I needed a chuckle, Jeremy Corbyn looks set to achieve a second landslide victory in the
Labour leadership election, according to a YouGov poll released this
week. The headline figures put Corbyn at 62 per cent of the vote, with
his rival Owen Smith staggering behind on 38 per cent. If such a margin
were to hold for the official election, Jeremy Corbyn would be elected
with an even greater mandate than the one he received less than a year
ago. The reason that Corbynism works I guess is because it is real; in comparison,
everything Smith does looks pre-packaged and false. When it comes to
Jeremy Corbyn, what you see is what you get. You may not like that – and
that’s your right – but it’s clear that across the Labour membership,
Corbyn is liked and admired. But ifyou are a Corbyn supporter do not be complacent - we do not know if
this poll took place before some of the purges of members who lost their
vote. So keep voting, and if you have not received your email or your
ballot - complain! If you have been purged then this is what to do here,
to get your vote back"
"WHAT is patriotism? Is it love of one’s birthplace, the place of
childhood’s recollections and hopes, dreams and aspirations ? Is it the
place where, in childlike naivete, we would watch the fleeting clouds,
and wonder why we, too, could not run so swiftly? The place where we
would count the milliard glittering stars, terror-stricken lest each one
“an eye should be,” piercing the very depths of our little souls? Is it
the place where we would listen to the music of the birds, and long to
have wings to fly, even as they, to distant lands? Or the place where we
would sit at mother’s knee, enraptured by wonderful tales of great
deeds and conquests ? In short, is it love for the spot, every inch
representing dear and precious recollections of a happy, joyous, and
playful childhood?
If that were patriotism, few American men of today could be called
upon to be patriotic, since the place of play has been turned into
factory, mill, and mine, while deafening sounds of machinery have
replaced the music of the birds. Nor can we longer hear the tales of
great deeds, for the stories our mothers tell today are but those of
sorrow, tears, and grief.
What, then, is patriotism? “Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of
scoundrels,” said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of
our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the
training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment
for the exercise of man-killing than the making of such necessities of
life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better
returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman.
Gustave Hervé, another great anti-patriot, justly calls patriotism a
superstition - one far more injurious, brutal, and inhumane than
religion. The superstition of religion originated in man’s inability to
explain natural phenomena. That is, when primitive man heard thunder or
saw the lightning, he could not account for either, and therefore
concluded that back of them must be a force greater than himself.
Similarly he saw a supernatural force in the rain, and in the various
other changes in nature. Patriotism, on the other hand, is a
superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of
lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect
and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.
Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of
patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is
divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those
who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider
themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living
beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone
living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to
impose his superiority upon all the others.
The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course,
with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is
poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the
Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is
thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord
himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any
foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater
army and navy, more battleships and ammunition. It is for that purpose
that America has within a short time spent four hundred million dollars.
Just think of it - four hundred million dollars taken from the produce
of the people. For surely it is not the rich who contribute to
patriotism. They are cosmopolitans, perfectly at home in every land. We
in America know well the truth of this. Are not our rich Americans
Frenchmen in France, Germans in Germany, or Englishmen in England? And
do they not squander with cosmopolitan grace fortunes coined by American
factory children and cotton slaves? Yes, theirs is the patriotism that
will make it possible to send messages of condolence to a despot like
the Russian Tsar, when any mishap befalls him, as President Roosevelt
did in the name of his people, when Sergius was punished by the Russian
revolutionists.
It is a patriotism that will assist the arch-murderer, Diaz, in
destroying thousands of lives in Mexico, or that will even aid in
arresting Mexican revolutionists on American soil and keep them
incarcerated in American prisons, without the slightest cause or reason.
But, then, patriotism is not for those who represent wealth and
power. It is good enough for the people. It reminds one of the historic
wisdom of Frederick the Great, the bosom friend of Voltaire, who said:
“Religion is a fraud, but it must be maintained for the masses.”
That patriotism is rather a costly institution, no one will doubt
after considering the following statistics. The progressive increase of
the expenditures for the leading armies and navies of the world during
the last quarter of a century is a fact of such gravity as to startle
every thoughtful student of economic problems. It may be briefly
indicated by dividing the time from 1881 to 1905 into five-year periods,
and noting the disbursements of several great nations for army and navy
purposes during the first and last of those periods. From the first to
the last of the periods noted the expenditures of Great Britain
increased from $2,101,848,936 to $4,143,226,885, those of France from
$3,324,500,000 to $3,455,109,900, those of Germany from $725,000,200 to
$2,700,375,600, those of the United States from $1,275,500,750 to
$2,650,900,450, those of Russia from $1,900,975,500 to $5,250,445,100,
those of Italy from $1,600,975,750 to $1,755,500,100, and those of Japan
from $182,900,500 to $700,925,475.
