muslims wears a traditional “kapiyoh” skullcap and checked sarong.

“They have never listened to the people. Our culture is a Malay culture and we follow the rules of Islam.”

Bearmah said the failure to arrest the gunmen who shot dead 10 Muslims at prayer in a Narathiwat mosque on June 8 had intensified peoples’ feelings of injustice and resentment.

“If they really want to end this violence, they have to arrest these killers,” he said, rejecting Bangkok’s denials security forces were involved in the mosque attack.

“I suspect the authorities are behind it, because no one has been arrested,” he said. “Muslims don’t kill other Muslims praying in a mosque.” (Editing by Darren Schuettler and Jerry Norton)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

By Greg Flakus Houston 17 June 2009

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has released a report that says US federal laws targeting financing of terrorism have suppressed Muslim charities. But Federal prosecutors say some charities have served as fronts for terror-financing operations.

A grab of the report’s cover page, 17 June 2009

According to the ACLU report, government efforts to stop terror financing are too vague and are often applied unfairly to Muslim charity organizations.  

Post 9/11 policies counterproductive, need to change:

The author of the report, Jennifer Turner, speaking to VOA by telephone from New York, says policies implemented in the days following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks need to be changed.

“Terrorism finance laws and policies that were developed after 9-11 are impeding Muslim Americans’ ability to practice their religion through charitable giving,” Turner said.

Turner notes that giving to charity is one of the five pillars of Islam, and that U.S. Muslims are being denied an important part of their religious practice by policies that target their charities. She also argues that such policies are counterproductive.

“They undermine America’s reputation in the Muslim world, they alienate American Muslims who are key allies in the war on terror financing, and they kill legitimate humanitarian aid in parts of the world where charities’ good works could be most effective in winning hearts and minds,” Turner said. 

Turner says she interviewed 120 people, including at least two former U.S. government officials, in preparing her report. In the report, she criticizes the US Treasury Department for closing down nine American Muslim charities, only one of which was found guilty of funneling money to a terrorist organization. She says the charities have been denied due process of law and have no way to appeal the government action.

President Obama recognizes the problem:

Jennifer Turner says she hopes President Obama will take action soon to change such policies.

“In his recent remarks in Cairo, President Obama recognized that American Muslims are facing a barrier to giving to charity and fulfilling their religious obligations to give to charity,” Turner said. “He also pledged to take action to reform these policies.”

But the ACLU allegations are viewed with skepticism by U.S. government agents and prosecutors. Jim Jacks served as the lead prosecutor in the federal government’s case against the Holy Land Foundation in Dallas last year. He read the ACLU report and found it wanting.

“There is essentially nothing in there that presents the evidence from the government’s point of view,” Jacks said. “We were never, obviously, contacted or sought to be contacted by the author, so, in that sense, you have to question the bias of the report and its validity.”

The Holy Land Foundation was the biggest U.S. Muslim charity at the time the Treasury Department shut it down in December, 2001. The government had found evidence that foundation money was being sent to Hamas, a Palestinian group the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization. Five leaders of the Holy Land Foundation were convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Misrepresentation:

Jim Jacks says the government targeted men who were members of a terrorist organization and misrepresented their effort as a charitable cause. He says only the leaders of the conspiracy were charged, not the people who gave money, thinking in most cases it would be used for humanitarian projects.

“There was never an instance where a donor has been prosecuted or sanctioned for making donations to the Holy Land Foundation,” Jacks said. “The people who were prosecuted and held accountable were the people that set up and ran the Holy Land Foundation and knew what they were doing.”

Jacks says he can only speak about the case he prosecuted and cannot comment on U.S. government policies as a whole regarding Muslim charitable groups. But he says in the Dallas case, the government acted only after receiving credible information supplied by a suspect arrested in Israel and then conducted an investigation that produced evidence against the Holy Land Foundation leaders.

 

June 16, 2009, 12:00 pm <!– — Updated: 10:08 pm –>

Where Will the Power Lie in Iran?

By The Editors

Updated, June 16, 9:15 p.m. | Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, an economist at Virginia Tech, reports from Iran on how young people in small towns are different from their urban counterparts.