The military expenditures of each of the nations mentioned increased
in each of the five-year periods under review. During the entire
interval from 1881 to 1905 Great Britain’s outlay for her army increased
fourfold, that of the United States was tripled, Russia’s was doubled,
that of Germany increased 35 per cent., that of France about 15 per
cent., and that of Japan nearly 500 per cent. If we compare the
expenditures of these nations upon their armies with their total
expenditures for all the twenty-five years ending with I905, the
proportion rose as follows:
In Great Britain from 20 per cent. to 37; in the United States from
15 to 23; in France from 16 to 18; in Italy from 12 to 15; in Japan from
12 to 14. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the
proportion in Germany decreased from about 58 per cent. to 25, the
decrease being due to the enormous increase in the imperial expenditures
for other purposes, the fact being that the army expenditures for the
period of 190I-5 were higher than for any five-year period preceding.
Statistics show that the countries in which army expenditures are
greatest, in proportion to the total national revenues, are Great
Britain, the United States, Japan, France, and Italy, in the order
named.
The showing as to the cost of great navies is equally impressive.
During the twenty-five years ending with 1905 naval expenditures
increased approximately as follows: Great Britain, 300 per cent.; France
60 per cent.; Germany 600 per cent.; the United States 525 per cent.;
Russia 300 per cent.; Italy 250 per cent.; and Japan, 700 per cent. With
the exception of Great Britain, the United States spends more for naval
purposes than any other nation, and this expenditure bears also a
larger proportion to the entire national disbursements than that of any
other power. In the period 1881-5, the expenditure for the United States
navy was $6.20 out of each $100 appropriated for all national purposes;
the amount rose to $6.60 for the next five-year period, to $8.10 for
the next, to $11.70 for the next, and to $16.40 for 1901-5. It is
morally certain that the outlay for the current period of five years
will show a still further increase.
The rising cost of militarism may be still further illustrated by
computing it as a per capita tax on population. From the first to the
last of the five-year periods taken as the basis for the comparisons
here given, it has risen as follows: In Great Britain, from $18.47 to
$52.50; in France, from $19.66 to $23.62; in Germany, from $10.17 to
$15.51; in the United States, from $5.62 to $13.64; in Russia, from
$6.14 to $8.37; in Italy, from $9.59 to $11.24, and in Japan from 86
cents to $3.11.
It is in connection with this rough estimate of cost per capita that
the economic burden of militarism is most appreciable. The irresistible
conclusion from available data is that the increase of expenditure for
army and navy purposes is rapidly surpassing the growth of population in
each of the countries considered in the present calculation. In other
words, a continuation of the increased demands of militarism threatens
each of those nations with a progressive exhaustion both of men and
resources.
The awful waste that patriotism necessitates ought to be sufficient
to cure the man of even average intelligence from this disease. Yet
patriotism demands still more. The people are urged to be patriotic and
for that luxury they pay, not only by supporting their “defenders,” but
even by sacrificing their own children. Patriotism requires allegiance
to the flag, which means obedience and readiness to kill father, mother,
brother, sister.
The usual contention is that we need a standing army to protect the
country from foreign invasion. Every intelligent man and woman knows,
however, that this is a myth maintained to frighten and coerce the
foolish. The governments of the world, knowing each other’s interests,
do not invade each other. They have learned that they can gain much more
by international arbitration of disputes than by war and conquest.
Indeed, as Carlyle said, “War is a quarrel between two thieves too
cowardly to fight their own battle; therefore they take boys from one
village and another village, stick them into uniforms, equip them with
guns, and let them loose like wild beasts against each other.”
It does not require much wisdom to trace every war back to a similar
cause. Let us take our own Spanish-American war, supposedly a great and
patriotic event in the history of the United States. How our hearts
burned with indignation against the atrocious Spaniards! True, our
indignation did not flare up spontaneously. It was nurtured by months of
newspaper agitation, and long after Butcher Weyler had killed off many
noble Cubans and outraged many Cuban women. Still, in justice to the
American Nation be it said, it did grow indignant and was willing to
fight, and that it fought bravely. But when the smoke was over, the dead
buried, and the cost of the war came back to the people in an increase
in the price of commodities and rent - that is, when we sobered up from
our patriotic spree it suddenly dawned on us that the cause of the
Spanish-American war was the consideration of the price of sugar; or, to
be more explicit, that the lives, blood, and money of the American
people were used to protect the interests of American capitalists, which
were threatened by the Spanish government. That this is not an
exaggeration, but is based on absolute facts and figures, is best proven
by the attitude of the American government to Cuban labor. When Cuba
was firmly in the clutches of the United States, the very soldiers sent
to liberate Cuba were ordered to shoot Cuban workingmen during the great
cigarmakers’ strike, which took place shortly after the war.
Nor do we stand alone in waging war for such causes. The curtain is
beginning to be lifted on the motives of the terrible Russo-Japanese
war, which cost so much blood and tears. And we see again that back of
the fierce Moloch of war stands the still fiercer god of Commercialism.
Kuropatkin, the Russian Minister of War during the Russo-Japanese
struggle, has revealed the true secret behind the latter. The Tsar and
his Grand Dukes, having invested money in Corean concessions, the war
was forced for the sole purpose of speedily accumulating large fortunes.
The contention that a standing army and navy is the best security of
peace is about as logical as the claim that the most peaceful citizen is
he who goes about heavily armed. The experience of every-day life fully
proves that the armed individual is invariably anxious to try his
strength. The same is historically true of governments. Really peaceful
countries do not waste life and energy in war preparations, With the
result that peace is maintained.