Updated, June 16, 4:05 p.m. | Janet Afary, a professor of Middle East history, discusses how gender politics became a central issue in the election.

---

In the largest antigovernment demonstration since the Iranian revolution of 1979, thousands of people took to the streets in Iran on Tuesday to protest the disputed presidential election in which President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared winner this past weekend.

The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called for an examination of opposition charges of vote-rigging and the country’s powerful Guardian Council said Tuesday that it would order a partial recount. That concession was rejected by the main opposition candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, and other opponents, who demand that a new election be held.

We asked some experts to give some background on the developments over the past few days, and what the Obama administration’s reaction should be.

• Abbas Amanat, scholar of modern Iranian history
• Meyrav Wurmser, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute
• Mohsen M. Milani, political scientist
• Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, economist
• Janet Afary, professor of history and women’s studies

---

A Middle-Class Uprising

Abbas Amanat is a professor of history at Yale and author, most recently, of “Apocalytic Islam and Iranian Shi’ism.”

This election and the post-election protests are by far the greatest challenge the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced since its inception in 1979. Neither the downfall of President Banisadr in June 1981 nor the election of Mohammad Khatami to presidency in June 1997 matches in size and intensity the events of the past few weeks.

Even though the outcome is uncertain, the ongoing protests reflect a remarkable phenomenon: the rise of a new middle class whose demands stand in contrast to the radicalism of the incumbent President Ahmadinejad and the core conservative values of the clerical elite, which no doubt has the backing of a religiously conservative sector of the population.

Nevertheless, this new middle class, a product of the Islamic Revolution that supports Mir Hussein Moussavi and the reformist cleric Mehdi Karroubi, the two moderate opponents of Mr. Ahmadinejad, is a force to be reckoned with. This middle class has a different vision for the Iranian society and state. It is much larger in size and younger in age, politically more engaged and less timid.

Nearly 80 percent of today’s Iranians are urban or semi-urban and with a substantial percentage of them residing in provincial centers with populations over one million. In the 1950’s urban population was around 25 percent and at the time of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 barely exceeded 50 percent. The new middle class wants to participate in the discourse of democracy and create its own indigenous secularism.

Like any other middle class it demands better living standards, more cultural and social freedoms, greater gender balance and women’s rights, ethnic and religious inclusion and better access to the outside world. It wants accountability from the government and it demands to be heard. It is sensitive to Iran’s image abroad and does not wish to be portrayed as extremist and uncouth. It is more articulate, better educated, technologically savvy, and more confident of its own place.

If the conservative forces within the Iranian regime crush the peaceful protest movement they stand to alienate the largest, the most productive sector of the population. This may severally paralyze, even destroy, Iran’s chances to emerge as a prosperous and stable country pivotal to the stability of the whole region.

---

Why Engagement Failed

Meyrav Wurmser, the former executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute, is director of the Center for Middle East Policy at the Hudson Institute.

Ahmadinejad’s recent election “victory” completes a process begun in June 2005, with his first election as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. After that, Iran went through a quiet revolution consuming the theocracy, which is anchored in the clerics of Qom.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), particularly the veterans of the Iran-Iraq war, had seized ownership of Iranian revolution from the clerics, whom they accused of being weak-willed opportunists who retreated at the first sign of trouble.

As they have said clearly in their statements, these veterans of that war believe they are the true defenders and vanguards of the revolution, and they have come back to “save” it. For want of better terminology, this can best be described as a theo-fascist coup against a theocracy.

The June 12 elections had come to represent the last desperate attempt by the clerics of Qom to reassert their legitimacy against a crowd that had already essentially wired all power. Knowing that they lacked the repressive powers of the IRGC-run state, they hoped for an “Orange” revolution and sought support from abroad. This took place while we in the West spent immense energy searching to no avail for moderates and moderation, thus ignoring the nature of the regime that we were confronting.

Our ill focus originated in the second Bush administration and culminated in the Obama administration’s heightened attempts to engage the Iranian regime. A string of failed policies and efforts has created dynamics in Tehran that bolstered the most extreme elements and brought about the current crisis. Israel failed to deliver a withering blow against Iran’s proxies in Lebanon and Gaza in the war of 2006. Then the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate validated Ahmadinejad by claiming, despite evidence to the contrary, that Iran had stopped working on its nuclear program in 2003. The West engaged — and thus legitimized — the Iranian regime over the last few years.

---

The Supreme Leader Is Supreme

Mohsen M. Milani, the chairman of the political science department at South Florida University, is the author of “The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution.” He is also the author of “Tehran’s Take: Understanding Iran’s U.S. Policy,” an essay in the current Foreign Affairs.

Will there be a fundamental change in the strategic direction of Iran’s foreign policy? The answer depends on the outcome of the disputed election, as Mir Hossein Mousavi and millions of his supporters have accused the government of staging a premeditated but clumsily executed “electoral coup” against the forces of reform.

Unless there is a fundamental change in the existing structural configuration of the Islamic Republic, or in a change in the institution of the Supreme Leader, it is unlikely that Iran will radically change its foreign policy. If anything, the next president of Iran is likely to rely increasingly on nationalistic sentiments in order to bring harmony to a divided, dynamic and assertive Iranian electorate.

The strategic direction of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been determined by the Supreme Leader, in consultation with the main centers of power in Iran’s highly factionalized polity. As the second most powerful man in the country, the Iranian president has profound impact on strategy and policy, but the Supreme Leader — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — is the final “decider.”

As the country’s most powerful figure, he is the commander of the armed forces and in charge of the intelligence and security forces and serves for life. He — not the president — makes the key decisions regarding war and peace, Iran’s nuclear policies, and relations with Washington. The Islamic Constitution was deliberately structured to insure that the unelected component of the government, or its Islamic part, dominates its elected or the republican part.

---

What if Ahmadinejad Really Won?

Djavad Salehi-Isfahani is a professor of economics at Virginia Tech and a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution.

Iran’s young people helped energize this election with the hope that it would bring relief to their twin problems of unemployment and social restrictions.

Young people ages 15-29 make up 35 percent of the population but account for 70 percent of the unemployed. In addition, they feel constantly harassed by restrictions on how to dress and who they can hang out with. In the weeks before the election, they had come to believe that, thanks to their sheer numbers (40 percent of the voting age population) and strong determination, they could take control of their destiny by electing a new president. Their optimism was underscored by the fact that though they have no memory of the Islamic Revolution, its founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, or of the 8-year war with Iraq, they chose as their leader — Mir Hussein Moussavi — a well-known figure with strong ties to all three.

Now that the results have gone completely contrary to their expectations, they are naturally very disappointed, and, as the world has witnessed, they are taking great risks to express it.

So far, protests are confined to Tehran and a few large cities, and smaller towns and rural areas have been very quiet. True, large crowds in large urban centers offer a degree of safety that is lacking in rural areas and small towns. But, behind the difference in reactions to Ahmadinejad’s election may lie real divisions among the young Iranians in large cities and in small towns and rural areas. Mr. Moussavi’s main appeal to them was on social, not economic, issues, which are more important to the more affluent youth in Tehran and large urban centers. Indeed, he confined his campaign to Tehran and a few large cities.

---

A Political Wife, a Women’s Movement

Janet Afary will hold the Mellichamp chair in Global Religions and Modernity at the University of California, Santa Barbara, this fall and is author of “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran.”

The presence of Zahrad Rahnavard, the wife of Mir Hussein Moussavi, was a significant factor in the election. Mr. Moussavi, who is not a very charismatic speaker and had left politics nearly 20 years ago, saw his prospects for victory increase when his wife joined him in the campaign. The well-publicized picture of them holding hands was not merely symbolic.

During the campaign, both spoke out for greater women’s rights, which is an issue that resonates with Iranian voters. Her presence also encouraged other candidates to campaign with their wives, the first time this has happened since the 1979 revolution.

Ms. Rahnavard was a leftist long before she became an Islamist, and in that sense she and her husband are different from the more conservative rightist Islamists.