However, the clamor for an increased army and navy is not due to any
foreign danger. It is owing to the dread of the growing discontent of
the masses and of the international spirit among the workers. It is to
meet the internal enemy that the Powers of various countries are
preparing themselves; an enemy, who, once awakened to consciousness,
will prove more dangerous than any foreign invader.
The powers that have for centuries been engaged in enslaving the
masses have made a thorough study of their psychology. They know that
the people at large are like children whose despair, sorrow, and tears
can be turned into joy with a little toy. And the more gorgeously the
toy is dressed, the louder the colors, the more it will appeal to the
million-headed child.
An army and navy represents the people’s toys. To make them more
attractive and acceptable, hundreds and thousands of dollars are being
spent for the display of these toys. That was the purpose of the
American government in equipping a fleet and sending it along the
Pacific coast, that every American citizen should be made to feel the
pride and glory of the United States. The city of San Francisco spent
one hundred thousand dollars for the entertainment of the fleet; Los
Angeles, sixty thousand; Seattle and Tacoma, about one hundred thousand.
To entertain the fleet, did I say? To dine and wine a few superior
officers, while the “brave boys” had to mutiny to get sufficient food.
Yes, two hundred and sixty thousand dollars were spent on fireworks,
theatre parties, and revelries, at a time when men, women, and child}en
through the breadth and length of the country were starving in the
streets; when thousands of unemployed were ready to sell their labor at
any price.
Two hundred and sixty thousand dollars! What could not have been
accomplished with such an enormous sum ? But instead of bread and
shelter, the children of those cities were taken to see the fleet, that
it may remain, as one of the newspapers said, “a lasting memory for the
child.”
A wonderful thing to remember, is it not? The implements of civilized
slaughter. If the mind of the child is to be poisoned with such
memories, what hope is there for a true realization of human brotherhood
?
We Americans claim to be a peace-loving people. We hate bloodshed; we
are opposed to violence. Yet we go into spasms of joy over the
possibility of projecting dynamite bombs from flying machines upon
helpless citizens. We are ready to hang, electrocute, or lynch anyone,
who, from economic necessity, will risk his own life in the attempt upon
that of some industrial magnate. Yet our hearts swell with pride at the
thought that America is becoming the most powerful nation on earth, and
that it will eventually plant her iron foot on the necks of all other
nations.
Such is the logic of patriotism.
Considering the evil results that patriotism is fraught with for the
average man, it is as nothing compared with the insult and injury that
patriotism heaps upon the soldier himself - that poor, deluded victim of
superstition and ignorance. He, the savior of his country, the
protector of his nation - what has patriotism in store for him? A life
of slavish submission, vice, and perversion, during peace; a life of
danger, exposure, and death, during war.
While on a recent lecture tour in San Francisco, I visited the
Presidio, the most beautiful spot overlooking the Bay and Golden Gate
Park. Its purpose should have been playgrounds for children, gardens and
music for the recreation of the weary. Instead it is made ugly, dull,
and gray by barracks - barracks wherein the rich would not allow their
dogs to dwell. In these miserable shanties soldiers are herded like
cattle; here they waste their young days, polishing the boots and brass
buttons of their superior officers. Here, too, I saw the distinction of
classes: sturdy sons of a free Republic, drawn up in line like convicts,
saluting every passing shrimp of a lieutenant. American equality,
degrading manhood and elevating the uniform!
Barrack life further tends to develop tendencies of sexual
perversion. It is gradually producing along this line results similar to
European military conditions. Havelock Ellis, the noted writer on sex
psychology, has made a thorough study of the subject. I quote: “Some of
the barracks are great centers of male prostitution.... The number of
soldiers who prostitute themselves is greater than we are willing to
believe. It is no exaggeration to say that in certain regiments the
presumption is in favor of the venality of the majority of the men....
On summer evenings Hyde Park and the neighborhood of Albert Gate are
full of guardsmen and others plying a lively trade, and with little
disguise, in uniform or out.... In most cases the proceeds form a
comfortable addition to Tommy Atkins’ pocket money.”
To what extent this perversion has eaten its way into the army and
navy can best be judged from the fact that special houses exist for this
form of prostitution. The practice is not limited to England; it is
universal. “Soldiers are no less sought after in France than in England
or in Germany, and special houses for military prostitution exist both
in Paris and the garrison towns.”
Had Mr. Havelock Ellis included America in his investigation of sex
perversion, he would have found that the same conditions prevail in our
army and navy as in those of other countries. The growth of the standing
army inevitably adds to the spread of sex perversion; the barracks are
the incubators.
Aside from the sexual effects of barrack life, it also tends to unfit
the soldier for useful labor after leaving the army. Men, skilled in a
trade, seldom enter the army or navy, but even they, after a military
experience, find themselves totally unfitted for their former
occupations. Having acquired habits of idleness and a taste for
excitement and adventure, no peaceful pursuit can content them. Released
from the army, they can turn to no useful work. But it is usually the
social riff-raff, discharged prisoners and the like, whom either the
struggle for life or their own inclination drives into the ranks. These,
their military term over, again turn to their former life of crime,
more brutalized and degraded than before. It is a well-known fact that
in our prisons there is a goodly number of ex-soldiers; while, on the
other hand, the army and navy are to a great extent plied with
ex-convicts.