Leftist Islamists were moved by social and economic concerns of the poor and dispossessed, and thought that Islam would be a unifying ideology toward greater social progress and democracy in Iranian society. Since 1979, both she and her husband have gone through a series of changes. She has become a strong advocate of women’s rights and headed al-Zahra Women’s University until President Ahmadinejad removed her from that post in 2005.

Read more…

Posted by desert_blogger

* Tuesday, 7 April 2009 at 08:01 pm

There is a fair amount of media interest today in Dubai. Not all of it fair. Some such reports have in fact spawned a genre all of their own – popularly known as “Dubai bashing.” In the words of a very popular man, to be revealed below, “Only a fruit laden tree has stones thrown at it.” So this will be a brief post, but one that I feel a certain duty to write.

Though many aspects of life here should indeed be put under the microscope, it should not be forgotten that the city, and its burgeoning growth, has repackaged the Middle East in the thoughts of many people. The means of its arrival on the world stage were questioned by last night’s documentary, rightly so, but a huge experiment is underway , that mixes culture, ethnicity, and religion. It was never going to be easy.

This is a city experiencing ardent growing pains, that had planned to grow when growth became systemically impossible. I’ve written before that there is no shame in taking a hit due to the behaviour of a posse of greed-fuelled, unregulated, Western-centric, champagne-guzzling, yacht-sailing, cigar-waving bankers, injected to the hilt with bonus cheques and platinum credit cards, too busy getting their nails manicured, their empty suits fitted, their egg-shell-white-with-raised-gold-type business cards printed, and their lazy, sponging sons into the same company as them, to notice that they were dragging not just their partner for the night, but also the entire capitalist system, to its grubby knees.

It’s true. The economy of the state of Dubai has taken an unfair battering from the international press of late. Dubai found itself in an unfortunate position when the credit situation turned from crunch to bite. The city was in the midst of inflating a real estate bubble, like many tiger-economies before it.

To draw a parallel, In Hong-Kong, property crashed in 1997, sliding 40%-60% as a result of the collapse of the Thai baht and subsequent Asian financial crisis. Within months, a penthouse overlooking Hong-Kong’s Victoria Harbour shed so much value it was worth little more than, well, a shed.

So when the worst global recession since the great depression reared its ugly head last year, and the international liquidity river ran dry, Dubai, busy whistling away, blowing up balloons in the corner of the room and generally minding its own business, found its throat was particularly parched.

Add to this the fact that Dubai has opened its doors to the world, inviting those from all over to come and help build a nation. When you consider that around 90% of the population are non-UAE citizens, you begin to get a hold on the importance of foreign cash (and labour) to the economy. Again, not an easy situation to be in, when a global recession chooses to attack.

Paint a picture, if you will, of a grinning magician – circa Paul Daniels – who came along at the close of 2008 and in a flash swept the tablecloth from beneath Dubai’s tea-set. But here’s the point. The tea-set is still standing, albeit on shaky ground.

Dubai bashing is a very real phenomenon. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it as the exhibition sport at the next Olympics. Now, I’m not one to cast doubt on other’s work. But, to raise some choice points from recent articles on Dubai: No, the Palm island is not sinking; No, the streets are not plagued with broke expats dusting the sand from their clothes after another night sleeping in the sand dunes; and I’ve turned on the taps THOUSANDS of times, and a river of cockroaches has never come pouring out (thank the NY Times for that pearl!)

The point of this post is that it’s important to get things in perspective. The lack of media freedom here, that I have touched on numerous times, has the unfortunate side effect of destroying credibility – it is simply not possible to differentiate the truths from the half-truths, and the assumptions from the down right lies, unless you are here, staring it in the face.

That’s why I pay my respects to Ben Anderson, the journalist behind Panorama: Slumdogs and Millionaires. Yes, OK, I still haven’t seen it, but the man was here, for three months, and he raised a deeply important issue; that of the exploitation of migrant workers. But such sterling work must be separated from that which is less so.

I will not give up on the case of the construction labourers. It’s too important and unjust. In three weeks, thanks to an event organised by a good friend of mine Oscar Wendel, I am set to be in the same room as the UAE Minister of Labour Saqr Ghobash. And who else will be in the same room? Ellie Larson, the director of the Solidarity Centre, a US-based NGO seeking to build a global solidarity movement. There will never be a more golden opportunity to raise the labour issue back up the flag-pole of the local media where it belongs.

So rest assured, there is still much work to be done. Wrongs to be righted. Sometimes I genuinely do love my job, despite the occasional frustrations. As for Dubai, as it finds itself again thrust into the international media spotlight – and not out of choice this time – the truth is out there. Allegedly. Maybe it’s a place that grew so fast, the wheels of legislation could not keep up. Well if so, they now have their chance.

In a rare moment of solidarity, I’m going to quote Dubai’s ruler, who said last year, at the height of the upsurge in Dubai-bashing: “Only a fruit laden tree has stones thrown at it.” A most articulate point. But who planted the fruit, that the minority may enjoy?

YOUNGSTOWN — An assistant city prosecutor, who is Muslim, filed a federal lawsuit against the city, the mayor, law director, city prosecutor and co-workers, claiming discrimination and retaliation.

The suit also claims the defendants made a concerted effort to keep him from practicing his religious beliefs.

Ally attends weekly prayer services at his mosque about 1:30 p.m. each Friday as required by his religion, according to his lawsuit filed by Daniel M. Connell, his Cleveland-based attorney.

The city accommodated the request to worship on Friday afternoons until the end of 2007, when co-workers complained to city Prosecutor Jay Macejko that Ally “was receiving preferential treatment,” the lawsuit reads.

“Ally was also subjected to comments regarding his religion and/or national origin” by co-workers, according to the lawsuit.

The issue escalated and on Jan. 11, 2008, the lawsuit contends, Macejko scheduled a staff meeting to discuss the problem on a Friday afternoon conflicting with Ally’s attendance at his mosque services.

“Despite these obvious threats to his job and livelihood, Mr. Ally chose to attend his Friday religious service,” Connell wrote in the lawsuit.

That led to Macejko firing Ally, who earns $61,620 annually as an assistant prosecutor. Guglucello sent a letter three days later putting him on administrative leave, according to the lawsuit.

Ally — described in his lawsuit as a “devout Muslim” — filed a charge of religious discrimination on Jan. 15, 2008, with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. He returned to work Feb. 4, 2008.

“Defendants took a host of actions designed to harass, intimidate and humiliate” Ally in retaliation for filing the charge, the lawsuit states.

In the lawsuit, Connell wrote that his client was reassigned to a court that meets regularly on Friday afternoons after serving in one that wasn’t in session during that time.

Also, he “began to experience various physical ailments, which, according to his doctors, were occasioned by work-related stress,” the lawsuit reads.

When Ally returned, he was assigned to five straight weeks of night court, a deviation from the normal practice, according to the lawsuit.

Ally is suing the city, Guglucello, Macejko, Mayor Jay Williams and 10 co-workers — listed as John Does 1-10 in the lawsuit — for more than $75,000 accusing them of harassment, creating a hostile work environment and retaliation based on his religious beliefs.

The defendants “deprived [Ally] of federal constitutional and/or statutory rights, including, but not limited to the free exercise of his religious beliefs and equal protection,” the lawsuit reads.

Ray Nakley, spokesman for the Arab-American Community Center of Youngstown, said this is the first lawsuit in the area he knows of involving an employer accused of religious discrimination against a Muslim.

“I have to say it’s new to me,” he said.

Also, a former city worker filed an appeal to a Mahoning County Common Pleas Court judge’s decision to dismiss Youngstown in a wrongful-termination lawsuit.

Gregory A. Gordillo of Cleveland filed the appeal with the 7th District Court of Appeals for his client — former city council Clerk Arlene Bahar — claiming Judge Maureen Sweeney erred in her Feb. 18 decision to throw out the case.

The judge decided city council “likely fired” Bahar because of her “job performance.”

Bahar contends she was fired Feb. 15, 2006, from a job that paid her $62,886 annually, as retaliation after complaining about being sexually harassed by then-Councilman Artis Gillam Sr. for more than four years. Gillam insisted that wasn’t true and sued Bahar for defamation. She countersued for wrongful termination. That case was settled and dismissed Feb. 23.