Of all the evil results I have just described none seems to me so
detrimental to human integrity as the spirit patriotism has produced in
the case of Private William Buwalda. Because he foolishly believed that
one can be a soldier and exercise his rights as a man at the same time,
the military authorities punished him severely. True, he had served his
country fifteen years, during which time his record was unimpeachable.
According to Gen. Funston, who reduced Buwalda’s sentence to three
years, “the first duty of an officer or an enlisted man is unquestioned
obedience and loyalty to the government, and it makes no difference
whether he approves of that government or not.” Thus Funston stamps the
true character of allegiance. According to him, entrance into the army
abrogates the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
What a strange development of patriotism that turns a thinking being into a loyal machine !
In justification of this most outrageous sentence of Buwalda, Gen.
Funston tells the American people that the soldier’s action was “a
serious crime equal to treason.” Now, what did this “terrible crime”
really consist of ? Simply in this: William Buwalda was one of fifteen
hundred people who attended a public meeting in San Francisco; and, oh,
horrors, he shook hands with the speaker, Emma Goldman. A terrible
crime, indeed, which the General calls “a great military offense,
infinitely worse than desertion.”
Can there be a greater indictment against patriotism than that it
will thus brand a man a criminal, throw him into prison, and rob him of
the results of fifteen years of faithful service?
Buwalda gave to his country the best years of his life and his very
manhood. But all that was as nothing. Patriotism is inexorable and, like
all insatiable monsters, demands all or nothing. It does not admit that
a soldier is also a human being, who has a right to his own feelings
and opinions, his own inclinations and ideas. No, patriotism can not
admit of that. That is the lesson which Buwalda was made to learn; made
to learn at a rather costly, though not at a useless price. When he
returned to freedom, he had lost his position in the army, but he
regained his self-respect. After all, that is worth three years of
imprisonment.
A writer on the military conditions of America, in a recent article,
commented on the power of the military man over the civilian in Germany.
He said, among other things, that if our Republic had no other meaning
than to guarantee all citizens equal rights, it would have just cause
for existence. I am convinced that the writer was not in Colorado during
the patriotic regime of General Bell. He probably would have changed
his mind had he seen how, in the name of patriotism and the Republic,
men were thrown into bull-pens, dragged about, driven across the border,
and subjected to all kinds of indignities. Nor is that Colorado
incident the only one in the growth of military power in the United
States. There is hardly a strike where troops and militia do not come to
the rescue of those in power, and where they do not act as arrogantly
and brutally as do the men wearing the Kaiser’s uniform. Then, too, we
have the Dick military law. Had the writer forgotten that?
A great misfortune with most of our writers is that they are
absolutely ignorant on current events, or that, lacking honesty, they
will not speak of these matters. And so it has come to pass that the
Dick military law was rushed through Congress with little discussion and
still less publicity - a law which gives the President the power to
turn a peaceful citizen into a bloodthirsty man-killer, supposedly for
the defense of the country, in reality for the protection of the
interests of that particular party whose mouthpiece the President
happens to be.
Our writer claims that militarism can never become such a power in
America as abroad, since it is voluntary with us, while compulsory in
the Old World. Two very important facts, however, the gentleman forgets
to consider. First, that conscription has created in Europe a
deep-seated hatred of militarism among all classes of society. Thousands
of young recruits enlist under protest and, once in the army, they will
use every possible means to desert. Second, that it is the compulsory
feature of militarism which has created a tremendous anti-militarist
movement, feared by European Powers far more than anything else. After
all, the greatest bulwark of capitalism is militarism. The very moment
the latter is undermined, capitalism will totter. True, we have no
conscription; that is, men are not usually forced to enlist in the army,
but we have developed a far more exacting and rigid force - necessity.
Is it not a fact that during industrial depressions there is a
tremendous increase in the number of enlistments ? The trade of
militarism may not be either lucrative or honorable, but it is better
than tramping the country in search of work, standing in the bread line,
or sleeping in municipal lodging houses. After all, it means thirteen
dollars per month, three meals a day, and a place to sleep. Yet even
necessity is not sufficiently strong a factor to bring into the army an
element of character and manhood. No wonder our military authorities
complain of the “poor material” enlisting in the army and navy. This
admission is a very encouraging sign. It proves that there is still
enough of the spirit of independence and love of liberty left in the
average American to risk starvation rather than don the uniform.
Thinking men and women the world over are beginning to realize that
patriotism is too narrow and limited a conception to meet the
necessities of our time. The centralization of power has brought into
being an international feeling of solidarity among the oppressed nations
of the world; a solidarity which represents a greater harmony of
interests between the workingman of America and his brothers abroad than
between the American miner and his exploiting compatriot; a solidarity
which fears not foreign invasion, because it is bringing all the workers
to the point when they will say to their masters, “Go and do your own
killing. We have done it long enough for you.” This solidarity is
awakening the consciousness of even the soldiers, they, too, being flesh
of the flesh of the great human family. A solidarity that has proven
infallible more than once during past struggles, and which has been the
impetus inducing the Parisian soldiers, during the Commune of 1871, to
refuse to obey when ordered to shoot their brothers. It has given
courage to the men who mutinied on Russian warships during recent years.
It will eventually bring about the uprising of all the oppressed and
downtrodden against their international exploiters.
The proletariat of Europe has realized the great force of that
solidarity and has, as a result, inaugurated a war against patriotism
and its bloody spectre, militarism. Thousands of men fill the prisons of
France, Germany, Russia, and the Scandinavian countries, because they
dared to defy the ancient superstition. Nor is the movement limited to
the working class; it has embraced representatives in all stations of
life, its chief exponents being men and women prominent in art, science,
and letters.
America will have to follow suit. The spirit of militarism has
already permeated all walks of life. Indeed, I am convinced that
militarism is growing a greater danger here than anywhere else, because
of the many bribes capitalism holds out to those whom it wishes to
destroy.
The beginning has already been made in the schools. Evidently the
government holds to the Jesuitical conception, “Give me the child mind,
and I will mould the man.” Children are trained in military tactics, the
glory of military achievements extolled in the curriculum, and the
youthful minds perverted to suit the government. Further, the youth of
the country is appealed to in glaring posters to join the army and navy.
“A fine chance to see the world !” cries the governmental huckster.
Thus innocent boys are morally shanghaied into patriotism, and the
military Moloch strides conquering through the Nation.
The American workingman has suffered so much at the hands of the
soldier, State and Federal, that he is quite justified in his disgust
with, and his opposition to, the uniformed parasite. However, mere
denunciation will not solve this great problem. What we need is a
propaganda of education for the soldier: anti-patriotic literature that
will enlighten him as to the real horrors of his trade, and that will
awaken his consciousness to his true relation to the man to whose labor
he owes his very existence. It is precisely this that the authorities
fear most. It is already high treason for a soldier to attend a radical
meeting. No doubt they will also stamp it high treason for a soldier to
read a radical pamphlet. But, then, has not authority from time
immemorial stamped every step of progress as treasonable? Those,
however, who earnestly strive for social reconstruction can well afford
to face all that; for it is probably even more important to carry the
truth into the barracks than into the factory. When we have undermined
the patriotic lie, we shall have cleared the path for that great
structure wherein all nationalities shall be united into a universal
brotherhood, - a truly FREE SOCIETY.
Emma Goldman, 1911; Patriotism, a Menace to Liberty
Emma Goldman on Patriotism
Read by Sandra Oh
Emma Goldman, 1911; Patriotism, a Menace to Liberty
Welcome friends Nothing new here today, The same old points of rememberance The home environment still bathed in blue,
Clouds in slow motion dark and grey
Waiting for thunder to bellow, Lightnings electrons to releases a spark The unapproachable and unknowable, The quantum uncertainty still at large, Schrödinger’s cat inside Pandora’s box The hard-drive clambering among confusion, Life currently debauched by profiteers
The drowning despair of capitalism,
The earth and lovers slowly dying
A future that remains unknown, Time now to turn up the music loud Do a spiral dance, pause for reflection, As the universe passes by in ambivalence.
Try to cling on to threads of hope Seek and clasp new forms of clarity, From depths of moments indecision Keep on looking for signs to rearrange, Through the blur and scope of time Different forms of distraction to keep engaged. Allow mind like a compass to pass through the haze As darkness falls, the day takes another shape, Fresh currents emerge to engulf consciousness To combat feelings and paths of uncertainty, In glistening dawn, distraction dissolves, Mindstreams of exhaustion might be resolved. .
Palestinians see the West Bank, which Israel captured in the
Six-Day War in 1967, as part of their independent state, along with East
Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Under the Oslo Accords reached two
decades ago, the Palestinian government now rules about a third of the
territory. The rest remains under Israeli control and is home to some
370,000 Jewish settlers. The last round of peace talks broke down two
years ago, and prospects for resuming negotiations—much less reaching an
agreement—are dim.
But after years of setbacks, Palestinians are proudly starting to move into
their first planned city, Rawabiwhich is currently being built in the West Bank. This move is not just about real estate but also a symbol of
Palestinians quest for statehood after nearly 50 years of Israeli
military occupation.This privately financed city project in the heart of occupied West
Bank symbolises both a possible future for the beleaguered Palestinian
people.
That it has got this far in a place under military rule for almost
half a century, and in the teeth of political obstruction, controversy and
criticism, is a testament to the vision of its founder and driving
force, a Palestinian-American entrepeneur called Bashar al-Masri,who dreamed up
Rawabi,
or hills in Arabic, in 2007. Work only began in
2012.Palestinian critics accused it of "normalising the occupation", of
making deals with Israel for private profit. Jewish settlers on nearby
hills watch and worry as Rawabi rises from the ground."I am defying the
occupation," insists Masri “Some people say Rawabi sugarcoats the occupation. I disagree. Rawabi is being built despite the occupation. We expose the occupation by our battle for basic things like water and a road.” For the last nine-years the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has created multiple delays in the
development of the city. But the last hurdle has been the much needed
approval for a water hookup from the Israeli-Palestinian Joint Water
Committee.According
to a 1995 interim agreement under the Oslo Accords, the JWC must
approve water and sewage projects for Israelis and Palestinian in the
West Bank. Although its first batch of apartment buildings is finished,
homeowners
have been unable to move in for the past year because the city lacked
water. Masri said one of the major hurdles in starting Rawabi was
getting approval from Israel for an access road and water supply to the
city, which took years. "Dealing with occupation is not dealing with a
proper nation," he said. "It's dealing with an ugly system."
Water has not been the only problem though. Rawabi is situated in Area A, the 18% of
the West Bank that is under Palestinian control. But access to the city
lies through Area C, the 60% that is under full Israeli control. Masri
had to negotiate for permission to build a road on which trucks could
deliver construction materials and cars and buses carry Rawabi workers –
and, eventually, give Rawabi residents access to the rest of the West
Bank.
Rawabi which is north of Ramallah perched on a once desolate hilltop, is the first Palestinian city
being built according to a modern urban design plan. The organized
layout and modern facilities are in jarring contrast to chaotic
Palestinian towns and villages in the area. It now has a yearly renewable permit to use a narrow road
that passes through an adjacent 1-kilometer stretch under Israeli
control. A pipeline, which passes through the same area, brings in 300
cubic meters of water a day—insufficient for the residents as well as
the construction that's underway.Additional water is currently being brought in on tankers, and some
people supplement their supply from a nearby village. Masri said his
next battle is to triple both the width of the seven-meter road and the
water supply.Currently 250 families live in the city. That population is
expected to swell to 60,000 when construction ends in about five years. A three-bedroom apartment averages about $100,000, about 25 percent less
than in the main Palestinian West Bank city of Ramallah nearby.At the heart of Rawabi will be the city center where art and culture will enjoy center stage,along
with a large amphitheater that can hold 12,000 people, Rawabi now
boasts also an industrial zone, schools, and the first big Western-style
open-air shopping center in the West Bank. Such attractions lumped
together in one city are unheard of in Palestinian areas.There is a mosque under construction and also a church which will serve the
Palestinian Christian minority. About 10 percent of Rawabi residents are
expected to be Christian.
Meanwhile though in sharp contrast no place in Palestine is less like Rawabi than Gaza. Sadly two
years after the last of the three wars in six years whole districts lie in
ruins, families are living in homes missing large
sections of walls and roofs.
In these desolate streets there is neither electricity nor water and families
say bitterly they are forgotten. The war displaced 500,00 people and 90,000 are
displaced today, and 1.3 million people need aid, according to the UN.
Only 40% of the $3.5 billion pledged for reconstruction after the
2014 war has been delivered. The most basic infrastructure is in tatters, only
kept functioning at all by resourceful engineers and administrators. In
districts where there is electricity the cuts are sometimes 18 hours at a time.
Ninety per cent of the water is contaminated. Stinking lakes of untreated
sewage lie right by where people live and a visitor must cover the nose to bear
driving close. UN technical reports have said that by 2020 Gaza will be
unliveable – mainly because of the water crisis. One teacher said simply, “our
life is already hell.” During our visit to his
office patients twice burst in, and only agreed to wait because he was seeing
“foreigners”.
In addition Israeli airstrikes still hit the Strip – as
recently as last week.
Even worse is the eight year blockade of the 1.8 million people — internationally
recognised as collective punishment breaching international law.
Rawabi though
the first Palestinian city to be established in thousands of years can at least at a time of growing malaise over a standstill in Middle East peace efforts, offer some source of pride, hope and excitement for the Palestinian people while at the same time not distracting from the harsh realities of life under occupation.
Israeli settlement Ateret in background as the Palestinian national flag flies from the highest point of Rawabi
A large amphitheater will hold about 12,000 people in the entertainment complex.
Dakota Access—a subsidiary of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners
LP—has proposed a $3.7 billion, 1,168-mile pipeline that will transfer up to 570,000 of crude oil per day from the North Dakota Bakken region through South Dakota and Iowa into Illinois.The potential of oil leaks would contaminate the only source of water
for the reservation. While Dakota Access claims oil leaks are unlikely,
an oil leak from a separate pipeline in North Dakota was discovered
(8/15/16) to have leaked over 500 barrels of oil since the leak began on
July 19, 2016. You can read the article here: http://bit.ly/2aVm5cv. A leak like this from the Dakota Access pipeline would leave the Standing Rock Sioux without any clean water. However, for the past several months, native American communities and
landowners have been battling the construction of the DAPL.
A couple hundred tribal members went to the construction site on Aug. 12
with a vow to stop the pipeline. And to make that point clear, Standing
Rock Chairman Dave Archambault chose to be arrested after crossing into
the construction zone. Since that day, hundreds of Native Americans and
allies from across the country have been camped near the Missouri River
to join the protest. For now, construction has ceased while a court
hears the tribe’s suit against the Army Corps for failing to comply with
environmental and historic preservation laws.
The people of Standing Rock, often called Sioux, warn that a potential
oil spill into the river would threaten the water, land, health and sacred lands of
their reservation.Their fight is also against a system of domination that has been imposed on the
original nations.The Hunkpapa Nation (including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) is part of
the larger Oceti Sakowin (Seven Council Fires of the Teton Nation),
sometimes known as “the Great Sioux Nation.” The United States regards
the entire geographical area of the Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota (Oceti
Sakowin) territory as part of the national territory of the United
States.
The United States sees itself as a nation that possesses the territory
of original Native nations “in full sovereignty and dominion.But this sovereignty is really an
unjust form of domination that limits human freedom, the government stealing indigenous peoples land for corporate profits.I admire the bravery of these people prepared to stand up for the earth and their health. I stand with the Lakota Tribe and Protesters against the pipeline, I hope they keep fighting and never give up.
August 21, 2016
Brave
resisters and water protectors descended on the Dakota Access Pipeline
construction site to halt its construction as it lurches towards the Mni
Sose, the Missouri River, at Cannonball, ND. The Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe and the Oceti Sakowin (The Great Sioux Nation) have opposed the
pipeline and all pipelines trespassing treaty territory, as defined by
the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties. The proposed 1,172-mile
pipeline would transport Bakken-produced heavy crude oil across the
major freshwater source for countless human and nonhuman lives, the
Missouri River.
The Red Nation calls on everyone to support resisters and water
protectors as they put their lives on the line to halt this devastating
wasicu, fat-taker capitalist pipeline. On July 27, the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia to enforce the
tribe’s federally protected rights against the pipeline’s construction.
On August 24, Standing Rock as well as several other Native Nations will
have a court hearing to undo the US Army Corps of Engineers’ approval
of the pipeline.
[UPDATE: At the August 24 hearing in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, as hundreds rallied outside, the judge
announced that the ruling would be made on September 9 and the next
hearing would be September 14.]
In violation of treaty law, the Corps negotiated the pipeline’s
passage with the Texas-based pipeline corporation Energy Transfers
through treaty territory despite massive protests citing the desecration
of burial sites and culturally sensitive areas as well as threatening
clean drinking water for millions. The Corps is also responsible for the
continued violation of Native water rights by altering the flow of the
Missouri River. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Corps, working with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, constructed 107 dams and six major dams on
Native treaty territory. These dams flooded 611,642 acres. More than
half of this land was Native land and resulted in the removal of 600
Native families. The Corps continues to violate Native water rights as
defined by the Winters Doctrine, which prohibits altering the flow of
rivers or the selling of water rights within original Native treaty
territory even if that territory has been diminished. Natives and
non-Natives still suffer from the devastating effects of these dams and
forced relocation. The Missouri River has never recovered and 90% of its
wild game and plants were annihilated.
In typical industry fashion, the public and vulnerable Native
communities will pay for cleanup and contamination when — not if — the
pipeline breaks.
Bakken oil and gas production, as it peaks, has already devastated
the Native and non-Native communities, leaving the land and water dead
and communities torn apart. Yet, oil and gas companies continue reap
huge profits as Bakken jobs decline, the land becomes more unlivable,
and the social malaise of violence inherent to boomtown economies
continues to wreak havoc.
Meanwhile, the Energy Transfers corporation is attempting to sue the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for protesting the pipeline and law
enforcement is arresting resisters and water protectors, and the true
criminals walk free. Instead of merely stopping Dakota Access, we demand
that the Army Corps and Energy Transfers be held accountable for the
crimes of putting at risk vulnerable water supplies, the public at
large, and the violation of treaty rights. We demand that their profits —
and the assets of all fossil fuel companies responsible for climate
change — be seized to pay for the cleanup and to help begin to mitigate
the deadly effects of climate change.
Capitalism is the enemy of all life and it must be stopped!
We must also recognize that upholding Native treaty rights is
essential to combat climate change and benefits everyone. We demand that
the 1851 and 1868 Fort Laramie treaties be fully obeyed as law and the
restoration of the original treaty lands to the Oceti Sakowin.
In the Spirit of Crazy Horse!
Hecetu Welo!
The Red Nation
Have written on this subject many times, but it is too important a subject not to broach once more. As the media currently tries to distract us with a non story about Jeremy Corbyn's train seat this ****** government of ours is still trying to abolish the Human Rights Act. Liz Truss, the newly appointed Justice Secretary and Lord
Chancellor, revealed the news while dismissing concerns from some
Conservatives that the plan, a manifesto pledge in both 2010 and 2015,
had been axed.This is the law
which gives us the right not to be tortured, the right to a fair trial
and the right to an education and allows us to hold public institutions like the police, prisons and councils to account that has served the people of Great Britain well.. Lyn Truss and co want to replace it with a British "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities". It will curtail the power of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Britain.. In effect, the
Conservatives will reduce the ECHR to no more than an advisory body.
Should the ECHR not accept Parliament’s veto of its rulings, the
government would withdraw from the Council of Europe, the human rights
watchdog that is not related to any European Union (EU) institution. All
Europe’s 48 countries, except Belarus—a military dictatorship—have
signed up to the Council of Europe and made the Human Rights Convention
part of their constitutional and domestic laws. The new measures
will erode the right to life, to privacy, to a fair trial, to protest
and to freedom from torture and discrimination. It will enable the
government to deport more people and defy ECHR’s requirements. In
relation to foreign policy, the repeal of the act means that UK armed
forces could act with impunity, as they would no longer be subject to
human rights legislation. Even the right-wing Economist
magazine, which speaks for British finance capital and demands a more
assertive British foreign policy, lamented the “poor signal” it will
send “about Britain’s commitment to international law.” The current law gives us the right to get justice
from British courts without having to go to the European Court. It
requires all public bodies, including central and local government, the
police, the National Health Service, prisons and other services to abide
by these human rights, and extends to outsourced public services such
as care homes. The legislation also includes the right to life, not to
be tortured or subjected to inhumane treatment, not to be held as a
slave, to liberty and security of the person, to a fair trial, not to be
retrospectively convicted for a crime, to a private and family life, to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to freedom of expression,
to freedom of assembly and association, to marriage, to an effective
remedy, not to be discriminated against, to the peaceful enjoyment of
one’s property and the right to an education. The Human Rights Act was introduced
by the Blair Labour government in 1998 and came into force in 2000. Its
antecedents are in the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, drawn
up after World War II in response to the horrendous crimes carried out
by the Nazis. The Convention, based in part at least on the principles
enshrined in the Magna Carta, drew upon the 1948 Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. It was one of a number of mechanisms, along with
the Marshall Plan, during the Cold War against the Stalinist Soviet
Union that served to rehabilitate capitalist rule—under conditions where
it had been widely discredited—and show it was compatible with
democracy and civil liberties, particularly those of Europe’s millions
of displaced peoples and refugees. The Conservative government proposal is simply appalling and unacceptable, trying to
get rid of the Human Rights Act is a blatant open
wholesale assault on democratic rights and must be opposed part of our protection to be able to function as citizens in a democratic country as the ***** Tory's know too damn well. The plans also contravene various national agreements. The Sewel
convention dictates that parliament cannot legislate for devolved
matters without the consent of Scotland and Wales and to push the bill
through against this "would be horrific", said one legal expert. In
Northern Ireland, abolishing the act would place the UK government in
breach of the Good Friday Agreement, a direct violation of international
law that would "plunge the UK into a constitutional crisis", says the Guardian. Surely it can't have escaped the Tory's attention that
our country has seen a spike in hate and division recently, considering this they should not be pouring yet more
public money, into scrapping human rights and equality protections that
are needed now more than ever.People power got us these rights, and now it’s up to us to stand up for them again.We can prove public opinion is against scrapping the Human Rights Act - and show we’re prepared to fight for it. It could convince the government to nip these plans in the bud once and for all. Please sign and share the following petition, it means a lot to me, thanks. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-human-rights
This week we have seen an uptick in body policing and body shaming.We saw armed police surrounding a
Muslim woman on a beach in Nice and forcing her to remove clothing. This
is part of the racist and sexist policy being imposed on Muslim women
in France, where so far 15 towns have introduced a ban on the burkini.
The bans are claimed to be “protecting the population” of France from
terrorism and religious ideas, but women choosing to cover up on the
beach is no threat to society. We should be ashamed of this because forcing an old lady, to take off her Burkini, throws all values of freedom it has straight into the trashcan, so far removed from the message of Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité. Practicing hypocrisy and double standards seems to be the new order of the day.missing the real opportunity to
acknowledge female diversity that comes in
various shapes and forms.Intentionally marginalizing Muslim women, highlights the
country’s own issues with misogyny and racism by ironically dictating what women can and cannot wear, treating them as ideological commodities, to be denied the freedom to define or express themselves surely must be questioned.It is simply absurdity born of paranoia and the impulse to dominate others.
The burkini symbolises leisure and
happiness and fitness and health, worn voluntarily and sold by popular high street
and haute couture brands alike, burkinis have become a widespread
sartorial choice for many practicing Muslim women in France and beyond.
Being praised for blocking sun-rays and the male gaze, the attire is
often also embraced by non-Muslim women, most notably also by TV chef Nigella Lawson. Hopefully, the next generation
will look at this burkini ban much as we view the chastity belt.People should be allowed to wear what they like, at a time when politicians should be doing everything to avoid tension between communities, they have done exactly the opposite.Sadly though it is not surprising that it is men who are the ones fighting over what women ought to be doing with
their bodies. Depending on the era — and often the prevailing religion —
women are either showing too much or too little
So who is better, the Taliban or
French politicians? An interesting link that discusses this further can be found here:- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/24/i-created-the-burkini-to-give-women-freedom-not-to-take-it-away?CMP=share_btn_tw
There is a demo at the French Embassy, 58 Knightsbridge, London SW1X 7JT this Friday, 6pm, to protest the burkini ban.
This protest is called by Stand Up to Racism and supported by MEND
